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

[Debora123]

Couldn’t agree more.

Good.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Whether or not people use language correctly doesn’t matter… the Church is using the language correctly. (fundamentally people are both poorly catechised and poorly educated for not understanding the language)

Interestingly enough, my first job out of college was as a copy editor. I am using the language correctly.

Still no.
The words are not being redefined.
Being able to procreate is not a requirement for marriage.
Having unitive and procreative SEX is.

Actually, the couple only must be open to having children. There is no requirement to have sex.

And this is very, very clear in the Catechism. There’s no redefinition depending on fertility - there simple isn’t. A sterile person CAN have “procreative sex”!!!
It won’t lead to actual procreation, but that doesn’t matter. The sex is still technically right.

Your using circular reasoning by using a redefined term to prove the use of the redefined term is correct.

At its most basic level, procreate means to beget. Procreative sex is sex that begets children. We can argue this all day long, and it won’t change the facts.

Your use of procreative is exactly correct either. It would be more proper to state “ordered to procreation.” However, this is still confusing, because if one is objectively sterile, the sex is objectively not ordered to having children.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The church (as in, the local parishes) often drops the ball on Adult Faith Formation… once kids have completed Confirmation there isn’t any other education happening… and the Catechism is an AWESOME RESOURCE - it’s so clear and so concise and so easy to understand (okay, maybe some will need the help of a dictionary for the big words, but that’s okay!)…

I’ll disagree that the Catechism is easy to understand. It is written in a very legalistic manner, and one must have that mindset when reading it. Each word is carefully chosen and has specific meaning. I could give some very nuanced examples, but I don’t want to derail the thread.

I’ll agree that some parts are very straightforward, but other parts are not. Canon Lawyers exist for a reason.

 

[fpt]

Interestingly enough, my first job out of college was as a copy editor. I am using the language correctly.

Actually, the couple only must be open to having children. There is no requirement to have sex.

*The notion of the marital debt???

The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the sexual rights, the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the marital request for the marital act coming from one spouse, the sexual privileges, the presumption of agreement for the marital act, the presumption of agremment by the sexual touchings

IN ORDER TO LEAD THE MARITAL ACT AND TO MAKE ONE FLESH, IN THE HUMAN FASHION WITH SEXUAL COOPERATION.*

 

[fpt]

Actually, the couple only must be open to having children. There is no requirement to have sex.

Morally speaking and by principle,each spouse has the natural right of requesting the marital act.

Morally speaking, each spouse has the natural right of requiring the marital act, but the forced realization of the marital act is immoral and sinful (always sinful for the conjugal asker and the conjugal raper, absolute sin). But the refusal of the marital request coming from the other without a good reason (real, objective, present, fair, grave or serious) is also immoral and sinful **(relative sin, but sin).
**

*The notion of the marital debt???

The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the sexual rights, the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the marital request for the marital act coming from one spouse, the sexual privileges, the presumption of agreement for the marital act, the presumption of agrement of sexual touchings

IN ORDER TO LEAD THE MARITAL ACT AND TO MAKE ONE FLESH, IN THE HUMAN FASHION WITH SEXUAL COOPERATION.*

 

[fpt]

actually, the couple only must be open to having children. There is no requirement to have sex.

morally speaking and by principle,each spouse has the natural right of requesting the marital act.

morally speaking, each spouse has the natural right of requiring the marital act, but the forced realization of the marital act is immoral and sinful (always sinful for the conjugal asker and the conjugal rapist, absolute sin). But the refusal of the marital request coming from the other without a good reason (real, objective, present, fair, grave or serious) is also immoral and sinful **(relative sin, but sin).
**

*the notion of the marital debt???

The right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the sexual rights, the sexual obligations, the sexual duties, the marital request for the marital act coming from one spouse, the sexual privileges, the presumption of agreement for the marital act, the presumption of agrement of sexual touchings

in order to lead the marital act and to make one flesh, in the human fashion with sexual cooperation.*

 

[The_Bucket]

Your use of procreative is exactly correct either. It would be more proper to state “ordered to procreation.” However, this is still confusing, because if one is objectively sterile, the sex is objectively not ordered to having children.

Not really, but this is where it’s impossible for most people to understand where the Church is coming from. The acts, even if sterile, are still reflective of those that are procreative. They’re still ordered towards procreation. The fact that one or both spouses is sterile is irrelevant. And it’s also irrelevant if the sterility is the result of accident, unwanted side effect of another medical procedure or if it is intentional.

Let me be clear then; the act of intentionally getting sterilized is one grave sin. One does not commit additional grave sins by engaging in properly oriented sexual activity following an intentional sterilization. If that were the case then people would have to reverse the procedures to stay out of grave sin as opposed to simply going to confession.

The Church’s teaching on sexuality is similar to its teaching on the sacraments. This makes sense since the Church teaches that spouses are renewing their marital vows when they engage in sexual intercourse. The Church is saying that signs matter. Actions matter. Whether the result is a child or not, the Church is noting that the sexual act must be one that is intended to reflect the love and sacrifice professed by the spouses at the altar and reflective of the love of the Trinity and the love the God has for us.

Even if spouses are infertile and introducing a condom into the mix or withdrawing before male climax would have absolutely no effect on whether there’s procreation involved… the signs and the actions still matter. The Church teaches that there is no such thing as a “private act.” Everything is interconnected through the Mystical Body of Christ and that includes actions and signs performed by spouses behind closed doors.

As another poster noted, it’s pretty evident that the Church is right. Where contraception is widely available, fertility has not just dropped to a sustainable rate… it has fallen below replacement rate. Way below replacement in some places.

I’d like to think that if it were simply NFP that was widely available we’d all be able to avoid the whole “too many mouths to feed” scenario or being poor stewards of the Earth via excessive population, while also not being so closed to life that we think of children as something to either be avoided entirely or something to which adults are entitled. Because that’s the mentality we have today. Children are not gifts from God freely given. They are either burdens or something to which we are all entitled.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Not really, but this is where it’s impossible for most people to understand where the Church is coming from. The acts, even if sterile, are still reflective of those that are procreative. They’re still ordered towards procreation. The fact that one or both spouses is sterile is irrelevant. And it’s also irrelevant if the sterility is the result of accident, unwanted side effect of another medical procedure or if it is intentional.

I obviously understand all this. My issue is that I understand what the Church’s position is, understand the English language very well, and also read documents like an attorney. The manner the Church uses “procreation,” “procreative,” etc. are not they way they are defined in standard dictionaries, nor the manner they are utilized in common use. The only people that really understand the Church’s specific use of the terms are is those that specifically study this issue, which doesn’t even include common Church-going Catholics. These are not the only terms either; there are others.

The Church’s uncommon usage of such terms is the reason that I was very perplexed when becoming more familiar with the Church’s teachings. Had these issues been addressed in terminology that included standard definitions and usage, i.e., a straightforward manner, I would have not been perplexed in the first place.

 

[The_Bucket]

With all due respect to the masses, you’re not just some average guy though. My point is that the logic behind the Church’s teaching is difficult to follow. The teaching itself is pretty clear. The why is not and I don’t know that any amount of slow-walking it will be useful in instructing a large portion of the populace.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’m of the opinion that if a very simple act is incredibly difficult to explain, and goes so far as to redefining commonly understood terms, it’s time to go back to back to the drawing board and simply things.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m of the opinion that if a very simple act is incredibly difficult to explain, and goes so far as to redefining commonly understood terms, it’s time to go back to back to the drawing board and simply things.

It is simple. The Catechism and the Encyclicals it references are written in response to an existing problem/sin. It goes into detailed discussions because these things have been questioned, so an intense response was deemed necessary.

The teachings are simple… “Be fruitful and multiply!” “Be chaste in marriage!”

 

[EasterJoy]

I obviously understand all this. My issue is that I understand what the Church’s position is, understand the English language very well, and also read documents like an attorney. The manner the Church uses “procreation,” “procreative,” etc. are not they way they are defined in standard dictionaries, nor the manner they are utilized in common use. The only people that really understand the Church’s specific use of the terms are is those that specifically study this issue, which doesn’t even include common Church-going Catholics. These are not the only terms either; there are others.

The Church’s uncommon usage of such terms is the reason that I was very perplexed when becoming more familiar with the Church’s teachings. Had these issues been addressed in terminology that included standard definitions and usage, i.e., a straightforward manner, I would have not been perplexed in the first place.

The problem is that the English language is not promulgated with a Catholic mindset. For instance, look at the word “obligation” or the word “duty”…what kind of connotation have those words picked up that are at cross-purposes with fulfilling the duties and obligations that love demands? Of course the most simple things have be re-understood, when even duty and obligation are re-invented to mean something like the burdens carried by a slave.

Look at the original question, for instance: Why does every sex act have to be procreative, but not unitive? Where does the Church ever say that the marital act does not always have to be unitive? I can’t find that idea in the plain meaning of the Church teachings on the elements necessary for marriage, nor teachings that speak directly to the marital act.

That question says to me that someone once asked the question “What if I never feel like having sex?” and that someone was given an answer like “do it anyway, and think of England,” which lead to the incorrect idea that the unitive ends of the marital act are unimportant. IOW, there is already bad advice or a faulty understanding buried in that question, don’t you think?

 

[manualman]

LOL, that’s rich. Complaining that it is the church that has complicated sex beyond what it needs to be. The church doesn’t use legal language to confuse you, it uses complex and legal language because people are sinners and are highly creative and determined to find ways to rationalize the sins the want to commit. The complex language arises over time in order to close the loopholes people attempt to create.

The bottom line of catholic sexual teaching is as simple as it is beautiful:
Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies aren’t separate subjects, they are an interconnected ecosystem. Your entire sexuality was designed to function within this context and it is a package deal, not an ala carte menu. Treat it like a menu and you’ll destroy yourself and those around you.

The rest is details and loophole closing.

 

[thewanderer]

LOL, that’s rich. Complaining that it is the church that has complicated sex beyond what it needs to be. The church doesn’t use legal language to confuse you, it uses complex and legal language because people are sinners and are highly creative and determined to find ways to rationalize the sins the want to commit. The complex language arises over time in order to close the loopholes people attempt to create.

The bottom line of catholic sexual teaching is as simple as it is beautiful:
Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies aren’t separate subjects, they are an interconnected ecosystem. Your entire sexuality was designed to function within this context and it is a package deal, not an ala carte menu. Treat it like a menu and you’ll destroy yourself and those around you.

The rest is details and loophole closing.

Yes, thats of course understandable, the problem comes in when Catholics try to explain what the Church teaches to others, use the legal language, and don’t explain what they mean by it. It causes a lot of confusion in others. Its not the Church’s fault. It is the fault of people who, no doubt unintentionally, have led others to misunderstand Church teaching.

 

[manualman]

I can accept that. Might even be guilty of it!

 

[Rence]

Is it even physically possible for a sex act not to be unitive? 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.

I always look at contraception and in vitro fertilization as the opposite sides of the same coin in this regard. Contraception wants the unitive without the procreative. IVF wants the procreative without the unitive.

Yes, the sex act is not unitive when consent isn’t involved; and from what I have been taught, it’s not unitive if the parties are not licitly married. I was taught that the unitive property is absent in couples who are not married, and in married couples who contacept. The “unitive property” has to do with the Sacrament, not with something physical, though a physical barrier inhibits the unitive property, if that makes sense.

 

[Rence]

Yes, thats of course understandable, the problem comes in when Catholics try to explain what the Church teaches to others, use the legal language, and don’t explain what they mean by it. It causes a lot of confusion in others. Its not the Church’s fault. It is the fault of people who, no doubt unintentionally, have led others to misunderstand Church teaching.

It’s actually the leaders of the Church who are at fault because it’s not the job of the laity to “teach” other laity, but it is the job of the Church teachers to teach. When they leave the job to the laity to teach other laity, of course there will be confusion. In addition, people’s own interpretation, prejudices and background interefer with the teaching processes because of the way they think about those teachings. A good example is that you can ask 100 lay people what are good enough reasons to practice NFP and you’ll get a whole range of responses from the most serious only, to the not serious at all. And really, it’s not the job of a layperson to tell another lay person what is serious enough. That should be done with the counsel of their priest, who is supposed to be teaching and guiding them.

 

[thewanderer]

It’s actually the leaders of the Church who are at fault because it’s not the job of the laity to “teach” other laity, but it is the job of the Church teachers to teach. When they leave the job to the laity to teach other laity, of course there will be confusion. In addition, people’s own interpretation, prejudices and background interefer with the teaching processes because of the way they think about those teachings. A good example is that you can ask 100 lay people what are good enough reasons to practice NFP and you’ll get a whole range of responses from the most serious only, to the not serious at all. And really, it’s not the job of a layperson to tell another lay person what is serious enough. That should be done with the counsel of their priest, who is supposed to be teaching and guiding them.

Whether its the job of the laity to teach other laity or not they try to all the time. And when they do so without fully or correctly explaining Church teaching it confuses a lot of people. That is my point. Is there fault among other individuals higher up in the Church? I’m sure there is. That is still different than saying the Church herself is at fault.

 

[Debora123]

It is simple. The Catechism and the Encyclicals it references are written in response to an existing problem/sin. It goes into detailed discussions because these things have been questioned, so an intense response was deemed necessary.

The teachings are simple… “Be fruitful and multiply!” “Be chaste in marriage!”

As I have pointed out on the other thread, being fruitful and multiplying can have little to do with contraception. If there are just reasons to avoid children, the couple is then not required, for that time, to be frutiful and multiply.

A couple that uses contraception to avoid children with just reasons are not guilty of the sin of not being “fruitful and multiplying.” Their guilt is merely in using illicit means to do so.

It really is a complicated issue.

 

[Debora123]

LOL, that’s rich. Complaining that it is the church that has complicated sex beyond what it needs to be. The church doesn’t use legal language to confuse you, it uses complex and legal language because people are sinners and are highly creative and determined to find ways to rationalize the sins the want to commit. The complex language arises over time in order to close the loopholes people attempt to create.

Actually, I’m pretty sure the word “procreative” had it’s webster dictionary meaning before the Church did.

You can’t blame someone who doesn’t understand the word “procreative” to mean what the Church means it to be, of trying to find loopholes to avoid sin.