Is the purpose of sex both Unitive AND Procreative

[amarkich]

Tina, my second comment was general, not directed to you. Sorry for the confusion. As far as my sources, I cannot provide a source that says "Procreation is the only end" because no source would say that. The burden would be on the other side to say that unification is also an end of the marital act in itself.

Cmom, that is correct. I suppose I need to look into the matter more, but it seems this is what had been the constant belief until recently. I have not read anything by a Church Father or Doctor that has stated unification as an end in itself.

[cmotherofpirl]

But it doesn't work that way. Married couples past menopause and sterile couples make love quite legitimately like anyone else. No priest is going to tell a married man to stop having sex because his wife can no longer have children. Does happen.

The burden of proof is on you to point out what authority in the Church says unification is NOT a legitimate end in marriage.

Edited November 26, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[amarkich]

We are talking about whether or not unification is an end (and not an accident) of the marital act (not marriage, but the marital act) [i]and[/i] whether or not this has been taught perpetually. There is no way for me to find someone who said "This is not an end of the marital act" because it had not been thought up yet (as far as I know), so that is why I said the burden is on the other side to show where anyone said that unification is an end in itself. Obviously, one cannot prove that something did not occur; the burden is on the one claiming it did occur. The same is true in the case of whether or not something occured regarding theological teachings; it is impossible to "prove something was not taught". The burden is on the one proving that it was taught.

Edited November 26, 2004 by amarkich

[jmjtina]

[quote]The burden would be on the other side to say that unification is also an end of the marital act in itself.[/quote]

Adam, (are you adam? or is that your bro?) in case I missed something, is anyone stating that unification is the end of the marital act itself? I'm saying the two cannot be seperated. Can you say that the ends of marriage is only procreation? I stated why the two cannot be seperated.

Thanks. What a lovely thanksgiving!

[Guest Aluigi]

just browsin around the internet and a traditionalist site claimed they are both ends, but that procreation is the PRIMARY end while unitive is a SECONDARY end, not merely accidental just not as important. they cited the 1917 code of cannon law.

[quote] "The primary end of Marriage is the procreation and education of offspring, while its secondary purposes are mutual help and allaying (also translated "as a remedy for") concupiscence. The latter are entirely subordinate to the former."[/quote]

i could accept this, although the same site claims Vatican II makes both equal, i'd have to look into that as they didn't provide evidence from Vatican II. so long as both are considered purposes, one can be the primary purpose and the other secondary, correct. but not merely accidental, the unitive purpose is not only in order to make people go to the procreative purpose.

[Guest Aluigi]

"we showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law (Canon 1013). Not long afterwards, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it." -Pope Pius XII March 10, 1944

[Guest Aluigi]

John Paul II
[quote]It is precisely by moving from "an integral vision of man and of his vocation, not only his natural and earthly, but also his supernatural and eternal vocation,"(87) that Paul VI affirmed that the teaching of the Church "is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning."(88) And he concluded by re-emphasizing that there must be excluded as intrinsically immoral "every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible."(89)[/quote]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html"]FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO[/url]

In saying that they are inseperable, it does not appear to be denying one being primary and the other secondary.

if anyone can provide info from Vatican II teaching that they are EQUAL purposes to substantiate the assertion of traditionalist site I found the Canon Law and Pius XII thing on please provide it to further show if Vatican II is in fact in opposition. if all it says is that they are inseperable, I don't think they are in opposition.

so what if we shifted this to ask a more dynamic question about the topic. state an answer to these questions to assert your stance

is the procreative purpose primary?
are both purposes inseperable? if not, what previous Church Teaching says they're not?
is the unitive purpose solely accidental? if so, what previous Church Teaching says so?

Edited November 26, 2004 by Aluigi

[God Conquers]

Here's an interesting quote from Tertullian. I believe he is speaking to a unitive end in the sexual act, not as an accident, but as an end unto itself:

, "The two shall be (joined) into one flesh"[6] of the Church and Christ, according to the spiritual nuptials of the Church and Christ (for Christ is one, and one is His Church), we are bound to recognise a duplication and additional enforcement for us of the law of unity of marriage, not only in accordance with the foundation of our race, but in accordance with the sacrament of Christ. From one marriage do we derive our origin in each case; carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ. The two births combine in laying down one prescriptive rule of monogamy.”

It's from his "Exhortation to Chastity".

[Dave]

Ya know, for all this talk about whether or not the Church always taught that sex is unitive AND procreative, we still need to remember that doctrine has developed over time. Over the centuries the Church comes to gain new insights into its teachings, but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant. Even if the Church didn't recognize a unitive aspect to sex at first, recognizing it later on would NOT be contrary to what the Church had previously taught.

But for the record, I voted yes to the poll.

[Guest Aluigi]

but the fact is the Church has always recognized both as purposes. this isn't a developement issue, because it's always been taught thusly.

[Dave]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 26 2004, 03:06 PM'] but the fact is the Church has always recognized both as purposes. this isn't a developement issue, because it's always been taught thusly. [/quote]
Yes, Al, I realize that. But I said what I did for the sake of those who claim that the Church didn't always teach both aspects.

[Guest Aluigi]

they claim not only that it wasn't taught, but that the Church taught it the purpose was solely procreative, in which case there would be no room for developement. However, both procreation and union have always been taught as purposes, procreative being primary and union being secondary, while pleasure is accidental.

[God Conquers]

hmmmm, less argument than I thought.....


The Irish Penitentials starting in the 7th and 8th centuries and all summa and penitentials from thenceforth also ahow a propensity for the unitive aspect of marriage.

For example, sexual relations [i]in retro[/i] is penanced very harshly, but for seemingly no reason. It does not prevent procreation like secual relations [i]in tergo[/i].
It would seem the only real reason for such a restriction is because it devalues the unitive end of the sexual act.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 25 2004, 04:46 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Actually, God taught both. Scripture taught both. They just weren't definitively taught as equal.

[SirMyztiq]

Please sex if nothing more than natures way of creating more of us.

We just attatched some symbolism to it.