S
sdeco
Guest
According to the Church, there are two aspects to the marital act – the procreative and the unitive. Supposedly, these two aspects are equal. Why, then, does the Church insist that each and every martial act must be procreative, but they don’t insist that each and every marital act must be unitive? It seems like the procreative aspect is actually more important than the unitive, despite what the Church says.
I understand that the Church does not say that the couple must intend to have a child every time they have sex. Couples can have sex during the woman’s infertile phase, when she’s already pregnant or past menopause, etc. But the Church does say that every act must end with the man finishing inside the woman. This must happen even when it’s impossible for the woman to get pregnant, such as when she’s already pregnant or past menopause. Not doing so is a mortal sin.
But the Church does not insist that each and every act must be unitive. For example, if a couple is having trouble conceiving and is stressed out about it, they may end up having rote, passionless sex solely for the purpose of trying to conceive. While the Church might say this is not ideal, having this type of sex (which is solely procreative and not unitive) is not considered a mortal sin.
Furthermore, the teaching that every act must be procreative often harms the unitive dimension of sex, such as in cases where the fertile time is hard to determine and long periods of abstinence are necessary.
Once I was reading a thread on a Catholic blog about NFP, and several people took issue with the teaching that each and every act has to end with the man finishing inside the woman with no barriers. They proposed the interesting idea that a couple’s “openness to life” should be judged by the marriage as a whole, not each and every act. After all, this seems to be how the Church views the unitive dimension of sex – it teaches that the unitive dimension is important to marriage and must be present in the couple’s sex life, but it does not have to be there with each and every act.
Also, it seems like Church teaching has evolved on this issue. Didn’t the Church used to teach that sex is ONLY for procreation, and having sex for bonding or pleasure was a venial sin at best? Later on, they acknowledged that sex without the intention of conceiving was not a sin, but they only grudgingly allowed the rhythm method (the only known NFP method at the time) if the couple really had a grave reason to avoid pregnancy. It seemed like they still thought the best thing to do was accept children whenever they came. Then the Church evolved further, and now they seem to think NFP is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and while they don’t say couples have to use NFP, there’s an implication that using NFP is actually superior to providentialism.
The Church will never allow abortfacient contraception, but given the way the Church has evolved, it seems to me that they are moving in the direction of allowing barrier methods or non-procreative acts, as long as the marriage as a whole is open to life and the couple marries with the intention of having children.
Any thoughts?
I understand that the Church does not say that the couple must intend to have a child every time they have sex. Couples can have sex during the woman’s infertile phase, when she’s already pregnant or past menopause, etc. But the Church does say that every act must end with the man finishing inside the woman. This must happen even when it’s impossible for the woman to get pregnant, such as when she’s already pregnant or past menopause. Not doing so is a mortal sin.
But the Church does not insist that each and every act must be unitive. For example, if a couple is having trouble conceiving and is stressed out about it, they may end up having rote, passionless sex solely for the purpose of trying to conceive. While the Church might say this is not ideal, having this type of sex (which is solely procreative and not unitive) is not considered a mortal sin.
Furthermore, the teaching that every act must be procreative often harms the unitive dimension of sex, such as in cases where the fertile time is hard to determine and long periods of abstinence are necessary.
Once I was reading a thread on a Catholic blog about NFP, and several people took issue with the teaching that each and every act has to end with the man finishing inside the woman with no barriers. They proposed the interesting idea that a couple’s “openness to life” should be judged by the marriage as a whole, not each and every act. After all, this seems to be how the Church views the unitive dimension of sex – it teaches that the unitive dimension is important to marriage and must be present in the couple’s sex life, but it does not have to be there with each and every act.
Also, it seems like Church teaching has evolved on this issue. Didn’t the Church used to teach that sex is ONLY for procreation, and having sex for bonding or pleasure was a venial sin at best? Later on, they acknowledged that sex without the intention of conceiving was not a sin, but they only grudgingly allowed the rhythm method (the only known NFP method at the time) if the couple really had a grave reason to avoid pregnancy. It seemed like they still thought the best thing to do was accept children whenever they came. Then the Church evolved further, and now they seem to think NFP is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and while they don’t say couples have to use NFP, there’s an implication that using NFP is actually superior to providentialism.
The Church will never allow abortfacient contraception, but given the way the Church has evolved, it seems to me that they are moving in the direction of allowing barrier methods or non-procreative acts, as long as the marriage as a whole is open to life and the couple marries with the intention of having children.
Any thoughts?
Aren’t all such acts unitive by their very nature? I cannot think of how one could remove the unitive aspect and have it resemble such an act in any way. Maybe I just don’t have enough of an imagination. 
