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

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

I was responding to the OP, who, paraphrasing, thought that if a couple was having passionless sex in order to conceive it wasn’t unitive.

It is unitive if they are both married and consenting to the encounter. The passion does not make it unitive, although it is a wonderful goal.

I’m sure during the course of history there have been validly Catholic married couples who gave themselves willing and lovingly to their spouse, yet never felt “passion”.

The lack of passion didn’t make their sexuality illicit.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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.

I’ll explain my confusion.

You said, specifically:

If the sexual act is done in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled, it is unitive.

If you were using “in the proper fashion” as a substitute for “unitive” then your sentence suddenly reads:

If the sexual act is done [in a unitive fashion] for the procreative end to be fulfilled, it is unitive.

That would have been a nonsensical statement. Of course something that is unitive is unitive. That’s a tautology.

I mean, maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see why something cannot be done “in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled” and yet simultaneously be non-unitive.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I was responding to the OP, who, paraphrasing, thought that **if a couple was having passionless sex in order to conceive it wasn’t unitive. **

It is unitive if they are both married and consenting to the encounter. The passion does not make it unitive, although it is a wonderful goal.

I’m sure during the course of history there have been validly Catholic married couples who gave themselves willing and lovingly to their spouse, yet never felt “passion”.

The lack of passion didn’t make their sexuality illicit.

A couple engaging in passionless sex to conceive is unitive because they are united in working for a common goal.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’ll explain my confusion.

You said, specifically:

If you were using “in the proper fashion” as a substitute for “unitive” then your sentence suddenly reads:

That would have been a nonsensical statement. Of course something that is unitive is unitive. That’s a tautology.

I mean, maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see why something cannot be done “in the proper fashion for the procreative end to be fulfilled” and yet simultaneously be non-unitive.

I probably should have used the term “marital act” instead of “sexual act.”

Marital act would refer to a licit, married, self -giving act. Rape is a sexual act. Rape is not a licit marital act.

I probably was just using the same terms as the OP, sorry for the confusion.

Germain Grizes (who I mentioned in my other post) uses the term “marital act”.

He does say that an act ceases to be “marital” if there is coercion, if one of the partners finds it repugnant etc. I actually prefer the terminology he uses. To me it’s clearer than “unitive and procreative” Which, I concede is a bit confusing.

 

[EasterJoy]

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…

There is a degree to which emotional unity cannot be called up by will, and to that degree the Church cannot compel that which is not always under the direct control of the will. Of course to the degree that unity is under the control of the will, everything a Catholic couple do ought to be unitive, because unity and indissolubility are the two essential properties of marriage.

Besides, procreation can only begin via the marital act, whereas unity is the work of everything a married couple does as a couple. If procreation is taken out of the marital act, then procreation is either banished from the marriage or banished from its single natural state, whereas how would anyone ever engage in the marital act as a cooperative venture, if there was no unity? If there really is really no unity in the marital act, it is just a rape, even if it is a mutual rape. It goes without saying that this is forbidden, one would hope!

You also have to remember that procreation must also not be divorced for the naturally cooperative nature of the marital act. It is not OK for a couple to achieve procreation by means other than the marital act. That would violate the unitive nature built into the manner of procreation that God put into marriage.

 

[sdeco]

I guess i don’t really understand what the Church means by “unitive.” I thought “unitive” meant expressing your love for each other, bonding, etc. But it sounds like most people on this thread are saying that if everything ends up in the right place, with the man finishing inside the woman, then the act is “unitive,” as long as it’s consensual. It sounds like “unitive” means the exact same thing as “procreative.” “Procreative” also means that the man must finish inside the woman, even if the couple is not intending to have a child. So why distinguish between unitive and procreative, if they mean the same thing?

Also, why does the church insist that the man always finish inside the woman even when it’s impossible for her to get pregnant, such as if she’s already pregnant, past menopause, etc.?

 

[thewanderer]

I guess i don’t really understand what the Church means by "unitive." I thought “unitive” meant expressing your love for each other, bonding, etc. But it sounds like most people on this thread are saying that if everything ends up in the right place, with the man finishing inside the woman, then the act is “unitive,” as long as it’s consensual. It sounds like “unitive” means the exact same thing as “procreative.” “Procreative” also means that the man must finish inside the woman, even if the couple is not intending to have a child. So why distinguish between unitive and procreative, if they mean the same thing?

Also, why does the church insist that the man always finish inside the woman even when it’s impossible for her to get pregnant, such as if she’s already pregnant, past menopause, etc.?

I don’t think anybody really does know exactly what is meant by it. This is one of those things where I have heard different Catholics claim all sorts of different things about what is meant by “unitive” but have not seen any of their claims backed up by Church teaching.

 

[THP]

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.

Your answer is very nicely stated and I understand what you are saying but this is also why the Church has such a hard time reaching people on this subject and explaining it (also why it is rarely addressed by priests). It just not consistent with what people experience in marital sex. It’s as if an authority figure, who is blind, decrees that red is no longer red, it is now green, even though we all know what red is because of how we experience color. And not only that, if you don’t agree you can go to Hell (literally).

 

[Em_in_FL]

I guess i don’t really understand what the Church means by “unitive.” I thought “unitive” meant expressing your love for each other, bonding, etc. But it sounds like most people on this thread are saying that if everything ends up in the right place, with the man finishing inside the woman, then the act is “unitive,” as long as it’s consensual. It sounds like “unitive” means the exact same thing as “procreative.” “Procreative” also means that the man must finish inside the woman, even if the couple is not intending to have a child. So why distinguish between unitive and procreative, if they mean the same thing?

Let’s take a step back.
God created the biological function of reproduction for ALL creatures. Trees have sexual relations, fish have sexual relations, bugs, dogs, etc, etc. These are all procreative acts. Most of God’s creation goes through this action instinctually. God gave humans a special ability to bond, both physically and spiritually. Humans are the only creatures God granted an eternal SOUL to. This elevates the sexual behavior of humans because it serves to BOND two SOULS together during the CREATION of another SOUL. It’s special. It’s different. THIS is the “unitive” portion… where GOD is united with humanity - both working together to create a new eternal soul.

Also, why does the church insist that the man always finish inside the woman even when it’s impossible for her to get pregnant, such as if she’s already pregnant, past menopause, etc.?

Now… to answer this last question.
The teaching is that the action/verb of “sex” must be both “procreative and unitive”. It does not say that “procreation” must happen each and every time.
“Procreative” is the adjective that describes HOW the verb/action “sex” must be preformed… ie, husband must finish inside wife… the WAY sex is performed is the “procreative” aspect.

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess i don’t really understand what the Church means by “unitive.” I thought “unitive” meant expressing your love for each other, bonding, etc. But it sounds like most people on this thread are saying that if everything ends up in the right place, with the man finishing inside the woman, then the act is “unitive,” as long as it’s consensual. It sounds like “unitive” means the exact same thing as “procreative.” “Procreative” also means that the man must finish inside the woman, even if the couple is not intending to have a child. So why distinguish between unitive and procreative, if they mean the same thing?

Also, why does the church insist that the man always finish inside the woman even when it’s impossible for her to get pregnant, such as if she’s already pregnant, past menopause, etc.?

No, it is that the sexual act is a sign and pledge of a greater life of unity. Of course sex ought to be an expression of love! The big deal about contraception is not the primacy of the procreative aspect, but the importance that the procreative and unitive not be separated. And, of course, emotions are not under the direct control of the will in a way that actions are, so the Church legislates actions, not the emotions that are the hoped-for result of the actions. That is why it is not a sin to feel nothing when it is not your intention to emotionally withhold from your spouse.

Let’s look at the section of the Catechism (boldface mine):

*III. The Love of Husband and Wife

**2360 **Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."142

Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers… You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” and they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.143

**2362 **"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."144 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.145

**2363 **The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Conjugal fidelity

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."146 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. the covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.147 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."148

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. the Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us…** I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you**.149

The fecundity of marriage…* et cetera

Of course it is wrong to emotionally withhold in a purposeful way, though. The gravity of that would depend on the extent of that.

 

[sdeco]

But what is the exact definition of “unitive?” That is what I am not understanding.

 

[EasterJoy]

But what is the exact definition of “unitive?” That is what I am not understanding.

***2364 *The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."146 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. the covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.147 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."148

Do you see why there isn’t a single action associated with the unitive aspect? The marital act is “a sign and pledge of spiritual communion,” and according to the teaching of the Church, that union is definitive and total. That is not impossible, but that is the work of a lifetime! That is a level of unity that we are not always going to achieve. It is not a discrete act that can be measured with a ruler so the couple can say “yes, that was unitive” or “no, that was almost unitive, but not quite”.

 

[manualman]

I confess, I skipped all the other responses due to issue fatigue, but I did want to share a thought.

The biggest danger of all on this whole issue is precisely the idea that humans have the option of taking actions to customize sexuality into what WE want it to be rather than the gift that it is. Real intimacy is BOTH procreative and unitive by its very nature. The moment you start looking for ways to carve one facet off from the other, you’ve failed to appreciate the gift. One facet of a jewel is not beautiful if it is chipped away from the whole gem.

Here’s the bottom line: Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are all facets on the fantastic gift God gave humanity: the jewel of human sexuality. Any and all of our efforts to modify this jewel are doomed to simply destroy it. And yet we’re a society OBSESSED with trying to cut the facets apart. We want:

• Sex apart from marriage and babies
• Marriage and sex, but no babies (except on our terms).
• Babies when WE want them, even if our own bodies cannot be repaired to allow it. (IVF, surrogates, etc)
• Sex of a nature that is fundamentally sterile (same sex relations)
• Pseudo-marriages, aka serial polygamy, aka cycles of divorce / remarriage.

None of these are compatible with the gift. Accept it for what it is and rejoice. Or reject it and try to make your own. But you’ve been warned. Sins aren’t just an arbitrary list. They are things that lead to destruction.

 

[Debora123]

But what is the exact definition of “unitive?” That is what I am not understanding.

…And this right here is a fraction of the reason why I personally struggle with understanding the Church’s black and white, intrinsic teaching on “contraception.” I feel like it is really the only Church teaching that has holes like this all over the place, and it is the only Church teaching that leaves me aching for more clarity.

I understand why hormonal birth control is wrong, as it causes abortions and is detrimental to a woman’s body.
I understand why marriages as a whole should be open to life.
I understand why completely replacing intercourse with oral sex, for example, is wrong.
I understand why avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons is wrong.

I DO NOT understand why every single sexual encounter MUST finish with the man inside the woman with no condom every single time no matter who what why where when and how.

To me it just comes off as legalistic, quite honestly, and makes me wonder if perhaps the Church is playing it safe a little bit… just to be sure. After all, it is our pope’s duty to get Because I can definitely see how using a condom and/or finishing outside the woman could be wrong… it just doesn’t make sense that it always always always always is.

Nonetheless, I understand this is what the Church teaches regardless and I don’t wish to “lead anyone astray.” If anyone asks me what Church teaching is on the matter, I always tell them exactly what it is even though I may struggle to agree with it myself.

 

[sdeco]

I understand why hormonal birth control is wrong, as it causes abortions and is detrimental to a woman’s body.
I understand why marriages as a whole should be open to life.
I understand why completely replacing intercourse with oral sex, for example, is wrong.
I understand why avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons is wrong.

I DO NOT understand why every single sexual encounter MUST finish with the man inside the woman with no condom every single time no matter who what why where when and how.

These are my thoughts too.

I especially don’t understand why the man must still finish inside the woman in cases where it’s impossible for pregnancy to occur.

 

[Em_in_FL]

The *ability *to create a new eternal soul is a powerful gift.
It is such a powerful gift, that God has made the structure (marriage) and the act itself (sex) SACRAMENTAL.

The act is holy… that is why it should be done in a particular way.

 

[Em_in_FL]

There are rules about how other Sacraments are done… why not this one?

 

[Debora123]

These are my thoughts too.

I especially don’t understand why the man must still finish inside the woman in cases where it’s impossible for pregnancy to occur.

To me, this is where it start seeming very legalistic. Especially if there is absolutely 0 chance of a pregnancy to occur anyway, like a hysterectomy or an already existing pregnancy, in which case they would be using a condom because of the wife’s semen allergy or the husband being HIV positive or something…

At that point it seems to me like it’s basically just saying that it is intrinsically wrong to wear a rubber around the penis, since artificial birth control isn’t what would actually be happening.

Just my struggles I guess. I envy those who are able to grasp the concept without having any of these questions bother them at all…

 

[thewanderer]

These are my thoughts too.

I especially don’t understand why the man must still finish inside the woman in cases where it’s impossible for pregnancy to occur.

…And this right here is a fraction of the reason why I personally struggle with understanding the Church’s black and white, intrinsic teaching on “contraception.” I feel like it is really the only Church teaching that has holes like this all over the place, and it is the only Church teaching that leaves me aching for more clarity.

I understand why hormonal birth control is wrong, as it causes abortions and is detrimental to a woman’s body.
I understand why marriages as a whole should be open to life.
I understand why completely replacing intercourse with oral sex, for example, is wrong.
I understand why avoiding pregnancy for selfish reasons is wrong.

I DO NOT understand why every single sexual encounter MUST finish with the man inside the woman with no condom every single time no matter who what why where when and how.

To me it just comes off as legalistic, quite honestly, and makes me wonder if perhaps the Church is playing it safe a little bit… just to be sure. After all, it is our pope’s duty to get Because I can definitely see how using a condom and/or finishing outside the woman could be wrong… it just doesn’t make sense that it always always always always is.

Nonetheless, I understand this is what the Church teaches regardless and I don’t wish to “lead anyone astray.” If anyone asks me what Church teaching is on the matter, I always tell them exactly what it is even though I may struggle to agree with it myself.

I kind of understand where you guys are coming from, but I have also spent some years studying Aristotle and St. Thomas and honestly, the teaching makes much more sense in that context. Its kind of hard for me to explain, but when you understand the way these two great thinkers thought it seems less legalistic and more just like a consistent and necessary conclusion. And since Church teaching and philosophy of reality is really essentially based on this philosophy of reality it makes sense that the Church would view this as a necessary and consistent conclusion. I don’t know if that really helps you guys at all, but its definitely what I have found to be true.

 

[Debora123]

There are rules about how other Sacraments are done… why not this one?

Oh trust me, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any rules. And I don’t think that’s what the OP is saying either. And of course, I believe that marriage and sex are sacred and that life is sacred.

As I posted on the last page, I just struggle to make sense of some of the little technicalities, that’s all.