The unitive purpose of sex

[twoangels]

I see a lot of people on these forums (especially the family life forums) describing the unitive purpose of sex in a manner that just sounds wrong to me. Usually this deals with promoting the rule that a man must ejaculate inside of the woman. However I’ve read the Catechism and the source documents quoted by the Catechism and everything seems to indicate that the sin is that we cannot thwart God’s design. The Catechism says that the sexual acts (plural) are oriented toward procreation. As such, if we are to engage the sexual acts we cannot try to get around the procreative purpose.

This makes sense to me because understanding that all sin is a violation of authentic love. This makes sense to me because of the goodness of humanity and the Church’s emphasis that children are a blessing. By contracepting, aren’t we saying that this gift God may give us through sex is not a blessing but a burden and curse? As such, the Church seems to affirm that normally we should not be trying to prevent pregnancy, but grave reasons can exist to mandate we prevent pregnancy and this ought to be done through abstainence. NFP helps us to know when its best to abstain for this purpose. It also affirms that sex also has a unitive purpose that needs to be affirmed in respected. The unitive purpose of sex would mandate that we only abstain when we have to and not for selfish reasons.

But that said, I see people claim that intercourse is the unitive aspect of sex and that sexual acts are not unitive without intercourse. This seems to go against my very experience as a married woman. All the sexual acts are unitive. The reason we want to not abstain unnecessarily due to the unitive purpose of sex is because we shouldn’t be trying to thwart the procreative aspect of sex when we engage in sex. As such, you’re cutting yourself off from all the sexual acts when you’re abstaining and thus losing out on the unitive aspects.

Am I wrong?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think I got you until the last paragraph…

In trying to simplify Church teaching on sex(not sure how but I will try) sex must be unitive and procreative. The only way it can be procreative is for the man to finish properly. So if he finishes, it must be done through intercourse.

Other types of activity can be permitted providing they do not cause the "procreative’ part outside of intercourse (male climax) or cause too much temptation to finish improperly etc.

A couple might be affectionate, but “unitive” to my understanding refers to the “one flesh union” Other types of affection might cause “bonding” but are not technically unitive.

Hope I worded that in a way that’s clear.

 

[davidv]

I see a lot of people on these forums (especially the family life forums) describing the unitive purpose of sex in a manner that just sounds wrong to me. Usually this deals with promoting the rule that a man must ejaculate inside of the woman. However I’ve read the Catechism and the source documents quoted by the Catechism and everything seems to indicate that the sin is that we cannot thwart God’s design. The Catechism says that the sexual acts (plural) are oriented toward procreation. As such, if we are to engage the sexual acts we cannot try to get around the procreative purpose.

This makes sense to me because understanding that all sin is a violation of authentic love. This makes sense to me because of the goodness of humanity and the Church’s emphasis that children are a blessing. By contracepting, aren’t we saying that this gift God may give us through sex is not a blessing but a burden and curse? As such, the Church seems to affirm that normally we should not be trying to prevent pregnancy, but grave reasons can exist to mandate we prevent pregnancy and this ought to be done through abstainence. NFP helps us to know when its best to abstain for this purpose. It also affirms that sex also has a unitive purpose that needs to be affirmed in respected. The unitive purpose of sex would mandate that we only abstain when we have to and not for selfish reasons.

But that said, I see people claim that intercourse is the unitive aspect of sex and that sexual acts are not unitive without intercourse. This seems to go against my very experience as a married woman. All the sexual acts are unitive. The reason we want to not abstain unnecessarily due to the unitive purpose of sex is because we shouldn’t be trying to thwart the procreative aspect of sex when we engage in sex. As such, you’re cutting yourself off from all the sexual acts when you’re abstaining and thus losing out on the unitive aspects.

Am I wrong?

I think you are wrong.

The Church teaches that in the natural order sexual intercourse is only valid in marriage. It also teaches that the procreative and unitive aspects of sexual intercourse can not be legitimately separated. I believe all sexual sins can be linked to the failure to abide by one or both of these principles.

 

[twoangels]

A couple might be affectionate, but “unitive” to my understanding refers to the “one flesh union” Other types of affection might cause “bonding” but are not technically unitive.

Hope I worded that in a way that’s clear.

But where are you getting the idea that the “unitive” refers to the one flesh union. Have you read documents that have claimed this is the definition? That is my question.

 

[Wardog]

I
As such, the Church seems to affirm that normally we should not be trying to prevent pregnancy, but grave reasons can exist to mandate we prevent pregnancy and this ought to be done through abstainence. NFP helps us to know when its best to abstain for this purpose. It also affirms that sex also has a unitive purpose that needs to be affirmed in respected. The unitive purpose of sex would mandate that we only abstain when we have to and not for selfish reasons.

Am I wrong?

You are wrong about preventing pregnancy through abstinence alone. Here is what Pope Paul said in Humanae Vitae about this. Sorry for the cutting and pasting, but I do not want to type this all out. I did highlight some parts.

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)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. **It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. **But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

Please note that Pope Paul instructed for acceptable reasons to avoid birth, not grave or serious. I think acceptable is a much lower bar than serious or grave reasons.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I see a lot of people on these forums (especially the family life forums) describing the unitive purpose of sex in a manner that just sounds wrong to me.

Am I wrong?

I think I know what you are talking about. But to put a line that says: Here itis the USA and 1 milimeter further, it is Canada, it is hard to discuss.

Moreover, we would have to discuss all the sexual practices that we do, which I do not see very convenient nor profitable here.

I heard a conference from Dr. Ruiz (was this the name?), a Philipino doctor who was the Holy See Representative in the WHO. Once, he told, he went to a school and gave the school a lecture on sexual education. Then, he asked if they had any questions. A naughty boy, trying to tease him, asked: “Dr., what are the position in sex?”. He said that there was silence in the audience. He said: “I might answer the question. If I did not answer, they would say why I had been invited if I could not answer so easy an answer. On the other hand, I understood that he was teasing me but I could not answer directly for the inconvenience of the answer. So, I looked up to the ceiling and it was have been the Holy Spirit that guided me”

And then he told his reply: “My Boy, the only position I know it is the penis inside the vagina. Whatever you do meanwhile, it does not matter”, The audience burst into aplause…he said…

If the story is of any use…I cannot answer this question and I am not so lucky as Dr. Ruiz to have the Holy Spirit inspire me.

 

[Wardog]

I think I got you until the last paragraph…

In trying to simplify Church teaching on sex(not sure how but I will try) sex must be unitive and procreative. The only way it can be procreative is for the man to finish properly. So if he finishes, it must be done through intercourse.

Other types of activity can be permitted providing they do not cause the "procreative’ part outside of intercourse (male climax) or cause too much temptation to finish improperly etc.

A couple might be affectionate, but “unitive” to my understanding refers to the “one flesh union” Other types of affection might cause “bonding” but are not technically unitive.

Hope I worded that in a way that’s clear.

I think you are wrong saying other types of activity may be permitted: below is an excerpt from Humanae Vitae that explicity discusses this:
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **(12)

 

[twoangels]

I think you are wrong.

The Church teaches that in the natural order sexual intercourse is only valid in marriage. It also teaches that the procreative and unitive aspects of sexual intercourse can not be legitimately separated. I believe all sexual sins can be linked to the failure to abide by one or both of these principles.

When Christ was asked what was the greatest commandment, he named two “You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.” and you shall “love your neighbor as yourself.” Traditionally the first part of the ten commandments falls under loving God. The rest of the commandments fall under loving your neighbor.

If that is the case, than all sexual sin violates loving your neighbor. I can understand that contraceptives and contraceptive acts violates loving your neighbor because they negate the value of the child potentially conceived. I can also see why fornication, promiscuity, masturbation and all that is wrong if it fits under violating the unitive bonding aspect of sexuality. The unitive aspect speaks of permenance, exclusivity, everything that marriage is, as such engaging in sexual activity in an isolated indulgent manner is immoral.

However by defining unitive to mean merely the physical union of the two bodies, I don’t see how that has anything to do with loving your neighbor as yourself or the integrulity of the gift or the integrity of the person (first phrase from scripture, second two from Catechism). If it is merely the physical union of two bodies, than the emotional bonding between husband and wife no longer seems to be affirmed as a purpose of sex. It seems that all that is being affirmed is that sex is for making babies and that it must be done correctly else you’re a sexual pervert. As such, insisting that unitive merely means the physical unity of husband and wife sounds as archaic as insisting that only the missionary position is the only position couples can engage in.

So again, I ask people don’t just summarize what you think the Church teaches. Please support your answer.

 

[Wardog]

When Christ was asked what was the greatest commandment, he named two “You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.” and you shall “love your neighbor as yourself.” Traditionally the first part of the ten commandments falls under loving God. The rest of the commandments fall under loving your neighbor.

If that is the case, than all sexual sin violates loving your neighbor. I can understand that contraceptives and contraceptive acts violates loving your neighbor because they negate the value of the child potentially conceived. I can also see why fornication, promiscuity, masturbation and all that is wrong if it fits under violating the unitive bonding aspect of sexuality. The unitive aspect speaks of permenance, exclusivity, everything that marriage is, as such engaging in sexual activity in an isolated indulgent manner is immoral.

However by defining unitive to mean merely the physical union of the two bodies, I don’t see how that has anything to do with loving your neighbor as yourself or the integrulity of the gift or the integrity of the person (first phrase from scripture, second two from Catechism). If it is merely the physical union of two bodies, than the emotional bonding between husband and wife no longer seems to be affirmed as a purpose of sex. It seems that all that is being affirmed is that sex is for making babies and that it must be done correctly else you’re a sexual pervert. As such, insisting that unitive merely means the physical unity of husband and wife sounds as archaic as insisting that only the missionary position is the only position couples can engage in.

So again, I ask people don’t just summarize what you think the Church teaches. Please support your answer.

Your basic premise is wrong:
The commandments cover your relationship with God, Family and Community; three areas and not just two. So all sexual sins do not involve violating your neighbor. Sexual sins also violate your relationship with God, as you are misusing his gift of sex to create life, and violate your relationship with your spouse, as you would be violating the sarcrament of marriage.
As noted in Humanae Vitae, sex is permitted during infertile periods for the express intent to avoid getting pregnant and to increase the unitive relationship with your spouse through sex.
I am not summarizing the Church’s teachings, I am quoting a first source that is the definitive teaching of the Church on sex.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think you are wrong saying other types of activity may be permitted: below is an excerpt from Humanae Vitae that explicity discusses this:
The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **(12)

I said nothing that went against Humanae Vitae.

A married couple are in fact permitted to engage in pysical intimacy provided that orgasm does not occur, and too much temptation to orgasm without intercourse occurs.

Not every couple can do this, but some couples can engage in a bit of physical activity without being carried away.

The sexual act means the sexual act. I have not advocated anything illicit.

 

[lonecatholic]

I hope I am not butting in a conversation that wasn’t mine, but I here’s what I have learned. This is a little detailed, so pardon my french.

The husband may be stimulated manually or orally as foreplay (not to climax) but his climax is to occur only in his wife’s vagina, never outside it. Period.

The wife may be brought to climax through manual or oral stimulation directly before or after the husband’s climax in the vagina. (Or if she is one of the few lucky ducks, during the marital act itself!) This must always be in the context of a completed ejaculation of the husband in his wife’s vagina. A woman may never be stimulated to climax outside of this context.

Outside of the marriage act what is allowed depends on each individual couple. The main rule here is that neither spouse is allowed to climax outside of the marriage act, or engage in activities that lead the other spouse to consider mastrubation to relieve sexual tension. Most couples can engage in hugging, kissing, cuddling close on the bed or couch, that sort of thing. Some people aren’t too aroused by touching each other’s breasts or chest. So that would be allowed for them. There are even some out there (though not as many) who can engage in light petting or genital touching. (Though it must be certain that this comes no where close to a climax.) See it is different for each couple.

So that is what I have learned. Hope it helps.

 

[ahs]

…I ask people don’t just summarize what you think the Church teaches. Please support your answer.

Someone already quoted directly from Humanae Vitae, is that not what you were looking for?

I guess I’m confused. Are you wanting Church Doctrine on whether it is okay to have intercourse on only infertile days as part of a plan to avoid pregnancy for a time, or are you looking for the exact Church definition of the word “unitive”?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hi Two Angels

I would recommend this book: Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love God’s plan for love, marriage, intimacy, and the family

by

Dietrich von Hildebrand

Chapters 4 and 5 touch specifically on your question (I think)

 

[ahs]

…that **each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **(12)

I said nothing that went against Humanae Vitae.

A married couple are in fact permitted to engage in pysical intimacy provided that orgasm does not occur, and too much temptation to orgasm without intercourse occurs.

Not every couple can do this, but some couples can engage in a bit of physical activity without being carried away.

The sexual act means the sexual act. I have not advocated anything illicit.

I admit that I am not the most well-read person on Moral Theology, but so far I have not seen where the things that Mary Gail 36 is saying would conflict with Church Doctrine.

The actions a couple takes to bring each other to a state of arousal (prior to the marital act) aren’t in conflict with continuing to the point of the proper marital embrace. Each marital act must be ordered towards procreation (or, as put in Humanae Vitae, the quote that Wardog provided), but I don’t think the Church has said anything that would condemn foreplay or other activities which don’t lean to the marital act (as long as they also don’t lead to climax or temptation).

 

[twoangels]

Your basic premise is wrong:
The commandments cover your relationship with God, Family and Community; three areas and not just two. So all sexual sins do not involve violating your neighbor. Sexual sins also violate your relationship with God, as you are misusing his gift of sex to create life, and violate your relationship with your spouse, as you would be violating the sarcrament of marriage.
As noted in Humanae Vitae, sex is permitted during infertile periods for the express intent to avoid getting pregnant and to increase the unitive relationship with your spouse through sex.
I am not summarizing the Church’s teachings, I am quoting a first source that is the definitive teaching of the Church on sex.

to “increase the unitive relationship”. If the unity aspect of sexual acts is not the bonding, how can you even say that it has anything to do with increasing a unitive relationship. All you’re saying is that the unitive purpose is the Church’s way of saying “Any sexual behavior that doesn’t involve intercourse is immoral. Husband and wife must physically join to morally rationalize any sexual pleasure they have experienced.”

And there is another thing. What the heck is up with interupting “sexual pleasure” to mean “sexual climax.” Arousal is sexual pleasure. If you consider that sexual pleasure (not the sexual climax) is morally disordered sought for itself isolated from its unitive and procreative purposes, than that would mean that couples are morally obligated to have sex if they enjoy any form of sexual pleasure including sexual arousal.

Family and Community are included in “neighbor.” So again, what does this supposed rule have to do with loving anyone? How on earth is it a violation of your marriage? How it is a violation of your love of God? What because some lay person is insisting “God said so so therefore disobeying him is a violation of loving God.” Again this is all coming down to “because I say so.”

And then you’re telling me you’re giving me quotes when you’re not.

I’m sorry, but these premises just seem entirely not natural at all. I just don’t believe sexuality works this way. I think if the unitive aspect means that sexual pleasure can only be morally rationalized through engaging in intercourse, you actually are causing sexual dyfunction. And it makes me wonder if the only reason some people aren’t having difficulty engaging in intercourse is because of past sexual sins.

I just can’t believe that God would give rules toward sex that would actually frustrate sexual activity between spouses.

 

[ahs]

…What because some lay person is insisting “God said so so therefore disobeying him is a violation of loving God.” **Again this is all coming down to “because I say so.”**And then you’re telling me you’re giving me quotes when you’re not.

I’m sorry, but these premises just seem entirely not natural at all. **I just don’t believe **sexuality works this way. **I think if **the unitive aspect means that sexual pleasure can only be morally rationalized through engaging in intercourse, you actually are causing sexual dyfunction. **And it makes me wonder **if the only reason some people aren’t having difficulty engaging in intercourse is because of past sexual sins.

I just can’t believe that God would give rules toward sex that would actually frustrate sexual activity between spouses.

Not to discredit you or anything, but you are shooting down anything that is/comes across as someone’s opinion, yet your whole topic is based on your own opinion.

I am assuming now that you are looking for the Church’s definition of “unitive”. I don’t know where to find the short and concise definition of that. But there are MANY documents that can be read and put together into a crystal clear picture of what the Church believes that to be. *Humanae Vitae *plus *Casti Connubii *plus Familiaris Consortio plus the *Allocution to Midwives *plus the Catechism, plus any others I have not read yet or that I missed and all the writings of the early Church Fathers that are so easy to mis-understand…add these all together and you will see a clear picture of what the Church calls the unification of the spouses.

Or, just read that book that Mary Gail recommended.

 

[davidv]

When Christ was asked what was the greatest commandment, he named two “You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength.” and you shall “love your neighbor as yourself.” Traditionally the first part of the ten commandments falls under loving God. The rest of the commandments fall under loving your neighbor.

If that is the case, than all sexual sin violates loving your neighbor. I can understand that contraceptives and contraceptive acts violates loving your neighbor because they negate the value of the child potentially conceived. I can also see why fornication, promiscuity, masturbation and all that is wrong if it fits under violating the unitive bonding aspect of sexuality. The unitive aspect speaks of permenance, exclusivity, everything that marriage is, as such engaging in sexual activity in an isolated indulgent manner is immoral.

However by defining unitive to mean merely the physical union of the two bodies,

Who defines unitive this way. I have not found that the Church has done so. How can sexual intercourse be unitive without the physical?

I don’t see how that has anything to do with loving your neighbor as yourself or the integrulity of the gift or the integrity of the person (first phrase from scripture, second two from Catechism).

How is, how you see things, the benchmark of what is truthful?

If it is merely the physical union of two bodies, than the emotional bonding between husband and wife no longer seems to be affirmed as a purpose of sex. It seems that all that is being affirmed is that sex is for making babies and that it must be done correctly else you’re a sexual pervert. As such, insisting that unitive merely means the physical unity of husband and wife sounds as archaic as insisting that only the missionary position is the only position couples can engage in.

So again, I ask people don’t just summarize what you think the Church teaches. Please support your answer.

This is an internet forum, with a limit on the number characters available to each post. If you don’t what summaries, please read the official Church documents. One poster gave a list of several excellent references.

 

[Wardog]

I said nothing that went against Humanae Vitae.

A married couple are in fact permitted to engage in pysical intimacy provided that orgasm does not occur, and too much temptation to orgasm without intercourse occurs.

Not every couple can do this, but some couples can engage in a bit of physical activity without being carried away.

The sexual act means the sexual act. I have not advocated anything illicit.

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **(12)

I know what you said is taught at NFP training; but the Pope was pretty clear. Unless you can explain how oral, manual or anal sex “retain(s) its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”

 

[Wardog]

And then you’re telling me you’re giving me quotes when you’re not.
.

I cut and pasted two paragraphs from Humanae Vitae. Go ahead and Google it and read it for yourself. I gave up on reading other people’s interpertations a long time ago; go right to the primary source. If you don’t like what you read, don’t blame me.

 

[Nate13]

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that **each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. **(12)

I know what you said is taught at NFP training; but the Pope was pretty clear. Unless you can explain how oral, manual or anal sex “retain(s) its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life”

Oral/manual stimulation may be necessary in order to get to a point where real intercourse is possible haha. Foreplay is necessary in most cases. Were specifically talking about oral/manual stimulation only as foreplay beforehand and not to climax.

@twoangels
The idea of “two becoming one flesh” is what Theology of the Body is grounded upon. The Theology of the Body was written by Pope John Paul II and is the backing behind Humanae Vitae. Another way of translating that verse in Genesis would be “and the two become one genital”. The word for “flesh” in the original Hebrew can be translated to mean the male sexual organ and is done so in other places in the Bible including Ezekiel. I don’t know how much more specific the verse needs to get for you.

I suggest going to the Catechism and reading sections 2331-2400.