D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
It’s not a spiritual union.
There is no spiritual union in marriage.
A quadruple amputee remains a person despite the fact that man has two arms and two legs.
- Status
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
What kind of union is it? It does seem to be more than just physical. Otherwise what is the purpose of the sacrament?
L
LilyM
Guest
I think few of us are really saying that there cannot be such a thing as marital sex which is not unitive. Sex such as you have described is rape, which is immoral. Yes, rape can also be procreative. That does not make it morally good in marriage or out. The Church does not claim that rape does not occur within marriage, in the contrary.
In condemning, as the church does, marital rape, what else can she be saying except that marital sex must indeed always be unitive as well as ordered to procreation? Some posters have seemed to imply that sex when one partner is not in the mood cannot be unitive. I disagree, as I said earlier. I think it can be unitive even so. I would not say it always is, of course.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
A carnal one. Marriages are dissolved at death (“until death do us part”).
L
LilyM
Guest
That doesn’t mean it’s not a spiritual exercise or a spiritual bond - after all, the spiritual effects of confession are dissolved if we sin mortally thereafter.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
A woman that has a hysterectomy also remains a person. However, a quadruple amputee loses the ability to walk and grab things, and a woman without a womb loses the ability to procreate. And, in the case of a woman without a womb, there is no Biblical or Traditional basis for such a woman having a child.
R
ricofall
Guest
I should clarify by saying the action of contracepting by taking a pill or other is evil.
Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong… -Humanae Vitae
B
Bookcat
Guest
Not sure the complete context of the above…
but in terms of *marriage itself *–
For Christians it is a Sacrament – so there is a spiritual reality – beyond the bodily one. A bond established by God.
Catechism:
1638 "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament."142
1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.146
1661 The sacrament of Matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church; the grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1799).
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#IV
Compendium
- What are the effects of the sacrament of Matrimony?
The sacrament of Matrimony establishes a perpetual and exclusive bond between the spouses. God himself seals the consent of the spouses. Therefore, a marriage which is ratified and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. Furthermore, this sacrament bestows upon the spouses the grace necessary to attain holiness in their married life and to accept responsibly the gift of children and provide for their education.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#The%20Sacraments%20at%20the%20Service%20of%20Communion%20and%20Mission
S
sw85
Guest
Notice I said “in principle,” not “in practice.”
T
THP
Guest
This is a topic I will never understand or be able to wrap my head around. I guess I am too stupid. We KNOW from our human experience that sex can be unitive but not procreative in the case of contraception/condoms within a marriage. The Church then argues that: " no you are wrong, because you you were contracepting it was actually not unitive". I have had sex with my wife while using contraception and while not using contraception and really cannot tell a difference. It is all unitive in my experience. I suppose there are times when procreative sex is frightening after the act due to concerns you might conceive at an inopportune time.
Anyway, 2 hypothetical scenarios:
Anyway, 2 hypothetical scenarios:
- A married couple has what is in their mind unitive sex while using contraception. Clearly the Church says this is wrong because it is neither procreative and if I understand correctly, not unitive either. Let’s say there is a contraceptive failure and she conceives and they are overjoyed and go on to have a beautiful child. Clearly the act was procreative, and their experience was unitive, do they still need to go to confession?
- A married couple has unitive and procreative sex. No problem so far. The next morning they decide they really don’t want to be pregnant right now so they go to her doctor and order a stat progesterone level that confirms she hasn’t ovulated. She takes plan B and does not get pregnant because she does not ovulate that month. Does this action change the nature of an event that has already occurred retroactively? Ie can you take an event which has already occurred and is completed which was entirely licit and change its nature later?
T
THP
Guest
Based only on what others have written in this thread who admittedly are much more knowledgeable than me.
T
THP
Guest
T
THP
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Sex that is not procreative can be unitive in a literalistic sense - obviously the bodies of the two are physically united. But the Church means a different thing by ‘unitive’ - they mean a complete and unreserved self-giving.
Contraception is not unreserved - something important is being held back and not given - one’s fertility, one’s reproductive capacity. One is in fact SO reserved in one’s giving when artificially contracepting that one messes with one’s God-given body - be it surgically, chemically or by use of physical barriers - so as to maintain one’s separateness and ensure in a most emphatic way that one is keeping something from ine’s spouse that should be freely given.
It is a bit like promising to share all one’s worldly goods with one’s spouse and then not only refusing to give them something (money or some valuable object) but purposely telling them that you intend to lock said money or object away from them in a bank vault, that is how strongly you feel about NOT sharing with them.
Contraception is not unreserved - something important is being held back and not given - one’s fertility, one’s reproductive capacity. One is in fact SO reserved in one’s giving when artificially contracepting that one messes with one’s God-given body - be it surgically, chemically or by use of physical barriers - so as to maintain one’s separateness and ensure in a most emphatic way that one is keeping something from ine’s spouse that should be freely given.
It is a bit like promising to share all one’s worldly goods with one’s spouse and then not only refusing to give them something (money or some valuable object) but purposely telling them that you intend to lock said money or object away from them in a bank vault, that is how strongly you feel about NOT sharing with them.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Mary Gail 36:
Once again, I don’t see where you people are coming from by saying this… you’re not the only person to have repeated it… let’s consider some examples…
- A sexual act done in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled, but one spouse is belittling or demeaning the other during the act… this is unitive?
- A sexual act done in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled, but one spouse is in pain and the other ignores that… this is unitive?
- A sexual act done in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled, but it is being done in front of an audience… this is unitive?
- A sexual act done in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled, but some of the prudential elements involve things that one spouse has expressed repeated and pronounced distaste for (e.g., let’s say, a certain position, or a particular kind of simultaneous stimulation)… this is unitive?
D
Debora123
Guest
Excellent points/questions.
S
sw85
Guest
Note she said in the proper fashion. The proper fashion naturally excludes all the circumstances you mention, because the proper fashion is marital (indissoluble, permanent, and above all, exclusive), consensual, loving, etc. Maybe she meant something else but, on the other hand, a plain reading of her words would seem to preclude all of your "But!"s.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Thank you. He didn’t quote the first part of my post. I did mention “Illicit sexual practices” as disrupting the unitive and procreative aspects.
Spousal abuse, coercion, pornographic performances all are abuses of human sexuality.
Human sexuality must be unitive, procreative, marital, freely self giving, and reflective of the Holy Trinity.
I didn’t think I needed to include all that in my answer, but ok. 
The theologian Germain Grizes writes about human sexuality in his work, “The Way of the Lord Jesus”.
It’s very thorough. He is one of the last surviving theologians who assisted in compiling Humanae Vitae. He worked with Father John C. Ford, SJ.
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
Things might have been clearer if it hadn’t appeared that your definition of the “proper fashion” was, in your words, “for the procreative end to be fulfilled.” Sadly, much of our marital theology is burdened by language such as “the marriage debt” and “the marital obligation.” Such frameworks have historically left little room for a true understanding of “unitive,” preferring instead to deal with biological geometry.Thank you. He didn’t quote the first part of my post. I did mention “Illicit sexual practices” as disrupting the unitive and procreative aspects.
Spousal abuse, coercion, pornographic performances all are abuses of human sexuality.
Human sexuality must be unitive, procreative, marital, freely self giving, and reflective of the Holy Trinity.
The theologian Germain Grizes writes about human sexuality in his work, “The Way of the Lord Jesus”.
It’s very thorough. He is one of the last surviving theologians who assisted in compiling Humanae Vitae. He worked with Father John C. Ford, SJ.
- Status