Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mad Dawg

I agree with you - in the first sentence of your post - and that is the essence of the issue & the source of the disagreement between the pro and con positions on contraception.

The nature of ‘the act’ of sexual expression between a husband and wife is that they become one flesh - the first and primary end of their relationship is companionship and unity. Secondarily, the end of sexual expression in marriage may be for procreation, but that is not the radical nature of the sex act; it is the sexual expression (and sex is only one component of the contract and covenant of marriage) of a relationship of mutuality and care.


33 posted on 05/24/2008 7:32:07 AM PDT by PresbyRev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: PresbyRev
BTW, Former Episcopal priest here. Became RC in 1994.

The nature of ‘the act’ of sexual expression between a husband and wife is that they become one flesh - the first and primary end of their relationship is companionship and unity.

Does the part ofter the dash explain the part before the dash?

Secondarily, the end of sexual expression in marriage may be for procreation, but that is not the radical nature of the sex act; it is the sexual expression (and sex is only one component of the contract and covenant of marriage) of a relationship of mutuality and care.

You got a source for this? Despite the great admiration for making whoopee in the Song of Songs, I would imagine those folks knew the usual relationship between "baby carriage" and "love and marriage", and I'm saying that the sexual act in all its fullness would include procreation just as the chewing and swallowing act in all their fullness (so to speak) include nutrition.

I think there is a gnostic tinge maybe (this is not an argument, not at all, it's kind of a "here's where I may try to go with this" statement) to separating the sexual act from its social, economic, and biological side and making it "radically" about the relationship between husband and wife simpliciter. In fact I think that a lot of the pressure to "perform" (perceived and real) comes from that divorce.

Again, it's no kind of argument, but ABC was touted as the great hope for marital sexual frustration and for illegitimacy, remember? It SURE didn't work out that way.

Principle for consideration: Just because Chimpanzees do something doesn't mean it's not perverse. Goats masturbate. The occasional ram (I ran sheep and goats for a while - goats are cooler - but stinkier) will attempt to mount another ram. (If all he mounts are other rams he ends up in the pot.) And certainly ewes will overeat - with disastrous consequences. So the argument from "what critters do" to "what an act 'is'" is not a slam-dunk.

36 posted on 05/24/2008 8:29:14 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson