God Conquers Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Please explain if you answer negatively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted November 25, 2004 Author Share Posted November 25, 2004 I know in the other sex thread some people contested this.... I thought I'd bring the argument over and make soem room for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 (edited) Didn't log out. Edited November 25, 2004 by CatholicCrusader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 The unitive role of the marital act has been explained by the Church in the past (I believe), but this has not been taught from the beginning I do not think. At best, the unitive role of the marital act has been explained simply as an accident of the end, namely procreation. The unitive role has not been taught as an end in itself (until recently). This is not an orthodox Catholic belief. At best, the unitive role is simply an accident of the act, not an end in itself. I think I remember reading something in the Roman Catechism that explains the unitive role in the marital act, but it was certainly not said to be an end in itself (but I am even unsure of whether or not the Roman Catechism mentions anything about the unitive role at all). Please explain if you answer positively (by finding any Church Father, Doctor, or Council that taught this). Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Gen 2:21: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22: and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23: Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Nowhere are children mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 25 2004, 05:48 PM'] Gen 2:21: So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22: and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23: Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Nowhere are children mentioned. [/quote] I don't think it gets any closer to "the beginning" than that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 hold on mothers. With all due respect to both of you, and the very fact that you are mothers means you are due a great deal of respect, your logic is flawed there. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean that it follows from there that it isn't the case. For example, suppose I talk about the Detroit/Indy football game today. I might mention that Peyton Manning threw six touchdown passes and that Marvin Harrison caught three of them. The fact that I don't mention anything at all about Brandon Stokley doesn't mean he didn't do anything. On the contrary, he also caught three touchdown passes. Clearly, sex is intended for procreation. The fact that God doesn't say to Adam and Eve, "Oh, and by the way, when you do this, you're supposed to have children," doesn't mean that he didn't want them procreating. In fact, in a different passage, earlier even in Scripture, God gives Adam and Eve the first commandment, "Fill the earth and subdue it." How else would they fill it if not by pro-creating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 Instead of posting isolated quotes, why don't you look at the Fathers' commentary on Scripture? They do not mention the unitive role as an end, only as an accident of the marital act (if that). "And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth." Genesis i.26-28 That certainly says nothing of the unitive role. If you wish to make the claim that this has been taught by the Church, then support it with something approved by the Church (a Council or early catechism) or at least a Church Father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 [quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 25 2004, 07:57 PM'] hold on mothers. With all due respect to both of you, and the very fact that you are mothers means you are due a great deal of respect, your logic is flawed there. Just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean that it follows from there that it isn't the case. For example, suppose I talk about the Detroit/Indy football game today. I might mention that Peyton Manning threw six touchdown passes and that Marvin Harrison caught three of them. The fact that I don't mention anything at all about Brandon Stokley doesn't mean he didn't do anything. On the contrary, he also caught three touchdown passes. Clearly, sex is intended for procreation. The fact that God doesn't say to Adam and Eve, "Oh, and by the way, when you do this, you're supposed to have children," doesn't mean that he didn't want them procreating. In fact, in a different passage, earlier even in Scripture, God gives Adam and Eve the first commandment, "Fill the earth and subdue it." How else would they fill it if not by pro-creating? [/quote] You are missing the point. We know its for pro-Creation, but someone mentioned that was all it was intended for. Our point is the unifying aspect of married love started out at the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I said no. I'll give my reasons later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 I think it is good to give reasons that the answer is no, but it is irrelevant if the other side does not initiate the argument first. There is no proof that this has been taught perpetually, so it is accepted that it has not been. It is not taken as fact that it was taught unless there is proof provided. The fact that Genesis instructs man and woman to "increase and multiply" without mentioning the unitive aspect is proof enough. The quote of the two becoming one flesh hardly asserts that marriage, and specifically the marital act, has unity as an end in itself. As I said earlier, it is simply an accident of the end, procreation. This is a result of the two performing the marital act and specifically having children, so it is a result of procreation more than anything else, i.e., the two become one flesh by producing offspring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 In love and responsibility, one of the observations made was that the church has always taught that the primary end of marriage is procreatio, but that it has a secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium. Mutuum adiutorium as a purpose of marriage is likewise a result of love as a virtue. Later it goes on to state that the Church, in arranging the objective purposes of love in a particular order, seeks to emphasize that procreation is objectively, ontologically, a more important purpose than that man and woman should live together, complement each other and support each other, (mutuum adiutorium), just as this second purpose is in turn more important than the appeasement of natural desire. As it goes on to state, there is no question of opposing love to procreation nor yet of suggesting that procreation takes predcedence over love. Obviously it's not only about the numerical increase in the human species, but also must be cemented by love and therefore must be unitive. You can't have one without the other. At a truly human, truly personal level the problems of procreation and of love cannot be resolved seperately. Both procreation and love are based on the conscious choice of persons. When a man and a woman of thier own free will choose to marry and have sexual relations they choose at the same time the possiblity of procreation, choose to participate in creation (for that is the proper meaning of procreation). And it is only when they do so that they put thier sexual relationship within the framework of marriage on a truly personal level. Why? the problem of parenthood arises. Nature's only aim is reproduction. Reproduction depends on biological fertillity, yet we know the deeper significance is a personal one, parenthood. I don't think the Church ever taught that they were seperate of each other. Hope that helps some. Pax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 (edited) Tina, can you cite a source? Thanks. Also, another problem with this is that it leads to the false belief that sex is acceptable in fulfilling only one so-called end of the marital act (unification), i.e., the effects of such a belief are more problematic than the belief itself. Thus, things like NFP come out that are unprecedented in Church history. Edited November 26, 2004 by amarkich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmjtina Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 [quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 25 2004, 10:18 PM'] Tina, can you cite a source? Thanks. Also, another problem with this is that it leads to the false belief that sex is acceptable in fulfilling only one so-called end of the marital act (unification), i.e., the effects of such a belief are more problematic than the belief itself. Thus, things like NFP come out that are unprecedented in Church history. [/quote] source: Responsiblity and Love. I don't have TOTB. What sources can you provide that your assertion that it is only procreative or unitive? (Although our society would contest that unitive is the ONLY reason! ) I do not believe that I even mentioned that sex is acceptable in fulfilling only one so-called end of the marital act, the unitive part. I stated that the two cannot be seperated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 If sex is only for procreation, couples who are sterile or past menopause may not have sex... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now