Simple way to understand Church teachings on Sex

[valient_Lucy]

“Sex in General” is the key. This means sex as designed and functioning across all of God’s creatures. The Physiological aspects of the procreative process.

As to unitive this can have both physical and emotional aspects. Both are important. For th epurposes of determining disordered sexual activities, I would see unitive as indicating intercourse.

Peace
James

It sounds as though you’re saying that, as long as the couple engages in vaginal intercourse, they are fulfilling the unitive purpose.

Don’t misunderstand, NO ONE is saying that the procreative aspect of sex isn’t a useful way to determine whether or not a couple has engaged in a sexual sin. HOWEVER, it doesn’t go FAR enough. See my other posts for other examples of sexual sins NOT covered by the procreative aspect.

 

[valient_Lucy]

“Savaging” LOL. When did disagreement become “savaging”?

I have to agree with that. Besides, being savaged on the forum is a right of passage! I’ve been savaged on the forum myself. We all have, at some point or another.

Yes, but the “hope” of couples deliberately engaging during infertile times is that there will be no procreation…although they are open to it happening if it does happen. This is the point I think you’re missing.

You said it better than I could. Thank you.

Women are different from animals.

Most of the time.

 

[DeOppressoLiber]

Quote:
**Originally Posted by DeOppressoLiber

Likewise, sex was designed to physically accomplish one objective.**

Not in humans. Otherwise, we reduct the act to that of mere animals.

If sex were designed, in humans, “to physically accomplish one objective”, women would be receptive to intercourse only during fertile periods, as animals are. They are not. Women are different from animals.

First of all there are animals that engage in intorcourse at other times than in heat, monkeys being a good example.

But, more to the point, it is the only physical objective of the action whether you like it or not. However as I stated in the next sentence (which you seem to have pointedly ignored, and didn’t bother to include when quoting me) there are other purposes to it beyond the physical side. This is consistant with Church doctrine, so why disagree?

 

[mark_a]

In the above scenario, both the husband and wife are sinning. Sex must be BOTH procreative (which this scenario is) AND unitive. The spouses must make a gift of themselves to each other, renewing thier wedding vows. A husband cannot give himself to his wife if he is thinking about another woman, and a woman cannot give herself to her husband if she is thinking about another man.

BUT, if sex is only procreative, then the above scenario is perfectly licit. It would also be perfectly licit for a man to insist on playing pornographic videos in the background while he and his wife had sex, since this does not violate the procreative act. It would also be perfectly licit for either person to do something violent or humiliating to the other person, as long as the act remained procreative. For example, it would be perfectly licit for one partner to slap the other partner or try to choke the other partner during sex, as long as the sexual act itself was procreative. IF the only purpose for sex is procreation, then ALL of these acts are licit as long as the sexual act is open to life.

."

I must admit that, in my own little world, these scenarios haven’t occurred to me. I think the op presupposed a normal Christian marriage.

Which brings up the question of bondage. Just kidding!!

As for polygamists, polygamy is a sin, so it would be sinful even for a man with multiple "wives

Now who’s presupposing a Christian marriage?

 

[JRKH]

My dear valient Lucy,
I am sorry to have caused you and others so much discomfort by my posting. It seems obvious now that I should have taken more time to consider the wording of my original post.

In the above scenario, both the husband and wife are sinning. Sex must be BOTH procreative (which this scenario is) AND unitive. The spouses must make a gift of themselves to each other, renewing thier wedding vows. A husband cannot give himself to his wife if he is thinking about another woman, and a woman cannot give herself to her husband if she is thinking about another man.

You are right in that thinking about others duting the sex act would be sinning. It sins against the unitive aspect of marriage of which the physical sex act is a part.
Now how have these people sinned? Have they sinned by improperly engagning in sex? Is thinking of someone else during the sex act disordered in the same way as engaging in sodomy while thinking of each other?
I say no it is not. Engaging in a disordered practice such as sodomy is a sin because it is disordered to the way we are designed and disordered to the primary function for which our sex organs are designed.
Engaging in sinful thoughts is a sin of Lust. It is the same sin of lust whether it is engaged in during sex with your spouse or when eating dinner.
Such thoughts, during sex are more properly covered by point number three in my OP, if such thoughts are seen as necessary by the partners for stimulation.

BUT, if sex is only procreative, then the above scenario is perfectly licit. It would also be perfectly licit for a man to insist on playing pornographic videos in the background while he and his wife had sex, since this does not violate the procreative act.

Why would you think so.
While the physical act of sex (the point of my OP) is properly engaged in, the people can still sin in thought and in desire. The sins above are sins of Lust and are sinful no matter when they are engaged in.

It would also be perfectly licit for either person to do something violent or humiliating to the other person, as long as the act remained procreative. For example, it would be perfectly licit for one partner to slap the other partner or try to choke the other partner during sex, as long as the sexual act itself was procreative. IF the only purpose for sex is procreation, then ALL of these acts are licit as long as the sexual act is open to life.

Now Lucy this is just plain silly and I think you know it.
The sin of violence against another is a sin whether it is engaged in during sex or not.
The sin of Lustful thoughts is a sin whether engaged in during sex or not.
Such acts are “illicit” regardless of when they are engaged in.

I have tried to address a very narrow and specific point relating to sexual practices that helps to explain very clearly why the Church approves or disproves certain physical sexual practices.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

One last scenario. A man rapes his wife, and she conceives a child. The rape was procreative.

Was it a sin? If so, why? If so, why not?

Yes it is a sin. But rape is not a sexual sin. It is a sin of violence.

Peace
James

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes it is a sin. But rape is not a sexual sin. It is a sin of violence.

Peace
James

Isn’t it both?

 

[JRKH]

I have to agree with that. Besides, being savaged on the forum is a right of passage! I’ve been savaged on the forum myself. We all have, at some point or another.

Just to clarify to all -
I have not felt “Savaged” on this thread. I have felt somewhat hurt and disappointed that the early responders did not see what I was trying to get at, but that easily be due to my own ignorance and clumsiness in trying to explain.

I was hoping to provide something simple and easily used when engaged in discussions with others about why the Church does not approve of homosexual acts, masturbation and ABC methods.
The initial response was to tell me how wrong I was and to point me to multipage articles so that I could learn what the church “really teaches”. Of course most of these articles deal with the much broader aspects of marriage, respect for others, duties of the family and so forth. All of which is beyond the scope of my poor little summary attempting to deal with but one aspect of this issue.

The Unitive aspect of marriage and the sex act is important - more important in fact than the purely physical aspects of marriage. I grant that. But as someone else pointed out earlier, those engaged in deviant lifestyles can point to the “unitive” benefits of “giving to each other in love”, through their, mutually aggreable, sexual activities. Young people, dealing with “hormones” can point to how "no one is hurt by “self gratification”.
So it seems that, in trying to explain to others why the church approves certain physical, as opposed to mental or emotional or spiritual, sexual activities and disapproves others has to do with the proper use of our physical bodies and this leads into an explanation of just why we even have sexual organs.

Now to do this I have attempted to get at the root core of what the sexual organs are designed for - and that is procreation. I can (and am) “unitive” with my wife without intercourse. In fact I would say that many people are “unitive” with their spouse before they are wed. The only thing that Changes in a Christian marriage after the wedding is the physical aspect. The emotional and spiritual one is already in place before hand.
I can be “unitive” without sex. I cannot (naturally) procreate without sex.

Anyway, this “root core” of something can be applied to anything. Someone mentioned a screwdriver earlier. An even better example might be a car. The Sole purpose and reason for a car to exist is transportation. If a car cannot fulfill this function it is called “broke down”. Every critical component on a car is designed to get you from here to there. Other things, like soft seats, heat and air conditioning, radio etc are all “add ons” and not critical to the “sole reason” of the existance of the car. Sleek design, high speed, and other “emotional” factors are also not necessary.
Similarly with the human sexual organs. They are designed for the purpose of procreation. Without that purpose, we would not have them at all.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Isn’t it both?

No - It has been demonstrated by psychology that rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with lust and with control. It is an act of violence in which the sexual organ is used as a weapon.
Peace
James

 

[valient_Lucy]

No - It has been demonstrated by psychology that rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with lust and with control. It is an act of violence in which the sexual organ is used as a weapon.
Peace
James

The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists rape as an offense against chastity.

See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2356.

So is pornography.

See Catechism of the Catholic Church 2354.

Also, (I can’t believe I didn’t point this out before) if sex being procreative is the ONLY way to determine if sex is sinful, then fornication (two unmarried people having sex) and adultery where the couples do NOT use contraception would be perfectly licit. The act would be procreative, and in many instances such unions do result in conception. (We all know people who conceived children out of wedlock.) BUT they are still sinful. They are sinful ,in part, because fornication and adultery are not unitive, regardless of the feelings of the participants, and these acts, by their very nature, cannot be unitive

 

[Doc_Keele]

No - It has been demonstrated by psychology that rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with lust and with control. It is an act of violence in which the sexual organ is used as a weapon.
Peace
James

Lust isn’t to do with sex?
Not all rape involves violence.

 

[JRKH]

Also, (I can’t believe I didn’t point this out before) if sex being procreative is the ONLY way to determine if sex is sinful, then fornication (two unmarried people having sex) and adultery where the couples do NOT use contraception would be perfectly licit. The act would be procreative, and in many instances such unions do result in conception. (We all know people who conceived children out of wedlock.) BUT they are still sinful. They are sinful ,in part, because fornication and adultery are not unitive, regardless of the feelings of the participants, and these acts, by their very nature, cannot be unitive

Let me try to get you back on track ONE MORE TIME. My original post speaks to the PHYSICAL ACTS and PURPOSES of the Sex and the sexual organs.

The people above can easily argue that they are in committed relationships and that their actions ARE unitive. And in so far as the specific acts themselves there may be nothing “deviant” about the acts themselves.
The same people CANNOT say that sodomy or oral sex is the normal and proper use of the sexual organs for their primary designed purpose.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Lust isn’t to do with sex?

Not necessarily - People “lust” for money, for power for fame for glory - for many things.

Not all rape involves violence.

Forcing someone to have sex who does not wish to does not involve violence??
Violence can be real and physical - It can also be intended, threatened, and potential. Either one produces the same effect. Fear and submission under duress.
Sorry - but all rape involves violence.

Peace
James

 

[valient_Lucy]

Just to clarify to all -
I have not felt “Savaged” on this thread. I have felt somewhat hurt and disappointed that the early responders did not see what I was trying to get at, but that easily be due to my own ignorance and clumsiness in trying to explain.
James

I’m glad you haven’t felt savaged. I don’t think that was anyone’s intent.

I was hoping to provide something simple and easily used when engaged in discussions with others about why the Church does not approve of homosexual acts, masturbation and ABC methods.
The initial response was to tell me how wrong I was and to point me to multipage articles so that I could learn what the church “really teaches”. Of course most of these articles deal with the much broader aspects of marriage, respect for others, duties of the family and so forth.

I think if you had limited your explanation to understanding why contraception, masturbation, and sodomy were wrong, and had simply stated that sex was created for procreation (not only for procreation) you probably could have gotten away with it. (“If I had said television was bigger than Jesus Christ, I could have gotten away with it.” John Lennon.) Though I do think you could also argue that contraception, masturbation, and sodomy are also in violation of the unitive purpose of sex it is easier to show that they are wrong because they violate the procreative purpose of sex.

The Unitive aspect of marriage and the sex act is important - more important in fact than the purely physical aspects of marriage. I grant that.

Ok.

But as someone else pointed out earlier, those engaged in deviant lifestyles can point to the “unitive” benefits of “giving to each other in love”, through their, mutually aggreable, sexual activities.

No, they cannot. Fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and other such sins are not unitive and by their very nature cannot be unitive. People may feel close or that they are “giving to each other in love” by these acts, but that does not make the act unitive. Unitive doesn’t mean having an orgasm or feeling close to your sexual partner. It means expressing, and renewing, your marital vows with your body through sexual intercourse. The husband and wife express with their bodies the vows they made at the altar, and renew those vows in the act, giving themselves to each other as they gave themselves to the altar. An unmarried couple has not given themselves to each other in the sacrament of marriage, therefore their sex cannot be unitive. As Pope John Paul II said in his Theology of the Body, their sexual act is a lie. Therefore, no matter how much they love each other, no matter how much pleaure they exprience in the sexual act, their sexual acts are not unitive.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Young people, dealing with “hormones” can point to how "no one is hurt by “self gratification”.
So it seems that, in trying to explain to others why the church approves certain physical, as opposed to mental or emotional or spiritual, sexual activities and disapproves others has to do with the proper use of our physical bodies and this leads into an explanation of just why we even have sexual organs.

You’re right that the Church condemns masturbation because it violates the procreative aspect of marriage. However it also violates the unitive purpose of sex. The teenager masturbating is not giving himself (or herself) to his spouse. He is not expressing or renewing wedding vows. As the Catechism states, the act of masturbation is not an act of self giving love to a spouse. Masturbation can be seen as sinful for this reason as well as a violation of the procreative act.

Now to do this I have attempted to get at the root core of what the sexual organs are designed for - and that is procreation. I can (and am) “unitive” with my wife without intercourse. In fact I would say that many people are “unitive” with their spouse before they are wed. The only thing that Changes in a Christian marriage after the wedding is the physical aspect. The emotional and spiritual one is already in place before hand.
I can be “unitive” without sex. I cannot (naturally) procreate without sex.

As I stated before, “unitive” doesn’t mean simply feelings of intimacy and closeness. That’s why it would be sinful for an unmarried or even an engaged couple to engaged in sexual intercourse, even without contraception. I’m sure other people can express it far better than I can.

Also, “the only thing that changes in a Christian marriage after the wedding is the physical aspect” is wrong. In the sacrament of matrimony, the Holy Spirit forms an unbreakable bond between the man and woman, making them an image of the union between Christ and His Church.

It is that unbreakable, total self giving, bond, that sex, the marital act, expresses and renews.

I read in one of your previous posts that your wife has Alzheimer’s disease. You have my sympathy, and I’ll pray for you. No one is trying to diminish the admirable (indeed heroic:thumbsup charity that you are showing your wife by discussing the unitive aspect of sex.

I’m not an expert on the Church’s teaching of human sexuality. I’ve never made any in depth study of the Church’s teaching, and I’m not married, so this is not something I’ve lived as a married woman. I’m sure there are other people out there who are experts (and who are married) who can explain it better than I can.

Anyway, this “root core” of something can be applied to anything. Someone mentioned a screwdriver earlier. An even better example might be a car. The Sole purpose and reason for a car to exist is transportation. If a car cannot fulfill this function it is called “broke down”. Every critical component on a car is designed to get you from here to there. Other things, like soft seats, heat and air conditioning, radio etc are all “add ons” and not critical to the “sole reason” of the existance of the car. Sleek design, high speed, and other “emotional” factors are also not necessary.
Similarly with the human sexual organs. They are designed for the purpose of procreation. Without that purpose, we would not have them at all.

Peace
James

No one is trying to deny the undeniable fact that sex is for procreation. This fact has been sadly forgotten our society, and you are right to point that out. But the Church teaches that they are not only for that purpose. Indeed, we might rightly ask, if human sexuality is no different than animals, why are human women able to have orgasms, unlike most other aimals? It serves no procreative purpose.

The Church does teach that the sexual act is for procreation. You are right about that! No one is denying that, in fact, that message is sorely needed in this world. However, the Church does not teach that the sole purpose of procreation. That is where your original post was incorrect.

I’m sure other people who have studied the Church’s teachings on human sexuality, especially those who have read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, could explain it far better than I can. I turn the floor over to them.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Let me try to get you back on track ONE MORE TIME. My original post speaks to the PHYSICAL ACTS and PURPOSES of the Sex and the sexual organs.

The people above can easily argue that they are in committed relationships and that their actions ARE unitive. And in so far as the specific acts themselves there may be nothing “deviant” about the acts themselves.
The same people CANNOT say that sodomy or oral sex is the normal and proper use of the sexual organs for their primary designed purpose.

Peace
James

I fail to see the distinction you are trying to make about the physical acts of sex and how my comments are off topic.

See the other two posts for explanation as to why fornication and adultery are not by their very nature unitive.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Not necessarily - People “lust” for money, for power for fame for glory - for many things

Yes, I realise that lust doesn’t exclusively refer to sexual lust - but in the particular context it does.

Forcing someone to have sex who does not wish to does not involve violence??
Violence can be real and physical - It can also be intended, threatened, and potential. Either one produces the same effect. Fear and submission under duress.
Sorry - but all rape involves violence

Sorry but it doesn’t. Rape is sex without consent. It may or may not involve violence. I can quote case law if you wish.

 

[Newbie2]

First of all there are animals that engage in intorcourse at other times than in heat, monkeys being a good example.

But, more to the point, it is the only physical objective of the action whether you like it or not. However as I stated in the next sentence (which you seem to have pointedly ignored, and didn’t bother to include when quoting me) there are other purposes to it beyond the physical side. This is consistant with Church doctrine, so why disagree?

Sorry, you ***completely ***lost me.

 

[Cherry5]

Sorry,
After reading all the posts I am no more clear on this topic than when I started, judging from all the comments there seems to be no clear and concise interpretation as to what is sinful.
The only real clear understanding would be if Sex was intended for procreation only, in which case NFP is not an option and no mater how you explain it seems to be a loop hole for married couples to have sex other than for the purpose of procreation.
With all due respect for the intellectual points made, surely God did not intend our faith to be so complex that after all these posts and several threads there is no clear understanding or interpretation on this issue. This leaves simple people even more confused.

God Bless

 

[JRKH]

I’m glad you haven’t felt savaged. I don’t think that was anyone’s intent.

I think if you had limited your explanation to understanding why contraception, masturbation, and sodomy were wrong, and had simply stated that sex was created for procreation (not only for procreation) you probably could have gotten away with it. (“If I had said television was bigger than Jesus Christ, I could have gotten away with it.” John Lennon.) Though I do think you could also argue that contraception, masturbation, and sodomy are also in violation of the unitive purpose of sex it is easier to show that they are wrong because they violate the procreative purpose of sex.

I’m not trying to “get away with” anything.
I have readily agreed that my OP could use refinement.
It’s too bad that I was unable to find a similar deisre in others to try and understand the point I was trying to make.

No, they cannot. Fornication, adultery, homosexual acts, and other such sins are not unitive and by their very nature cannot be unitive. People may feel close or that they are “giving to each other in love” by these acts, but that does not make the act unitive. Unitive doesn’t mean having an orgasm or feeling close to your sexual partner. It means expressing, and renewing, your marital vows with your body through sexual intercourse. The husband and wife express with their bodies the vows they made at the altar, and renew those vows in the act, giving themselves to each other as they gave themselves to the altar. An unmarried couple has not given themselves to each other in the sacrament of marriage, therefore their sex cannot be unitive. As Pope John Paul II said in his Theology of the Body, their sexual act is a lie. Therefore, no matter how much they love each other, no matter how much pleaure they exprience in the sexual act, their sexual acts are not unitive.

Oh - They can’t can they??
Why can’t they. Is it because they must be limited only to your definition and understanding of what “unitive” means?
Non-catholics and non-religious people can and will argue that ANY activity between two consenting adults can be “unitive” so it is highly presumptuous of you to declare that they “cannot”.
What they cannot argue is this. That the primary reason for the existance of the sexual organs is procreation. That the only reason we are “driven” to have sex (as opposed to “make Love”) is to propagate the species. The Church recognizes this as well, and while there are certainly other aspects to the “marriage act”, these do not change the single basic function for which the penis, vagina and uterus are desgned for.

I obviously blundered badly in my OP in trying to explain myself.
For that I apologize.
I thought that my OP might help someone explain to a non-believer how the Church, far from not understanding human sexuality, actually stands square for a preservation of the sex act as designed.

I am about done arguing the point. It’s just not worth it.

Peace
James