The marital act has to be procreative and unitive. When was this defined?

[fabio_rocha]

According to the Church, there are two aspects to the marital act – the procreative and the unitive. But, if I’m not mistaken, there’s nothing in the Bible stating that. Does this come from Tradition? If yes, please state sources (besides Casti Connubii, Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, Love and Responsability). When was the first defined doctrine on this matter written down?

 

[po18guy]

Why does the bible have to say anything? The first several generations of Christians had no concept of a “bible” as a tell-all, or even more oddly, as a “sole rule.” Read the Didache. Not a peep about any form of writing. The Catholic Church was well established long before a single jot of the NT was written.

Practically speaking, procreation is the obvious aspect, right? Well, not every sexual union produces children, but it still part of God’s plan; still a crucial aspect of the love which produced that union.

 

[Reuben_J]

According to the Church, there are two aspects to the marital act – the procreative and the unitive. But, if I’m not mistaken, there’s nothing in the Bible stating that. Does this come from Tradition? If yes, please state sources (besides Casti Connubii, Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, Love and Responsability). When was the first defined doctrine on this matter written down?

Since the beginning.
Mt 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” he replied,** “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.** Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Procreative:
Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Unitive:
Gen 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

.

 

[MaryT777]

Since the beginning.
Mt 19:4-5 “Haven’t you read,” he replied,** “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.** Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Procreative:
Gen 1:28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Unitive:
Gen 2:24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

.

Excellent post. Straight from the Bible.

 

[Gorgias]

fabio rocha:

According to the Church, there are two aspects to the marital act – the procreative and the unitive.

Since the beginning.
Procreative:
Unitive:

This would’ve been a perfect answer… if Fabio had asked whether marriage itself is meant to be procreative and unitive. He didn’t, though: he asked where the teachings on the marital act itself arise.

Fabio,

In understanding Church teachings, one must understand how the Church arrives at them. First off, the Bible doesn’t have the answer to every question hidden in it somewhere (other than the fact that the answer it does provide – “follow Christ and attain eternal life in heaven” – is a pretty good one!). So, there are a whole range of questions that a person can ask that are either not in the Bible or require some sort of authoritative interpretation.

Second, when the Church does teach, she doesn’t do so in a vacuum. It’s not like the Church has provided written answers to every potential question (“do aliens born on the fifth planet from Alpha Centuri have immortal souls?”), and she just dusts them off when the question eventually gets asked. Rather, as new situations rise, she authoritatively answers the questions.

I did a simple Google search (“procreative unitive”) and came up with a number of resources. Here’s a brief collection of quotes from Church teaching. You’ll notice that they don’t really precede the middle of the 20th century. That’s because the question of the use of modern artificial birth control hadn’t become widely available – nor was its use accepted by Christians – until then. Humanae Vitae itself was written as a response to the question, “can Catholics, too, use ABC?” In a sense, this question only could be asked as a reaction to the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930; and both Christians and secular culture had impassioned objections to its teaching. In fact, in late 1930, Pius XI’s Casti Connubi addressed the issue.

But, even that wasn’t the first time the Church had spoken on the issue – the link to the EWTN article I provided, above, claims that pre-1917 canon law forbids the use of contraception.

You’ll find Church teachings on marriage and intercourse and childbirth and raising children going back throughout the entire history of the Church. If you want to ask a question that only became askable in its current form in the 20th century, though, you’ll find answers from the 20th century.

Of course, since these questions are answered by the Church, the answers speak authoritatively to Catholics.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Is there even anything about “unitive” as late as “Casti Connubii?” I thought that pretty much up to the current era, the focus was stated as being procreative, with a begrudging nod to “calming concupiscence” - hardly an endorsement of unitive love.

 

[fabio_rocha]

I’m looking for early church writings on the issue.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m looking for early church writings on the issue.

Google is your friend.

Here are some quotes for you.

 

[JimG]

I think it comes from nature. The conjugal act is by nature both unitive and procreative. It physically unites two persons who are sexually complementary. And by design it can result in procreation.

 

[twf]

Google is your friend.

Here are some quotes for you.

These are condemnations of contraception. That’s pretty obviously the consistent witness of the Church. I think his point was more around the unitive aspects. Where do the Fathers and Doctors talk about sex as something couples SHOULD enjoy, giving themselves to the other? I think there was a tendency for much of Church history to focus on the procreative aspect with the occasional acknowledgement that marriage decreases temptations to fall into sins of the flesh.
St JPII’s Theology of the Body was quite groundbreaking.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

While not using the same language of “procreative” and “unitive”, one of the ECFs, St. John Chrysotom, did give a homily about marriage that mentioned this:

newadvent.org/fathers/230312.htm

See again a mystery of love! If the two become not one, so long as they continue two, they make not many, but when they have come into oneness, they then make many. What do we learn from this? That great is the power of union. The wise counsel of God at the beginning divided the one into two; and being desirous of showing that even after division it remains still one, He suffered not that the one should be of itself enough for procreation.

The New Advent translation is pretty old-school in a KJV / Douay-Rheims way so a little dense, but I got that “the two become one” refers to the husband and wife, and what they “make many” of must be their children. He is not really stating “there is a unitive aspect, and completely separate from that, a procreative aspect” - as many who discuss this topic nowadays seem to assume.

However interestingly he also points out a union is created even if there is no child created:

What then? When there is no child, will they not be two? Nay, for their coming together has this effect, it diffuses and commingles the bodies of both. And as one who has cast ointment into oil, has made the whole one; so in truth is it also here.

There is a more contemporary translation of this particular passage in an article about this saints complex approach to marriage (some of his early writings seem more negative about marriage, in line with many of his contemporaries such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine:

fathersofthechurch.com/2008/04/04/chrysostom-and-the-mysteries-of-marriage/

That article also mentions this quote that expressly describes the pleasure of the marital act:

“How do they become one flesh?” John asks. “As if she were gold receiving purest gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and she then returns it as a child!”

I know St. John is also quoted in the Catechism and the following quote seems quite popular as a general romantic sappy meme in some Catholic / Christian circles.

catholiccompany.com/getfed/st-john-chrysostom-husbands-tell-wives/

Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world. St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives:

I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you. (CCC 2365)

So certainly at least he saw marriage as more than just “God’s design for procreation” or “a way for weak lustful people to have sex without sinning, at least not mortally” the way other ECFS seem to have.

 

[twf]

While not using the same language of “procreative” and “unitive”, one of the ECFs, St. John Chrysotom, did give a homily about marriage that mentioned this:

newadvent.org/fathers/230312.htm

The New Advent translation is pretty old-school in a KJV / Douay-Rheims way so a little dense, but I got that “the two become one” refers to the husband and wife, and what they “make many” of must be their children. He is not really stating “there is a unitive aspect, and completely separate from that, a procreative aspect” - as many who discuss this topic nowadays seem to assume.

However interestingly he also points out a union is created even if there is no child created:

There is a more contemporary translation of this particular passage in an article about this saints complex approach to marriage (some of his early writings seem more negative about marriage, in line with many of his contemporaries such as St. Jerome and St. Augustine:

fathersofthechurch.com/2008/04/04/chrysostom-and-the-mysteries-of-marriage/

That article also mentions this quote that expressly describes the pleasure of the marital act:

I know St. John is also quoted in the Catechism and the following quote seems quite popular as a general romantic sappy meme in some Catholic / Christian circles.

catholiccompany.com/getfed/st-john-chrysostom-husbands-tell-wives/

So certainly at least he saw marriage as more than just “God’s design for procreation” or “a way for weak lustful people to have sex without sinning, at least not mortally” the way other ECFS seem to have.

Very helpful! Thank you.