Unitive and Procreative - But Why?

[seakelp]

I understand that the Church teaches us that sex has two aspects: the unitive and the procreative. Without either, sex is broken and sinful.

What I don’t understand is why sex must be unitive and procreative. I’ve done a bit of research, but every answer I’ve discovered simply says, “This is the natural law.” But no source I’ve found has given actual reasons for this Church teaching.

Can someone give a good explanation on this?

 

[Thinking10]

I don’t understand why sex has to be procreative every time either. A couple can procreate only so many times. Why can’t sex be only unitive in between the times when they procreate? If they are raising kids, they are “open to life” at every moment. It seems far more reasonable to connect the marriage of a couple to procreation rather than just sex.

 

[MarcoPolo]

One sensible reason is because contraception steers the participants toward objectifying the other. So for instance, a man who would have to consider his partner as a mother of his child would have to look at her in a much larger, more human scope, than if he were to enter the act with confidence that no such motherhood could result.

Another reason is because an attitude “closed” to conception can result in the stripping of dignity of a child who might still be conceived. Should not all children have the dignity of being the welcome product of the ultimate expression of a marriage?

As well, the normal function of a body is to be fertile, and that fertility bears fruit in the context of marital relations. Thus, as would be said according to “natural law,” the body itself speaks to fertility proper to that context. Thus, when someone engages in the marital act, they are unable to amputate their fertility from the act. They can only prevent the fruit of their fertility from reaching the other. This is what is meant by a person “lying” with their body. The marital act is the ultimate giving of the self toward the other. Contracepting says, “I give all of myself to you except my fertility.” Thus, one engages in the act of total giving without totally giving.

Marriage is also the figure of Christ, the bridegroom, giving himself to his bride, the Church. So did Christ give all of himself on the cross for his bride? Of course. So when one obstructs part of themselves from the marital act, the sacrament no longer bears the resemblance to Christ giving of himself for his bride.

To give another example on different moral issues, why would it be against the natural law to murder someone or steal from them? Could not a skeptic merely say, “You say it’s against the natural law to murder or steal, but what are the actual reasons?” You can look at the design of the body or human person in those examples themselves. An injured body tends to try to mend itself with platelets or whatnot. Human nature is to preserve life. As with stealing, it is a violation of another person to steal that which belongs to them. Why would such a morality be embraced even by skeptics. What do they “see” in the human person that would be violated if the person was made the victim of robbery? You can see the universal reaction of a violated person, no matter their background: “Hey! That belongs to me!” Or in defense of another, “Hey! That belongs to someone else!” This order is naturally understood in the human condition.

 

[seakelp]

But we do things that violate our design all the time. It’s the classic problem Hume revealed for us: just because something is natural does not mean it is right. Disease is natural, but we cure it, etc. I’m sure you’ve heard the argument before.

Sex without the possibility of off spring is simply mutual masturbation. Sex with joining as one is harmful to the best scenario for raising the offspring from the union. We are designed to be drawn together as one, to reproduce, and to rear the offspring as a couple. It is simply the way nature intends. And it so intends because that is the way God designed it. That IS the natural law.

I think natural law is obviously different from the “laws of nature.” Natural concerns ethical truths, whereas the laws of nature (an admittedly antiquated phrase, but I think it captures what I’m trying to say here) are essentially empirical truths.

I’m asking specifically about a true natural law argument about this. I don’t doubt that there is one, but no one has been able to provide it.

 

[seakelp]

One sensible reason is because contraception steers the participants toward objectifying the other. So for instance, a man who would have to consider his partner as a mother of his child would have to look at her in a much larger, more human scope, than if he were to enter the act with confidence that no such motherhood could result.

That’s an interesting argument. I understand you to be saying that the unitive/procreative understanding of sex is better because it leads to a man and women seeing each other not just as objects for sexual pleasure.

But can’t you argue that the unitive/procreative view could lead to a man and women seeing each other merely as vessels for reproduction? After all, we know from experience that procreating does not instantly lead to a more generous understanding of the other parent. It might lead to seeing another person no longer as a human being, but as a roll (i.e., “mother” or “father”).

Another reason is because an attitude “closed” to conception can result in the stripping of dignity of a child who might still be conceived. Should not all children have the dignity of being the welcome product of the ultimate expression of a marriage?

This is also sensible, but I’d raise another objection: suppose that a form of contraception is 100% certain. It will work. Admittedly, we don’t have that technology at the moment (theoretically, at least), but it’s not inconceivable that we might. Birth control is already stunningly effective.

But for the sake of argument, assume that such contraception exists. Wouldn’t the use of this contraception make your concern unnecessary?

As well, the normal function of a body is to be fertile, and that fertility bears fruit in the context of marital relations. Thus, as would be said according to “natural law,” the body itself speaks to fertility proper to that context. Thus, when someone engages in the marital act, they are unable to amputate their fertility from the act. They can only prevent the fruit of their fertility from reaching the other. This is what is meant by a person “lying” with their body. The marital act is the ultimate giving of the self toward the other. Contracepting says, “I give all of myself to you except my fertility.” Thus, one engages in the act of total giving without totally giving.

I think this argument is the most sound. But still: does that mean sex during which a partner is not focused, or is thinking of something else, or is otherwise distracted, is sinful?

I suppose that would go against the unitive aspect of sex.

Marriage is also the figure of Christ, the bridegroom, giving himself to his bride, the Church. So did Christ give all of himself on the cross for his bride? Of course. So when one obstructs part of themselves from the marital act, the sacrament no longer bears the resemblance to Christ giving of himself for his bride.

Okay, I can see that.

To give another example on different moral issues, why would it be against the natural law to murder someone or steal from them? Could not a skeptic merely say, “You say it’s against the natural law to murder or steal, but what are the actual reasons?” You can look at the design of the body or human person in those examples themselves. An injured body tends to try to mend itself with platelets or whatnot. Human nature is to preserve life. As with stealing, it is a violation of another person to steal that which belongs to them. Why would such a morality be embraced even by skeptics. What do they “see” in the human person that would be violated if the person was made the victim of robbery? You can see the universal reaction of a violated person, no matter their background: “Hey! That belongs to me!” Or in defense of another, “Hey! That belongs to someone else!” This order is naturally understood in the human condition.

This, I think, is different. I’m not so sure that natural law, rightly understood, has much to do with “what is natural” in the scientific sense.

 

[fide]

I understand that the Church teaches us that sex has two aspects: the unitive and the procreative. Without either, sex is broken and sinful.

What I don’t understand is why sex must be unitive and procreative. I’ve done a bit of research, but every answer I’ve discovered simply says, “This is the natural law.” But no source I’ve found has given actual reasons for this Church teaching.

Can someone give a good explanation on this?

The natural moral law is part of human nature, because we are created in the image of God. Because of His image in us, certain things are consistent with HIs nature and also with our nature. When we follow the natural moral law, we follow the divine image He make a part of our human nature. When we break the natural moral law, we violate His nature in us - that is, we violate our own selves made in His image.

Procreative and unitive function exist together in the marital act, because the nexus of life (procreation) and love (union) were placed together in that act by God, deliberately and with intention. God is Life. God is Love. There is no divine love that is not fruitful; there is no divine love that is sterile. Divine love is necessarily fruitful, as revealed in Who God IS: God IS Trinity. In the Holy Trinity, God is eternally fruitful: the Father eternally begets the Son. In the Holy Trinity, God is eternally Loving: the love of the Father and the Son eternally spirates the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit IS the eternal Love of Father and Son. This is one possible way of looking at the eternal and infinite God, who is Trinity, who is eternal Love and Life inseparably, Indeed an eternal and infinite “dynamo” of Life and Love.

Thus, we who are made in the divine image must necessarily and intentionally live Life and Love always and inseparably bound together. In the marital embrace, the union of husband (Christ) and his wife (Church) must embrace both Life and Love together, lest they do violence to the divine image in them - and thus violence to God Himself. This is why, IMHO, contraception is such a horrific and grave violation of moral law.

However, God did not intend our fruitfulness to be only children: our love is to bring forth eternal life as well as natural life. Thus God designed periodic fertility in the woman, to allow fully human participation in the divine image, and in the planned growth of their family.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

If sex is supposed to be according to natural law, and natural law is based on how our bodies are designed, why doesn’t the church prohibit Viagra?

The male body is designed to lose it’s ability to achieve an erection as it ages. Taking drugs to thwart that so as to have more sex should also be a sin, no?

 

[Thinking10]

Every single medical procedure and every medication people take modifies the behavior of our bodies from the way God designed it. The same arguments that are used to absolutely prohibit contraception logically can be used to prohibit altering the body in any way.

Why aren’t surgery or medication banned? God designed our bodies to heal naturally. Why shouldn’t we let our bodies heal naturally instead of in man made ways?

 

[Seatuck]

I understand that the Church teaches us that sex has two aspects: the unitive and the procreative. Without either, sex is broken and sinful.

What I don’t understand is why sex must be unitive and procreative. I’ve done a bit of research, but every answer I’ve discovered simply says, “This is the natural law.” But no source I’ve found has given actual reasons for this Church teaching.

Can someone give a good explanation on this?

Read John Paul 2’s Theology of the Body.
The basics are that the love relationship in marriage is a humanly reflection of the love relationship in the Holy Trinity. The communication/relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is always unitive and procreative in a perpetual manner. Thus, the marital act which is one way in which human beings reflect this relationship must always reflect that. This doesn’t mean that we understand the Trinity to be engaging in a sexual relationship. It means that our human understanding and human relationship in marriage works that way.
Honestly , I’m not great at explaining it. Best if you get one of the studies that folks have done and look into it.
I used to recommend Christopher West but there has been some criticism about certain aspects of his presentation.

 

[Seatuck]

Catholic Answers has this one to offer:
shop.catholic.com/theology-of-the-body-for-beginners-revised-edition.html?___store=default

 

[Jaaanosik]

…

MarcoPolo:

As well, the normal function of a body is to be fertile, and that fertility bears fruit in the context of marital relations. Thus, as would be said according to “natural law,” the body itself speaks to fertility proper to that context. Thus, when someone engages in the marital act, they are unable to amputate their fertility from the act. They can only prevent the fruit of their fertility from reaching the other. This is what is meant by a person “lying” with their body. The marital act is the ultimate giving of the self toward the other. Contracepting says, "I give all of myself to you except my fertility."

Thus, one engages in the act of total giving without totally giving.

I think this argument is the most sound. But still: does that mean sex during which a partner is not focused, or is thinking of something else, or is otherwise distracted, is sinful?
…

This does not appear to me as the most sound argument after all.
The NFP couples work much harder in an unnatural way than the contracepting couples so the woman does not deliver her fertility during the marital act.

 

[THP]

I’m asking specifically about a true natural law argument about this. I don’t doubt that there is one, but no one has been able to provide it.

I’ve read almost every thread that deals with this topic on CAF over the past several years and have also yet to find a good response to this question. Including college courses, I’ve read HV probably 4 times and with no luck.

 

[THP]

This, I think, is different. I’m not so sure that natural law, rightly understood, has much to do with “what is natural” in the scientific sense.

I disagree. For natural law to be objective it must hold up to the rigor of a scientific reproducibility.

 

[Flame4]

If you want to understand why God wrote into the natural law that sex must be unitive and procreative, you need a theological answer. If something is the natural law, you can’t explain why it is so through the natural law as well, or you run into tautologies.

Sexual intercourse mirrors the Trinity: Father loves the Son, Son loves the Father, and the mutual love between them gives rise to another person, the Holy Spirit. The parallel is: Man loves Woman, Woman loves Man, mutual love results in another person…child.

Sex also mirrors the final unity of each soul to God (in the Beatific Vision). God, who is the initiator (as St. Paul says, God loved us first) is parallel to Man, who is physically the active agent in the sexual act. Woman is parallel to humanity, which receives the love and loves back. So it is a symbol of this ultimate destiny. However, it is also the means by which most people will reach this final destiny; Marriage is the most common vocation, by which people learn to selflessly love. By loving our spouses and children which arise from the union, we love God and are united to him. Being open to children also involves sacrificial love.

Best recommendation to learn more about this is Theology of the Body by St. John Paul II
Hope this helps, God bless.

 

[THP]

The natural moral law is part of human nature, because we are created in the image of God. Because of His image in us, certain things are consistent with HIs nature and also with our nature. When we follow the natural moral law, we follow the divine image He make a part of our human nature. When we break the natural moral law, we violate His nature in us - that is, we violate our own selves made in His image.

Procreative and unitive function exist together in the marital act, because the nexus of life (procreation) and love (union) were placed together in that act by God, deliberately and with intention. God is Life. God is Love. There is no divine love that is not fruitful; there is no divine love that is sterile. Divine love is necessarily fruitful, as revealed in Who God IS: God IS Trinity. In the Holy Trinity, God is eternally fruitful: the Father eternally begets the Son. In the Holy Trinity, God is eternally Loving: the love of the Father and the Son eternally spirates the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit IS the eternal Love of Father and Son. This is one possible way of looking at the eternal and infinite God, who is Trinity, who is eternal Love and Life inseparably, Indeed an eternal and infinite “dynamo” of Life and Love.

Thus, we who are made in the divine image must necessarily and intentionally live Life and Love always and inseparably bound together. In the marital embrace, the union of husband (Christ) and his wife (Church) must embrace both Life and Love together, lest they do violence to the divine image in them - and thus violence to God Himself. This is why, IMHO, contraception is such a horrific and grave violation of moral law.

However, God did not intend our fruitfulness to be only children: our love is to bring forth eternal life as well as natural life. Thus God designed periodic fertility in the woman, to allow fully human participation in the divine image, and in the planned growth of their family.

I would think that in order for natural law to be objective it cannot presuppose the existence of God.

I need to stop reading these threads. Every couple 3 or 4 months it causes me an existential crisis. I need to stay away from this site and go back to my simple day to day life.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But can’t you argue that the unitive/procreative view could lead to a man and women seeing each other merely as vessels for reproduction?

You could argue that, but to me, it is clearly not persuasive, as is the argument that contracepting tends toward objectification, where the latter would tend away from objectification. By tend, I mean more reasonable, healthy persons would tend away from objectification, and only a disordered mind would treat someone as a mere biological instrument.

But for the sake of argument, assume that such contraception exists. Wouldn’t the use of this contraception make your concern unnecessary?

For the sake of that argument, it would remain sinful for other reasons besides the offense against any offspring.

I think this argument is the most sound. But still: does that mean sex during which a partner is not focused, or is thinking of something else, or is otherwise distracted, is sinful?

I don’t want to get into a matter of obtusity that there is a mathematical measure of mental focus which equates to complete giving of the self. Certainly a person properly disposed toward love and avoids contraception can remain self-giving despite any distractions. On the other hand, if someone indulged unhealthy thoughts during the act, that could lead toward sin, so in that regard, it would indeed parallel contraception.

This, I think, is different. I’m not so sure that natural law, rightly understood, has much to do with “what is natural” in the scientific sense.

I would welcome you to come up with a natural law reason why murder or thievery is sinful. I think the answer to that question is the same as with contraception. Both are rooted in what it means to be a human being and the due dignity merited as such.

 

[MarcoPolo]

For natural law to be objective it must hold up to the rigor of a scientific reproducibility.

To what test must scientific reproducibility hold up to prove that it is the barometer of objectivity?

 

[MarcoPolo]

The NFP couples work much harder in an unnatural way than the contracepting couples so the woman does not deliver her fertility during the marital act.

I disagree because NFP couples are not engaging in that expression of giving of the self when avoiding conjugal relations. During that act, they are not withholding anything they are able to withhold. As well, not having relations is not necessarily “unnatural” as contracepting is every time. Their disposition remains in openness to life in accord with the language and design of the body. On the other hand, if the couple was using NFP imprudently, it could indeed lead to sin as with a contracepting couple.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This, I think, is different. I’m not so sure that natural law, rightly understood, has much to do with “what is natural” in the scientific sense.

I would also invite you to another thought exercise you may hear now and then. Compare contraception to a person who engages in bulimia nervosa (eating and then inducing vomiting).

Would you consider the later a sinful act? Against the natural law of personhood?

In both cases, you have someone who enjoys engaging in a normatively licit act, but introduces a “third party” (contraception/purging) to prevent the unwanted consequences of that act (potential pregnancy/weight gain).

 

[Jaaanosik]

If you want to understand why God wrote into the natural law that sex must be unitive and procreative, you need a theological answer. If something is the natural law, you can’t explain why it is so through the natural law as well, or you run into tautologies.

Sexual intercourse mirrors the Trinity: Father loves the Son, Son loves the Father, and the mutual love between them gives rise to another person, the Holy Spirit. The parallel is: Man loves Woman, Woman loves Man, mutual love results in another person…child.

Sex also mirrors the final unity of each soul to God (in the Beatific Vision). God, who is the initiator (as St. Paul says, God loved us first) is parallel to Man, who is physically the active agent in the sexual act. Woman is parallel to humanity, which receives the love and loves back. So it is a symbol of this ultimate destiny. However, it is also the means by which most people will reach this final destiny; Marriage is the most common vocation, by which people learn to selflessly love. By loving our spouses and children which arise from the union, we love God and are united to him. Being open to children also involves sacrificial love.

Best recommendation to learn more about this is Theology of the Body by St. John Paul II
Hope this helps, God bless.

The Natural Law stands on the human nature - capability to reason.
Humans reason about an object. What attributes are associated with the object. What are the goals, purpose of an existence of the object.
When the object fulfills its goal - it’s good.
When the object is being misused - not fulfilling its goal then it’s bad - it’s a sin.

If the object has two goals then the question is are the both goals supposed to be achieved at the same time? Why? Based on what reason?

The issue though is why the Church says how people are supposed practice sex?
Procreative means no obstruction, husbands finish inside of your wives.
It’s not important if the act is procreative in the real meaning of the word procreation. That’s irrelevant.
Go figure.