Simple way to understand Church teachings on Sex

[JRKH]

How God designed Sex in Humans:

1. 
   *]Sex in general was designed by God for one purpose and one purpose only, the procreation of the species. It is no different in humans than in any other higher form of creature on the planet.
   *]The single and core purpose of the sex act is to deliver sperm from the male to the female for the purpose of fertilization of an egg - no more and no less than this.
   *]Everything else about the sex act, the design of our bodies, psychological attractions, emotional connections, physical pleasures etc. are all designed and geared toward that single goal of delivery and acceptance of delivery.
   
   This then is the natural and properly ordered sex act as designed by God for humans.
   
   The Church may dress up her teachings in many more words and perhaps more subtle language, addressing some broader theological aspects, but every Church teaching on sex is ordered out of these 3 basic principles.
   
   Anything that deviates from what God has naturally ordered is, by its very definition, “disordered”. Anything that is not ordered to God is sinful. Therefore, anything “disordered” is sinful.
   The Church frowns upon anything that does not meet, or interferes with the basic and properly ordered function of the sex act as described above.
   Homosexuality? Cannot reproduce = disordered
   Condoms? Cannot deliver sperm to egg = disordered
   Tubes tied? Cannot deliver egg to Sperm = disordered
   And so on down the line.
   
   I believe that, if one looks carefully at every teaching of the Catholic Church on sexual issues one will find that it boils down to this. The Church’s teaching points us toward properly ordered relations as designed by our Loving God. This holds true for sex or anything else in life.
   
   So - I in the end it is The Church, and not secular society that is the great defender of “sex” as properly designed in the human creature. This hold strue whether one accepts that God designed it, or “nature” developed it that way.
   
   Peace
   James

 

[Newbie2]

This POV ignores the value of sex as unitive between spouses.

“It is no different in humans than in any other higher form of creature on the planet.”

It most certainly is. Other species do not engage in sexual union at times other than when they are most likely to ovulate or conceive. In fact, members of the cat family are induced ovulators when in estrus (heat) i.e. they do not ovulate unless they mate.

No other species menstruates as humans do.

What you’ve written is not consistant with Catholic theology on sex.

*“The Church frowns upon anything that does not meet, or interferes with the basic and properly ordered function of the sex act as described above.” *

You’ve described intercourse as solely for reproduction. NFP, by your definition, would be frowned upon.

I think you miss the difference in being “open to life” and directing all our our sexual efforts toward reproduction.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

This POV ignores the value of sex as unitive between spouses.

Not at all, the unitive aspect between spouses is part of the attractions, connections and pleasures that are mentioned in point number three.

“It is no different in humans than in any other higher form of creature on the planet.”

It most certainly is. Other species do not engage in sexual union at times other than when they are most likely to ovulate or conceive. In fact, members of the cat family are induced ovulators when in estrus (heat) i.e. they do not ovulate unless they mate.

No other species menstruates as humans do.

Likewise Rabbits - they do not ovulate until after mating as well.
However these are details of how each specific species functions and does not change the most basic function and purpose of the sex act. That is reproduction.

What you’ve written is not consistant with Catholic theology on sex.

Please explain.

*“The Church frowns upon anything that does not meet, or interferes with the basic and properly ordered function of the sex act as described above.” *

You’ve described intercourse as solely for reproduction. NFP, by your definition, would be frowned upon.

Intercourse IS designed soley for reproduction. As I pointed out the most basic function is the delivery of sperm to egg. That is biological sex at its most basic.
I do not see why you think my definition precludes NFP. NFP, at its most basic is the abstaining from intercourse during fertile periods. Humans, as you point out above, are free to choose when to have or refrain from having sex at any time. Having properly ordered sex at an infertile time meets the basic criteria of delivery of sperm. Refraining from sex at fertile times does not violate the basic function.

I think you miss the difference in being “open to life” and directing all our our sexual efforts toward reproduction.

Perhaps I just did not do a very good job of expressing it.
It was never the intention of my post to say that we should direct all of our sexual efforts only toward reproduction. Merely that, as designed by God, the normal and properly ordered function of sex is the transmission of life, aka reproduction.
Church teachings on homosexuality and ABC reflect this very basic and fundamental fact.

Peace
James

 

[Ron_Conte]

You do not cite the Magisterium, or Saints, or Scripture. You have reduced the marital act, which is a part of the Sacrament of Marriage to a mere physical delivery of seed. You do not mention love or grace or the education of children or any of the other goods of marriage and marital relations. Your view of sex is not based on Church teaching.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Homosexuality? Cannot reproduce = disordered
Condoms? Cannot deliver sperm to egg = disordered
Tubes tied? Cannot deliver egg to Sperm = disordered
And so on down the line.

Already pregnant? Cannot deliver sperm to egg = disordered

In fact, in medieval times, having sex with your already pregnant wife was considered quite sinful, and when confessed was assigned what by today’s standards was a severe penance by the priest.

 

[JRKH]

You do not cite the Magisterium, or Saints, or Scripture.

So? Mine is a simple distillation of what I have read and understand of both biology and the teachigns of the Church.

You have reduced the marital act, which is a part of the Sacrament of Marriage to a mere physical delivery of seed.

Funny how people see this and suddenly seem to take offence.
Was my explanation really that bad??

You do not mention love or grace or the education of children or any of the other goods of marriage and marital relations.

“Marital relations”, that is sex, is a part of marriage and not the other way around. I was addressing the issue of what consitutes a basic description of the purpose of the sex act and what, based on that, is considered “properly ordered”. This would be contained in marriage. If I were describing an easy way to understand marriage, then these other issues might apply.

Your view of sex is not based on Church teaching.

Please tell me where what I have written contradicts Church teaching. I’d really like to know so that I can refine my understanding.
Can you cite a Church teaching about what is “disordered sexuality” that does not meet the basics I described?
Premarital sex can be brought up perhaps. That fits more into the broader realm of “marriage” though. I was thinking primarily in terms of those acts, that society considers to be OK, tha the Church teaches are disordered.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Already pregnant? Cannot deliver sperm to egg = disordered

In fact, in medieval times, having sex with your already pregnant wife was considered quite sinful, and when confessed was assigned what by today’s standards was a severe penance by the priest.

Interesting point.

However a pregnancy can be seen as simply another “infertile time” and I have never suggested that sex during an inferitle period is disordered. At least I don’t recall saying any such thing.

Peace
James

 

[Rascalking]

Because sex is so complicated, I don’t think there is a simple way to understand the church teachings on it!

 

[4Squarebaby]

Already pregnant? Cannot deliver sperm to egg = disordered

In fact, in medieval times, having sex with your already pregnant wife was considered quite sinful, and when confessed was assigned what by today’s standards was a severe penance by the priest.

That reminds me of a movie set in the 2000s I saw when the wife refused sex during her pregnancy as she saw it as a sin. It had the husband asking for anything and then the husband used that excuse when he started his extramarital affair.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Please tell me where what I have written contradicts Church teaching. I’d really like to know so that I can refine my understanding.

Your understanding is not based on Tradition or Scripture or Magisterium. You don’t need to ‘refine’ your understanding. You need to start over, and read what the Church teaches on the subject. Then develop your understanding from there.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

 

[JRKH]

Your understanding is not based on Tradition or Scripture or Magisterium. You don’t need to ‘refine’ your understanding. You need to start over, and read what the Church teaches on the subject. Then develop your understanding from there.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html

Thanks for the links. If and when I am able to I’ll try to look them over.

Peace
James

 

[Doc_Keele]

This all makes me even less motivated to look at Church documents on sexuality, given the savaging I’ve seen.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Interesting point.

However a pregnancy can be seen as simply another “infertile time” and I have never suggested that sex during an inferitle period is disordered. At least I don’t recall saying any such thing.

Peace
James

According to your understanding of sex, (sex is solely for procreation) to have sex with a woman during her infertile time would be a gravely disordered act. So would having sex with a woman who is postmenopausal, or a woman who was infertile. If the only purpose of sex is procreation, then it would be a sin to engage in sex when there is no hope of procreation.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This all makes me even less motivated to look at Church documents on sexuality, given the savaging I’ve seen.

Sorry about that. The internet can be a harsh place sometimes.

 

[rick43235]

Your view of sex is not based on Church teaching.

And yours is?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[JRKH]

According to your understanding of sex, (sex is solely for procreation) to have sex with a woman during her infertile time would be a gravely disordered act. So would having sex with a woman who is postmenopausal, or a woman who was infertile. If the only purpose of sex is procreation, then it would be a sin to engage in sex when there is no hope of procreation.

Why??
Sex that is “open to life” (church teaching) and is properly engaged in, (vaginal ejaculation only, also church teaching) is not disordered. If there are purely natural reasons why conception is unlikely to occur, that does not change that the act itself is being properly engaged in.
If you’ll recall - St John was conceived to an “Old Couple” who were considered both infertile early on and then “post-meneposal”. Abraham and Sarah also conceived very late in life.
If the sex act is properly engaged in there can always be “hope” of procreation.

Peace
James

 

[Sarah_Angel]

JRKH, are you married?

I’m just asking because it would help the rest of us understand why you don’t believe that unity between the spouses is just as important in the sexual act as procreation.

There is a difference between unity and physical pleasure. Scripture says that a man will leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. That is what is meant by unity. It goes beyond physical pleasure, which can be obtained by means other than penal-vaginal sex. True unity between the spouses can only be done through penal-vaginal sex.

Maybe it would help to note that unity and procreation cannot be separated. Because you can procreate using artificial insemination. But there is no unity involved. Because there is no unity, the Catholic Church is against it.

 

[JRKH]

This all makes me even less motivated to look at Church documents on sexuality, given the savaging I’ve seen.

I hope I don’t prevent you from reading further on this.

I too am surprised by the reactions of my fellow Catholics to my post. I really did not think it was that controversial. I looked at the various teachings in the Catachism on Homosexuality, masturbation, Artificial Birth Control, etc and the common denominator seemed to me to be that each of these things, and other deviations, contradict the basic physiological function of the sex act.

Society disconnects “sex” from “procreation” and as a result sees no problem with things like Homosexual acts, masturbation, sodomy, and whatever else “feels good”. Even disordered acts, they say, can take place between “loving people”. What society can’t say is that these disordered acts fulfill the basic biological function for which the sexual organs are designed.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

JRKH, are you married?

I’m just asking because it would help the rest of us understand why you don’t believe that unity between the spouses is just as important in the sexual act as procreation.

There is a difference between unity and physical pleasure. Scripture says that a man will leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. That is what is meant by unity. It goes beyond physical pleasure, which can be obtained by means other than penal-vaginal sex. True unity between the spouses can only be done through penal-vaginal sex.

Maybe it would help to note that unity and procreation cannot be separated. Because you can procreate using artificial insemination. But there is no unity involved. Because there is no unity, the Catholic Church is against it.

I am married. I have been married for nearly 17 years to the most beautiful, wonderful, and “sexiest” (to me) woman in the world. She is the absolute Love of my life and I am greatful for God giving us to each other.
My Wife also suffers from stage 6 Alzheimer’s disease. In this she rarely remembers that we are married, and barely remembers who I am other than that I am someone she trusts and “loves”. This does not prevent us from bein fully united, in heart, spirit, and in soul. Even though we can no longer be united in body.

Does this help you?

Peace
James

 

[valient_Lucy]

Why??
Sex that is “open to life” (church teaching) and is properly engaged in, (vaginal ejaculation only, also church teaching) is not disordered. If there are purely natural reasons why conception is unlikely to occur, that does not change that the act itself is being properly engaged in.
If you’ll recall - St John was conceived to an “Old Couple” who were considered both infertile early on and then “post-meneposal”. Abraham and Sarah also conceived very late in life.
If the sex act is properly engaged in there can always be “hope” of procreation.

Peace
James

If, as you say, the ONLY reason to have sex is to try to conceive a child, there is no reason to have sex if you have no such hope.

Furthermore, as another poster said, if the only purpose of sex is procreation, then what is sinful about IVF?