Why does every sex act have to be procreative, but not unitive?

[on_the_hill]

I’m just not getting this. Apologies in advance.

Is it correct to say that “unitive” is entirely physical? Husband and wife willingly give themselves physically to one another, which creates a state of unity?

I can’t be right in my interpretation.

Because if I am, that means a relationship is unitive if both spouses willingly give themselves physically to one another, even if one or both of them doesn’t really want to. For example, Mr. A says, “I don’t really want to have sexual relations with my wife, but she wants to have sexual relations with me. As her husband, I am committed to honoring her, and since I value that commitment and love her, I will do it.”

Or did I just spend time typing a scenario entirely far-fetched and wrong?

 

[ricofall]

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.

Contraceptives are intrinsically evil regardless of what kind they are.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[ActingCatholic]

I’m just not getting this. Apologies in advance.

Is it correct to say that “unitive” is entirely physical? Husband and wife willingly give themselves physically to one another, which creates a state of unity?

I can’t be right in my interpretation.

Because if I am, that means a relationship is unitive if both spouses willingly give themselves physically to one another, even if one or both of them doesn’t really want to. For example, Mr. A says, “I don’t really want to have sexual relations with my wife, but she wants to have sexual relations with me. As her husband, I am committed to honoring her, and since I value that commitment and love her, I will do it.”

Or did I just spend time typing a scenario entirely far-fetched and wrong?

No, the “one flesh” of marriage should not be considered to be only physical. That would be a very depressing state for marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

If one uses contraception, one separates the procreative from the unitive.
.

And such attacks both…

 

[ActingCatholic]

Contraceptives are intrinsically evil regardless of what kind they are.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I don’t think this is true, where in Humanae Vitae are you getting this?

Contraceptives appear to only be immoral when they are intended to be used as contraceptives, which would not make their evil intrinsic (evil in all cases regardless of circumstance)

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)"

 

[sw85]

I’m just not getting this. Apologies in advance.

Is it correct to say that “unitive” is entirely physical? Husband and wife willingly give themselves physically to one another, which creates a state of unity?

I can’t be right in my interpretation.

Because if I am, that means a relationship is unitive if both spouses willingly give themselves physically to one another, even if one or both of them doesn’t really want to. For example, Mr. A says, “I don’t really want to have sexual relations with my wife, but she wants to have sexual relations with me. As her husband, I am committed to honoring her, and since I value that commitment and love her, I will do it.”

Or did I just spend time typing a scenario entirely far-fetched and wrong?

I think your analysis is basically correct except for the “entirely physical” part. The unitive aspect of sex includes physical as well as spiritual and emotional communion. I gave a biological example of this earlier: orgasm releases a flood of bonding hormones in the brain that cause a more intimate relationship to form with the partner. So in general the unitive aspect of sex includes physical release (“remedy for concupiscence”) as well as enabling the maintenance of conjugal life.

One just has to bear in mind that the maintenance of the conjugal life is itself naturally ordered toward procreation. Bonding with your partner in this way makes it easier to have and raise children and to rejoice in doing it. This is why the procreative aspect of sex is primary, again, not in the sense of being superior but in the sense of being logically prior to the unitive aspect.

JPII put it really well in one of his books which I cannot now found. He said that while we talk about the different aspects or purposes of sex as if they were distinct, it is in principle impossible to separate them effectively. It’s rather like how we talk about God being justice and love and mercy and knowledge and power, etc., but these things are actually all the same in him.

 

[sw85]

I don’t think this is true, where in Humanae Vitae are you getting this?

Contraceptives appear to only be immoral when they are intended to be used as contraceptives, which would not make their evil intrinsic (evil in all cases regardless of circumstance)

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)"

You’re mostly right here, you’re just thinking about it in a slightly different (not technically incorrect one) way than the Church does. Contraception is indeed intrinsically immoral. When we say that, though, we mean “contraception qua contraception.” It is not immoral to take pills for legitimate medical reasons that have an unintended contraceptive side effect because that isn’t contraception.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think your analysis is basically correct except for the “entirely physical” part. The unitive aspect of sex includes physical as well as spiritual and emotional communion. I gave a biological example of this earlier: orgasm releases a flood of bonding hormones in the brain that cause a more intimate relationship to form with the partner. So in general the unitive aspect of sex includes physical release (“remedy for concupiscence”) as well as enabling the maintenance of conjugal life.

One just has to bear in mind that the maintenance of the conjugal life is itself naturally ordered toward procreation. Bonding with your partner in this way makes it easier to have and raise children and to rejoice in doing it. This is why the procreative aspect of sex is primary, again, not in the sense of being superior but in the sense of being logically prior to the unitive aspect.

JPII put it really well in one of his books which I cannot now found. He said that while we talk about the different aspects or purposes of sex as if they were distinct, it is in principle impossible to separate them effectively. It’s rather like how we talk about God being justice and love and mercy and knowledge and power, etc., but these things are actually all the same in him.

Thank you, I’ve a better understanding now.

 

[JimG]

I’m just not getting this. Apologies in advance.

Is it correct to say that “unitive” is entirely physical? Husband and wife willingly give themselves physically to one another, which creates a state of unity?

I can’t be right in my interpretation.

Because if I am, that means a relationship is unitive if both spouses willingly give themselves physically to one another, even if one or both of them doesn’t really want to. For example, Mr. A says, “I don’t really want to have sexual relations with my wife, but she wants to have sexual relations with me. As her husband, I am committed to honoring her, and since I value that commitment and love her, I will do it.”

Or did I just spend time typing a scenario entirely far-fetched and wrong?

Keep in mind that husbands and wives to a lot of things for each other that they may not be inclined to do at any given moment, even if they are not in the mood. A wife asks her husband to mop the kitchen floor. He does it not because it is his favorite thing but because he loves her. Spouses do a lot of things for each other out of love that are not in themselves something to which they would be inclined at a particular time.

And spouses should not deny each other physcial intimacy unreasonably. Yes, a relationship is unitive if the parties give themselves to each other. Feelings follow action.

 

[ActingCatholic]

You’re mostly right here, you’re just thinking about it in a slightly different (not technically incorrect one) way than the Church does. Contraception is indeed intrinsically immoral. When we say that, though, we mean “contraception qua contraception.” It is not immoral to take pills for legitimate medical reasons that have an unintended contraceptive side effect because that isn’t contraception.

You’re right; this is the difference between contraception and contraceptives. The post I was replying to said that contraceptives are intrinsically evil, which I suppose is silly regardless, because a pill or a condom does not have a soul or free will by which to choose evil.

 

[Debora123]

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?

You raise some excellent points/questions. Things I have wondered about and thought about myself and simply cannot wrap my head around.

Thanks for posting this.

 

[LilyM]

I would argue that when one partner unwillingly and passively “submits” to relations - perhaps stopping short of the idea of “marital rape” but still along those lines - in that circumstance the act is certainly not unitive, say what you will about the mere physical geometry of coupling.

It can be unitive in that sense of ‘self-giving’ regardless, because it is something they are doing for the sake of pleasing their partner and thus keeping the marotal bond strong.

Like the person who doesn’t enjoy rom-com movies or sci-fi movies who will go to them with their partner anyway because it is good for the unity of the couple that each occasionally does what makes the other happy.

I’m not talking about cases where the partner who gives in spends the whole time being resentful or whatnot - but we are called on to try to avoid that sort of attitude in any of the many self-sacrifices marriage involves, whether in movie choice, sex or anything else. And I think someone with a truly Catholic appreciation of marriage usually will manage to avoid it.

 

[sw85]

To say “that a couple’s “openness to life” should be judged by the marriage as a whole, not each and every act” is heretical.

Missed this earlier, but it’s worth reiterating. The “openness to life” required is not some kind of vague, general disposition (which conveniently never has to be acted on). It’s a concrete feature of the act itself. “Openness to life” is required because life is what procreation, i.e., sex, is about. If you want to have lifeless sex then you are saying, in essence, that you don’t want to be a human being.

To say that a couple’s openness to life should be evaluated in some way other than their objective, actual (in the meaningful sense, pertaining to their actions) openness to life is simply to say that morality should be evaluated according to some arbitrary, alien standard other than the one God ordained in human nature.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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’ve pondered this extensively because I simply don’t understand the Church’s position with regard to certain aspects of sex. Then I came to realization that the focus, discussion, and “rules” on sex are geared toward procreation primarily, as expected, because it deals with the survival of the species.

Fact is, the procreative and unitive aspects of sex are rarely equal. The procreative aspect is most important when one is younger, and completely disappears when one is older. Procreation or “ordered to procreation” are simply meaningless if we’re dealing with an 80-year-old couple, where the woman has had a hysterectomy and the man is sterile due to chemo treatments because of prostrate cancer. Yet they can marry and have sex, which is objectively only unitive in nature. They might be imitating a procreative act, but it objectively is not procreative.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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’ve thought about this also. From a legalistic viewpoint, I could theoretically see a barrier method being permitted for a married couple that is objectively sterile (say for disease prevention). You can’t contracept if you can’t conceive in the first place.

Do I think it will happen? No.

 

[LilyM]

I’ve pondered this extensively because I simply don’t understand the Church’s position with regard to certain aspects of sex. Then I came to realization that the focus, discussion, and “rules” on sex are geared toward procreation primarily, as expected, because it deals with the survival of the species.

Fact is, the procreative and unitive aspects of sex are rarely equal. The procreative aspect is most important when one is younger, and completely disappears when one is older. Procreation or “ordered to procreation” are simply meaningless if we’re dealing with an 80-year-old couple, where the woman has had a hysterectomy and the man is sterile due to chemo treatments because of prostrate cancer. Yet they can marry and have sex, which is objectively only unitive in nature. They might be imitating a procreative act, but it objectively is not procreative.

Tell that to Abraham - he and Sarah were every bit as convinced that it was impossible for them to have kids. Same with Zechariah and Elizabeth. God of course had other ideas. They were not merely imitating a procreative act, they were performing an act which God chose to make creative when they were least expecting it.

Imagine if they had said to Him ‘excuse me God, but we don’t like Your plan that we have children at this stage of our lives, we’re not prepared’ and practiced whatever artificial birth control was available (and they did have methods, not quite as reliable as ours of course).

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Tell that to Abraham - he and Sarah were every bit as convinced that it was impossible for them to have kids. Same with Zechariah and Elizabeth. God of course had other ideas. They were not merely imitating a procreative act, they were performing an act which God chose to make creative when they were least expecting it.

Imagine if they had said to Him ‘excuse me God, but we don’t like Your plan that we have children at this stage of our lives, we’re not prepared’ and practiced whatever artificial birth control was available (and they did have methods, not quite as reliable as ours of course).

If you’re a faithful Catholic, then you are aware that if God wishes you to get pregnant, then you don’t even need a husband or man in the first place. With that fact, it is ludicrous to believe that if God wants you to get pregnant that you can stop it.

 

[LilyM]

If you’re a faithful Catholic, then you are aware that if God wishes you to get pregnant, then you don’t even need a husband or man in the first place. With that fact, it is ludicrous to believe that if God wants you to get pregnant that you can stop it.

Oh but you can stop it even if God wants it to happen. It’s called free will. It is called sin.

God wanted Onan to impregnate his brother’s widow. He deliberately thwarted God’s plan. She did not get pregnant. God wanted Adam and Eve - and Satan - to be faithful and obedient. They chose otherwise. God wants everyone to be in heaven with Him. They also choose otherwise.

 

[Debora123]

Tell that to Abraham - he and Sarah were every bit as convinced that it was impossible for them to have kids. Same with Zechariah and Elizabeth. God of course had other ideas. They were not merely imitating a procreative act, they were performing an act which God chose to make creative when they were least expecting it.

Lol I’m sorry but getting pregnant after a hysterectomy is impossible.

Sure, miracles have happened in regards to conception…

…But your example above is just like hearing a girl say “I’m a virgin and I’ve never even kissed a boy, so there’s no way I’m pregnant…” and telling her “Oh yeah? Tell that to the Blessed Mother!”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I think your analysis is basically correct except for the “entirely physical” part. The unitive aspect of sex includes physical as well as spiritual and emotional communion. I gave a biological example of this earlier: orgasm releases a flood of bonding hormones in the brain that cause a more intimate relationship to form with the partner. So in general the unitive aspect of sex includes physical release (“remedy for concupiscence”) as well as enabling the maintenance of conjugal life.

One just has to bear in mind that the maintenance of the conjugal life is itself naturally ordered toward procreation. Bonding with your partner in this way makes it easier to have and raise children and to rejoice in doing it. This is why the procreative aspect of sex is primary, again, not in the sense of being superior but in the sense of being logically prior to the unitive aspect.

JPII put it really well in one of his books which I cannot now found. He said that while we talk about the different aspects or purposes of sex as if they were distinct, it is in principle impossible to separate them effectively. It’s rather like how we talk about God being justice and love and mercy and knowledge and power, etc., but these things are actually all the same in him.

Why can’t we separate them?

Here’s an example of procreative sex that is not unitive: my wife is very ill, crying from being in serious pain and I push her down and have sex with her. If there’s no artificial birth control and it ends as usual, it’s ordered towards creation but not unitive. In this case, it’s actually disunitive before it is procreative.