What happens in non-Sacramental sex?

[BlaineTog]

Hello, all. I have a two-part question, the first of which is purely philosophical. Please save matters regarding morality for question 2. As a disclaimer, I’m Catholic, I’m a virgin, and there’s no chance of either of those things changing in the foreseeable future. I’m just really curious about the mechanics of this. Please, no poetry in your answer, just the facts. I’ve found almost no straightforward logical argumentation on this point and it’s quite frustrating. Thanks!

1. What I want to know is, what is sex outside of the sacrament of marriage on an ontological – not moral – level?

Here’s what I mean: when a married couple has sex, they join together as one spirit through the grace of God, the ultimate expression of which is the creation of an entirely new spirit that is yet part of both of them (a child). With any of the aspects of sex impaired, this cannot happen and the sex ceases to be sacramental.

But here’s the thing: the sex can still happen. Two unmarried people can have sex, two married people can have sex with a condom, etc. When that occurs, it would seem that they don’t join together as they would in the full expression of sex, but they still have sex of a sort. So, what sort? What happens? Something must happen instead of a perfect joining, yet I can’t seem to find any explanations as to what that something is.

1. How does the answer from #1 lead to the conclusion that non-sacramental sex is morally wrong? It’s clear that an unmarried couple, for example, cannot give all of themselves to each other in sex since the act isn’t taking place in the lifelong confines of marriage, but why does that mean it’s “bad” rather than simply “less good”? Giving a thousand dollars to charity is still good even if you could’ve given five thousand dollars, to give a crass but clear counterexample.

Thank you for your time.

 

[hazcompat]

God is offended!

 

[mountee]

As a Catholic we are given Truths within our faith that we must take to heart and use to live our earthly lives. You pose two questions that seem to show some understanding of the position of the Chirch yet you also seem to be looking at the other side of the issue which many people who don’t agree with us hold to be true for themselves. Rather than spend time thinking about this why not read the following and then consider what was written by Pope Paul VI in 1968.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[paduard]

Hello, all. I have a two-part question, the first of which is purely philosophical. Please save matters regarding morality for question 2. As a disclaimer, I’m Catholic, I’m a virgin, and there’s no chance of either of those things changing in the foreseeable future. I’m just really curious about the mechanics of this. Please, no poetry in your answer, just the facts. I’ve found almost no straightforward logical argumentation on this point and it’s quite frustrating. Thanks!

1. What I want to know is, what is sex outside of the sacrament of marriage on an ontological – not moral – level?

Here’s what I mean: when a married couple has sex, they join together as one spirit through the grace of God, the ultimate expression of which is the creation of an entirely new spirit that is yet part of both of them (a child). With any of the aspects of sex impaired, this cannot happen and the sex ceases to be sacramental.

But here’s the thing: the sex can still happen. Two unmarried people can have sex, two married people can have sex with a condom, etc. When that occurs, it would seem that they don’t join together as they would in the full expression of sex, but they still have sex of a sort. So, what sort? What happens? Something must happen instead of a perfect joining, yet I can’t seem to find any explanations as to what that something is.

1. How does the answer from #1 lead to the conclusion that non-sacramental sex is morally wrong? It’s clear that an unmarried couple, for example, cannot give all of themselves to each other in sex since the act isn’t taking place in the lifelong confines of marriage, but why does that mean it’s “bad” rather than simply “less good”? Giving a thousand dollars to charity is still good even if you could’ve given five thousand dollars, to give a crass but clear counterexample.

Thank you for your time.

As regards your post in question I read some confusing. For example in the first part you express the term ‘they join together as one spirit’. For me that expresses a joining of the flesh i.e. a physical coming together - unless of course you mean two spirits becoming one which is impossible - although I doubt you mean that.

Regards…

 

[BlaineTog]

As a Catholic we are given Truths within our faith that we must take to heart and use to live our earthly lives. You pose two questions that seem to show some understanding of the position of the Chirch yet you also seem to be looking at the other side of the issue which many people who don’t agree with us hold to be true for themselves. Rather than spend time thinking about this why not read the following and then consider what was written by Pope Paul VI in 1968.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Thank you for the link, but I still want to know the answers to my questions. There’s no impiety in trying to understand one’s faith, and I find it easiest to do so by approaching from multiple angles.

 

[aemcpa]

Here’s what I mean: when a married couple has sex, they join together as one spirit through the grace of God, the ultimate expression of which is the creation of an entirely new spirit that is yet part of both of them (a child). With any of the aspects of sex impaired, this cannot happen and the sex ceases to be sacramental.

Source?

 

[ricofall]

Hello, all. I have a two-part question, the first of which is purely philosophical. Please save matters regarding morality for question 2. As a disclaimer, I’m Catholic, I’m a virgin, and there’s no chance of either of those things changing in the foreseeable future. I’m just really curious about the mechanics of this. Please, no poetry in your answer, just the facts. I’ve found almost no straightforward logical argumentation on this point and it’s quite frustrating. Thanks!

1. What I want to know is, what is sex outside of the sacrament of marriage on an ontological – not moral – level?

Here’s what I mean: when a married couple has sex, they join together as one spirit through the grace of God, the ultimate expression of which is the creation of an entirely new spirit that is yet part of both of them (a child). With any of the aspects of sex impaired, this cannot happen and the sex ceases to be sacramental.

But here’s the thing: the sex can still happen. Two unmarried people can have sex, two married people can have sex with a condom, etc. When that occurs, it would seem that they don’t join together as they would in the full expression of sex, but they still have sex of a sort. So, what sort? What happens? Something must happen instead of a perfect joining, yet I can’t seem to find any explanations as to what that something is.

1. How does the answer from #1 lead to the conclusion that non-sacramental sex is morally wrong? It’s clear that an unmarried couple, for example, cannot give all of themselves to each other in sex since the act isn’t taking place in the lifelong confines of marriage, but why does that mean it’s “bad” rather than simply “less good”? Giving a thousand dollars to charity is still good even if you could’ve given five thousand dollars, to give a crass but clear counterexample.

Thank you for your time.

#1: If you had sex using some type of birth control, then you are just having sex for the shear pleasure of yourself. It is almost the same as masturbation. They have sex alright, but it is not longer to become one.

#2: Since you are just having sex for pleasure, then it leads to see sex as something to be pleasured by on demand. Since marriage is not needed have sex anymore, and you want to be pleasures by another person, then you start to have sex, outside of marriage, for the sheer sake of pleasure confusing sex for love (in case of females) or sex for pleasure (in case of males). Males that feel their partner is not providing the sex they want, finds someone else to give them that pleasure, after all, it is just sex to them. Females looking for love start to offer their body to men to find it, since love equals sex in their mind.

Did that make sense?

 

[natashapa]

Well…this leads me to a side question. I am post-menopausal. My husband and I have been married 25 years. This means we are having sex knowing procreation is not possible, even though we are married. I assume this is not an issue…but honestly? I don’t know the position of the Church.

 

[BlaineTog]

#2: Since you are just having sex for pleasure, then it leads to see sex as something to be pleasured by on demand. Since marriage is not needed have sex anymore, and you want to be pleasures by another person, then you start to have sex, outside of marriage, for the sheer sake of pleasure confusing sex for love (in case of females) or sex for pleasure (in case of males). Males that feel their partner is not providing the sex they want, finds someone else to give them that pleasure, after all, it is just sex to them. Females looking for love start to offer their body to men to find it, since love equals sex in their mind.

Ok, this is a slippery slope argument (which are fallacious), and also circular logic. You’re starting from the premise that premarital sex is wrong to prove that premarital sex is wrong.

Please understand, I’m not arguing that premarital sex is ok. I’m merely trying to learn from #2 exactly what makes it inherently sinful. That requires starting from as blank a slate as possible.

Well…this leads me to a side question. I am post-menopausal. My husband and I have been married 25 years. This means we are having sex knowing procreation is not possible, even though we are married. I assume this is not an issue…but honestly? I don’t know the position of the Church.

This one’s pretty easy: there’s nothing wrong with that at all according to the Church. It’s kinda like how Natural Family Planning is ok, as is taking medicine for health purposes that happens to also cause infertility (as long as the infertility wasn’t the reason for taking the medicine).

 

[ricofall]

Well…this leads me to a side question. I am post-menopausal. My husband and I have been married 25 years. This means we are having sex knowing procreation is not possible, even though we are married. I assume this is not an issue…but honestly? I don’t know the position of the Church.

Procreation may not be possible normally but it can still happen in rare cases. So you are still being open to life even though it is not possible to conceive normally.

 

[ricofall]

Ok, this is a slippery slope argument (which are fallacious), and also circular logic. You’re starting from the premise that premarital sex is wrong to prove that premarital sex is wrong.

Please understand, I’m not arguing that premarital sex is ok. I’m merely trying to learn from #2 exactly what makes it inherently sinful. That requires starting from as blank a slate as possible.

Well, can you define what sin is then so I can know what direction to come from? It seems you want a purely logical answer with no theology in the answer. Is that correct?

 

[BlaineTog]

Well, can you define what sin is then so I can know what direction to come from? It seems you want a purely logical answer with no theology in the answer. Is that correct?

I’m looking for a purely logical answer in the Catholic framework, in which case sin would be defined as separation from God.

 

[aemcpa]

Your assumption that all non-sacramental sex is immoral is false. Two non-baptized people can contract a valid, natural marriage and have sex without committing a sin.