Hebrews 13:
[4] Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Sex is God’s gift to married couples. It serves two purposes. First it serves to bind the two together. It is through sexual union that we truly become “one flesh” with each other.
We call this the "unitive" function or aspect.
Secondly, it serves to provide children. Children are called gifts from God and that the man who has his quiver full is happy.
The "procreative" function or aspect.
Neither of these two purposes take precedence over the other one. If the purpose for sex was strictly to have children than unfertile couples should never have sex with each other.
Indeed both aspects should be present.
It is not whether a child results from the union, but whether the union is "open" to both aspects. A childless couple, declared infertile, are still open to children, even if science deems it impossible. It worked for Sarah. And Elisabeth.
I think one of the things that pushes our kids to have sex before marriage is the attitude we Christians have traditionally shown towards the sexual act itself. We always say “No, no, no, no.” This tells the child that we believe sex is a necessary evil and it also serves to focus the child’s attention onto that which he thinks we want him to avoid. I guess you could call it the “Forbidden Fruit” syndrome.
There certainly is a forbidden fruit aspect to premarital activity. There is also the "free sex" attitude and the pill to reduce or eliminate unwanted complications. Throw in a sex-obsessed media culture and you get what we have today.
Instead of treating sex negatively with our children we should tell them the truth. I tell my children, if they ask, that intimate love is wonderful INSIDE of marriage. I tell them that God has given us a wonderful gift that is to be shared with your spouse, and no one else. The message they get isn’t “No” but “Wait”.
Agreed 100 per cent. I don't see where you have argued with me. Sorry. Nothing you said goes against Catholic teaching. It is just that we see sex without both aspects as immoral. When a teen screws his girlfriend they may not use contraception. So they are open to procreation. But without the bonds of marriage and a real committment they are making a mockery of the "unitive" aspect, treating it like a temporary "theme park."
Likewise, a married couple who places a barrier twixt themselves are celebrating the "unity" of their marriage, but denying the procreative aspect. In a sense, with mechanical barriers, they are even denying each other flesh-on-flesh union. This is unitive?
SD
That’s ok, it’s been pretty busy around here lately. I hope you didn’t mind the multiple pingings to get your attention.
Hebrews 13:
[4] Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
This verse says that the marriage bed is undefiled. It doesn’t specify whether contraception is allowed or not.
We call this the "unitive" function or aspect.
Ok.
The "procreative" function or aspect.
Ok.
Indeed both aspects should be present.
I would argue that only the Unitive function has to be present in the marriage bed.
It is not whether a child results from the union, but whether the union is "open" to both aspects. A childless couple, declared infertile, are still open to children, even if science deems it impossible. It worked for Sarah. And Elisabeth.
How do you know the infertile couple is open to having children? Maybe they’ve decided they don’t want kids, but since one of them is infertile they decide not to use contraception. Whereas if they were both fertile they would have decided to use contraception in the same instance.
There certainly is a forbidden fruit aspect to premarital activity. There is also the "free sex" attitude and the pill to reduce or eliminate unwanted complications. Throw in a sex-obsessed media culture and you get what we have today.
I agree.
Agreed 100 per cent. I don't see where you have argued with me. Sorry. Nothing you said goes against Catholic teaching. It is just that we see sex without both aspects as immoral. When a teen screws his girlfriend they may not use contraception. So they are open to procreation. But without the bonds of marriage and a real committment they are making a mockery of the "unitive" aspect, treating it like a temporary "theme park."
I agree with everything you said except the highlighted part.
Likewise, a married couple who places a barrier twixt themselves are celebrating the "unity" of their marriage, but denying the procreative aspect. In a sense, with mechanical barriers, they are even denying each other flesh-on-flesh union. This is unitive?
I have had a vasectomy. Am I committing a sin everytime that I have sex with my wife? Before I had it I went to my Pastor and asked him about it. He said that it would only be as good as God wanted it to be. That is the attitude that I went into it with. “Lord, I am having this procedure done. If you still want us to have kids then you will need to reverse the procedure. Which is ok with me.”
Would it make it better if we adopted a kid every time we had sex? ;^)
-Kevin