The unitive purpose of sex

[twoangels]

If this is the case, then NFP obviously isn’t abstinence, which is what I’ve said all along.

So they’re not abstaining when their fertile when you’re practicing NFP.

You: “Putting rocks into the glass works because the glass is half full. There is no emptiness involved.”

Me: “A glass that is half full is also half empty. The only reason you can put the rocks in the glass is because the glass has empty space to fill. The system works because of the emptiness, not because of the presense of the water.”

You: “But the glass is half full.”

Me: “Its half empty.”

You: “Half full”

Me: “Half empty”

You: “Full”

Me: “Empty.”

Do you really want to continue this silly argument?

 

[ahs]

If the story is read in the context of one disobeying God, the story makes perfect sense. Disobey God, be struck down.

If it is not read in this context, more questions arise than are answered. Why only Onan?

If you read it in the context of him being killed solely for disobeying, it then raises the same question…why only Onan? Moses disobeyed God when he refused to be the voice to Pharaoh. Did God kill him? No, He let Aaron speak while Moses held the staff. Jonah disobeyed God. Did God kill him? No, he had a fish swallow him and spit him up on shore so Jonah would follow through with the command. How many others in the Bible disobeyed God and were not killed for it?

Entire cities lived lives in disobedience to God. Did God wipe them ALL out? No. He sent prophets to preach to the people so they could change their ways. God only wiped out the 2 cities that were living in sexual immorality.

Onan was killed for committing what we now refer to as onanism. God dealt with disobedience in a variety of ways.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

For Ahs and Nate, Warrior is objecting to my use of the word “onanism” if he can show me that it is not a correct word to use, fine…but usage of the word dates back to the 18th century, can be found in other languages, and I used it in the proper context.

For twoangels:

On the one hand, the Church’s teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one’s spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: “Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man’s seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts.” Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, “Contemporary Moral Theology,” vol. 2, “Marriage Questions” (New man Press, 1964), p. 212. In more recent times, the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching on this matter is presented in Pope John Paul II’s (Karol Wojtyla’s) book, “Love and Responsibility” (Ignatius Press, 1993).

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=471626&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=procreative&pgnu=2&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=61&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

By marital act, the Church means intercourse.

Here are the basic principles:

Every marital act must have these two dimensions: 1) unitive (love-giving) and 2) procreative (life-giving). This rules out a non vaginal climax.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=514883&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2009&Author=&Keyword=unitive&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=22&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[twoangels]

Quote:
Every marital act must have these two dimensions: 1) unitive (love-giving) and 2) procreative (life-giving). This rules out a non vaginal climax.
ewtn.com/vexperts/showres…DESC&start_at=

Yeah! an actual definition of unity that prooves me right all along with lots of quotes from EWTN that I just can’t relate to at all. Its like listening to a person talk to me about how evil my obsessive desire for spinach are and that I need to be moderate with those obsessive desires because they might make me a terrible person who objectifies me and I’m like. “Uh, spinach is an acquired taste to me. I’m not all the big on it. I’ve learned to enjoy it, but the reason I eat it is because spinach is good for me. I’m sorry about you suffer from such obsession about how spinach tastes that makes you need to guard yourself from using people to get at spinach, but your attitude taught me to fear even learning to like it and made my first attempts at eating it torture. Thank you all very much for your contributions toward my sexual dysfunction and for comdemning me for taking the steps necessary to overcome it.”

 

[Nate13]

I assume you consider that one person being struck down for “pulling out” in the entire history of man is strong evidence against masturbation?

The stance is not entirely based on this verse, but it is one of the clearest cases of sexual immorality we have in the Bible. Every one always argues that there is no clear condemnation of contraception in the Bible and then when we find you one, you complain that there aren’t more. This story in Genesis is a good start, but the true theology behind this teaching revolves around the meaning of marriage.

I would substitute “no one” with “religious leaders”…well, “religious leaders minus Jesus.”

Jesus clarified the full meaning of the 6th commandment, which includes all forms of sexual immorality not just adultery.

For Ahs and Nate, Warrior is objecting to my use of the word “onanism” if he can show me that it is not a correct word to use, fine…but usage of the word dates back to the 18th century, can be found in other languages, and I used it in the proper context.

St. Augustine talked about onanism, implicitly even if he didn’t use the term itself around 400 A.D. Onanism is not a new idea at all.

 

[ahs]

For Ahs and Nate, Warrior is objecting to my use of the word “onanism” if he can show me that it is not a correct word to use, fine…but usage of the word dates back to the 18th century, can be found in other languages, and I used it in the proper context.

Ah, I read past that and got off on a tangent. Sorry.

 

[searching04]

Yeah! an actual definition of unity that prooves me right all along with lots of quotes from EWTN that I just can’t relate to at all. Its like listening to a person talk to me about how evil my obsessive desire for spinach are and that I need to be moderate with those obsessive desires because they might make me a terrible person who objectifies me and I’m like. “Uh, spinach is an acquired taste to me. I’m not all the big on it. I’ve learned to enjoy it, but the reason I eat it is because spinach is good for me. I’m sorry about you suffer from such obsession about how spinach tastes that makes you need to guard yourself from using people to get at spinach, but your attitude taught me to fear even learning to like it and made my first attempts at eating it torture. Thank you all very much for your contributions toward my sexual dysfunction and for comdemning me for taking the steps necessary to overcome it.”

No condemnation here - God bless and good luck, sincerely. There is no one here who can cast a stone or condemn, no one at all. All anyone here can do is give church definitions and teachings. Unfortunately, as you see, there are no exceptions or help for situations like yours. Seek guidance, pray, make decisions for yourselves as a couple to take the steps you need.

 

[Jaaanosik]

To all: what would you recommend if NFP does not work (not possible due to health conditions)?

 

[searching04]

To all: what would you recommend if NFP does not work (not possible due to health conditions)?

There are several folks here who seem to have luck with other methods and NFP, so stay tuned. May need to offer a few specifics on your situation, though. However, be prepared for answers ranging from ones that might help, to ones that say you just have to deal with church teachings if your situation truly doesn’t allow for NFP.

God bless. You’re not alone.

 

[Jaaanosik]

There are several folks here who seem to have luck with other methods and NFP, so stay tuned. May need to offer a few specifics on your situation, though. However, be prepared for answers ranging from ones that might help, to ones that say you just have to deal with church teachings if your situation truly doesn’t allow for NFP.

God bless. You’re not alone.

I can see it in this thread.
I seems that according to “law” the only option is no sex at all.
Is this correct or are there any “legal” health exceptions mentioned in HV or any following papal letters?

When you say you are not alone it is very true.
HV teaches an ideal that is unreachable to millions. It would be interesting to see if there was a survey about it and what would be result. I’d like to know a percentage of people that know HV and if they follow it.

 

[Nate13]

I can see it in this thread.
I seems that according to “law” the only option is no sex at all.
Is this correct or are there any “legal” health exceptions mentioned in HV or any following papal letters?

When you say you are not alone it is very true.
HV teaches an ideal that is unreachable to millions. It would be interesting to see if there was a survey about it and what would be result. I’d like to know a percentage of people that know HV and if they follow it.

Contact the Pope Paul VI Institute in Nebraska and ask them about your situation. I highly doubt you will have a situation they haven’t ever heard of before. They can help make you aware of all the options. If NFP does have problems working for you they may be able to help figure out if there are any underlying problems that might be causing that.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sigh…

This thread started with a question regarding the “unitive” purpose of sex.

The unitive is the closeness, love sharing etc.

The confusion lies in the “procreative” meaning of sex.

Unfortunately it has turned into a discussion on Humana Vitae, what the story of Onan really meant etc.

Here is another part from the catechism.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2366.htm

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

It cannot be ordered per se’ to the procreation of human life if male climax occurs externally intentionally. I’m sorry, truly, if the OP has associated sex with extreme discomfort. Sex should not be that way, obviously. I am not at all insensitive to her. But this is the teaching, I’m sorry if she does or did not understand it.

I have suggested reading Dietrich Von Hildebrand, suggested actually contacting Dr. Popcak, gave specific pages to read from “The Good News on Sex and Marriage”, gave her some links from EWTN’s website.

Unfortunately, she overlooked my suggestions, and implied that what I wrote contributed to her dysfunction. That was not at all my intent.

A question was asked. This is what the answer is

Every marital act must have these two dimensions: 1) unitive (love-giving) and 2) procreative (life-giving). This rules out a non vaginal climax.

If she was ignorant of the fact before, fine.

I have never condemned anyone, I never suggested culpability on any one’s part.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Is Family Planning a right or privilege?
Do married couples have a right to plan how many children they are going to have or not?

 

[Wardog]

Is Family Planning a right or privilege?
Do married couples have a right to plan how many children they are going to have or not?

According to the Church, married couples have a right to plan their family. But they must do it naturally, with sex either during the infertile period or abstinence during the fertile period of a woman’s normal cycle. Artificial means, including the birth control pill, condoms, IUDs, sterilazation, which artificially interfere with the normal cycle are prohibited.

The Church teaches that while the intent is the same, i.e to have sex without getting pregnant, NFP is fine; artificial birth control is inherently immoral.

I recommend reading the entire Humanae Vitae that is posted on the vatican website for the full picture. For a change, it is very clearly worded and not vague in its intent. It was written in response to the Pope’s birth control council; he rejected their findings and recommendations to approve some sorts of ABC, and wrote the final document himself with little to no outside help. So this is the Pope speaking. It was not written Ex Cathedra, nor does it use sentences such as " I declare…" normally used for infallible statements. But is clearly states that it was written to express the true teachings of God and the Church. It created quite a bit of argument within the Church in 1968 when published; this internal argument has lessened over the years as the dissenting bishops and cardinals retired and were replaced with those who either agreed with the Pope or kept quiet.

From Humane Vitae; If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

 

[tominrichmond]

Sexual pleasure may lawfully occur only in the context of the coital act, that is, prepatory to it, during it, or in the immediate aftermath of it (for women). Partners giving each other sexual pleasure even short of climax, outside the context of intercourse, are sinning (in the objective sense of course).

Sexual pleasure exists to facilitate intercourse, and may not be lawfully enjoyed in any other context.

That’s the principle I believe the OP is struggling with accepting. I don’t blame her, it totally transgresses our modern worldview which says that if we want to do it, it’s good. But as with much of Christ’s Law, what the world allows is not our guidepost.

 

[Wardog]

Actually you are wrong. God did not order him to have children. It was Judah who told him to do this. Judah was his father, but after Onan was married no man, father or not would have the right to command him to have a child. Also note that God punished him for “he did”. He did not punish him for he did NOT do which was to not obey his father, even though as I stated before, once married he would not be bound by this any longer. Also if we took this in the context that others who have posted here about how “in general” a marriage has to be ordered towards procreation then God could not have punished Onan because he had not waited to see if he would eventually give Tamar an offspring. Unlikely but he could have had a change of heart.

I always had problems with the story of Onan. God struck him down for spilling his seed while he was having sex with his sister in law as directed by his father. Yet reading on, Judah had sex with the same woman, only did not recognize her as his daughter in law but thought she was a roadside prostitute. She became pregnant, and Judah was about to have her killed, until she showed him proof that it was Judah with whom she had fathered a child.
But God did not strike down Judah.
Why is that?
Coitus Interruptis is more sinful than fathering a child with your daughter in law who you mistook for a prostitute?

 

[LaSainte]

I always had problems with the story of Onan. God struck him down for spilling his seed while he was having sex with his sister in law as directed by his father. Yet reading on, Judah had sex with the same woman, only did not recognize her as his daughter in law but thought she was a roadside prostitute. She became pregnant, and Judah was about to have her killed, until she showed him proof that it was Judah with whom she had fathered a child.
But God did not strike down Judah.
Why is that?
Coitus Interruptis is more sinful than fathering a child with your daughter in law who you mistook for a prostitute?

Apparently…

 

[twoangels]

To all: what would you recommend if NFP does not work (not possible due to health conditions)?

NFP is not Catholic contraception. It is abstainence. If you’re charting and not abstaining when you’re fertile, you’re not practicing NFP. You’re just charting. So you have to ask yourself, are you getting pregnant because you had sex on an infertile day or are you getting pregnant because you had sex on a fertile day? If you had sex on a fertile day and were charting accurately, the method did not fail you. You failed to practice the method.

Moreover, what is sinful in Catholicism is not how sex is performed. NFP is not moral because its natural. NFP can be moral because its never immoral to abstain. But we are called to recognize that procreation is a purpose of the sexual act. We are not to be willfully trying to subvert the purpose of sex.

Overall NFP is a balancing act between the need for unity and the need to space children. Regardless there is sacrifice involved. To space children means to sacrifice sex. It also means to recognize too that the need for unity is so great that sex shouldn’t be just waiting for the urge. Sex should have a priority. So you should definitely be taking advantage of every opportunity you’ve got. Even that at times may not be enough and you may decide to increase your chances of a child for just once this month while remaining cautious the rest of the month. Because in the end its about God’s will.

Ultimately the hard thing is when pregnancy threatens the life of the mother to a severe degree. That is really hard, especially when high risk pregnancies can mean abstainence throughout the pregnancy.

I think practicing the moral law in this case takes extraordinary amounts of virtue. I do not blame people who surcomb to the temptation. Its important to remember that when the Church teaches the moral law, she is teaching the path to perfect holiness. The Church’s teaching is not about how to be decent good enough individuals. The Church’s teaching is about the path to sainthood and the universal call to holiness.

And this is where its not about merely obeying rules. CS Lewis says in “Mere Christianity” that if we try to follow the moral law like we’re paying our taxes, we will do one of two things. We will either give up trying to be good or we will become terribly unpleasant people obsessed with making a martyr of ourselves, complaining and gripping about other people because we’re basically left completely starving and tormenting our natural selves. We have to recognize that God isn’t asking for this and that, He’s asking we give our entire selves to Him.

If you really get down to it, a person who is dealing with a life and death situation, human frailty, concupscience, I don’t know how you can say that an individual who comes face to face with that could be said to have full consent of the will. Does that mean its not a grave matter? Does that mean that no repentence is necessary?

If we’re looking at the issue as “Ok sex is just evil and the worst sin possible” and fret about it obsessively at every turn and then turn around and shrug our shoulders about other sins that we consider venial sins, than we’re just obsessing about sex. We’re still trying to earn Heaven at that point and we’re not giving ourselves so much to Chirst as we are obeying from Vice rather than virtue. Pride is the root of all sin and it is the most serious of all sin. To obey God out of spiritual pride is not what God is calling us to do. He is calling us to obedience out of love. When we realize that, than suddenly we are face to face with how dependant we are on God’s mercy and how nothing we do will ever make us worthy of God.

 

[twoangels]

Quote:
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” “This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.”

If a husband and wife engage in intercourse, and the man pulls out and refrains from climaxing, all with the couple’s intent to prevent pregnancy, they have sinned. It is not that intercourse morally legimatizes the pleasure of a sexual climax.

In our case, the situation is the pyschological pressure to climax during intercourse that frustrates the ability to climax through vaginal intercourse. My husband already struggles with this. With the pyschological pressure removed (through the permission to climax outside if intercourse fails), it removes the pyschological barrier and makes it more likely he will climax through intercourse.

Since removing the pyschological pressure is aimed toward ordering the act toward procreation, the act is itself oriented toward the procreative purpose.

I’m sorry, truly, if the OP has associated sex with extreme discomfort. Sex should not be that way, obviously. I am not at all insensitive to her. But this is the teaching, I’m sorry if she does or did not understand it.

I have suggested reading Dietrich Von Hildebrand, suggested actually contacting Dr. Popcak, gave specific pages to read from “The Good News on Sex and Marriage”, gave her some links from EWTN’s website.

We already read all these books when we were engaged and when we were first struggling to consumate our marriage. It has been through treatment for our problems, through coming to understand the nature of our problems and the consequences of following Catholic celebrities rather than the Church, we recognize now that that its about the beauty of procreation and unity, not about morally legimatizing sexual pleasure because its evil unless its done correctly.

As for blaming you, I was not blaming you specifically. Vaginismus is caused by unbalanced religious teachings about sex among other things. Teaching women inadvertedly that sexual pleasure is evil, even if unintended, can steal her ability to engage in sexual intercourse. 2 in 1000 women suffer from vaginsmus. I recently read an article about a couple that was married for 28 years before they were physically able to consumate their marriage due to vaginismus.

This rules contraceptive acts including non-vaginal climax as a form of contraceptive. Every church document that deals on the subject is talking about family planning. It is not intended to frustrates a couple’s sexual hang ups.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

What about female orgasm without male orgasm?