Why do so many people think that the purpose of sex is to have children? That is a concept that I have not come across in the reading of scripture. Surely sex is, first and foremost, an expression of love and unity between a husband and wife?
Hi there,
I am extremely anti-contraception as I think it degreades women in a horrific way, and has played a huge and central part in the break-down of the sanctity of marriage and in spousal relationships...but I certainly dont think the purpose of sex is solely the have children.
Furthermore, the Catholic Church, who also believes that contraception turns the sexual act into a false shadow of what it is meant to be, also doesnt believe that sex is just for children.
The Church has no problem with couples having sex when the wife is pregnant and thus biologically unable to conceive or even if the couple is infertile.
So you are mistaken in saying that anyone believes that sex is JUST for procreation. Noone thinks that!
However, I disgree with you saying that sex is "first and foremost an expression of love and unity".
No, first and foremost it is not that.
Sex is both procreative and unitive. BOTH together. EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ACT MUST TO OPEN TO BOTH. One without the other means the sexual act has been steralised and is not God-given intercourse, but rather man-made intercourse.
Of course sex is procreative; babies can only come from sex!
Of course sex is unitive; there is nothing more intimate, physical and personal two people can offer each other other than the free, open and willing gift of themselves, just like Christ offered Himself freely and uninhibited to the Church and mankind.
Think about what contraception-use does;
it gets rid of the procreative, and it also gets rid of the unitive.
Because sex no longer becomes an act of mutual self giving, it becomes an act of mutual self-taking. Of selfishly using the other person's body for your own self gratification.
Our fertility is not something to be despised and thrown away. It is part of being human, just like breathing.
God gave us fertility. It is not man's job to block out that very wonderful gift of fertility that God has given, any more than it is man's job to stop someone lungs from breathing.
This is something which modern society doesnt recognise. Modern society sees fertility as something to be despised and to be done rid of at all costs because it leads to an "unwanted" consequence of children after sex which was purely selfish and self-interested.
A child in this case is, of course, seen as being a mistake, because the sex itself was not a TRUE expression of mutual self-giving and love, it was meant to be only about sexual gratification.
I want pleasure and I'm going to use you to get it.
When you are only taking, then of course a child, which is an act of love and self-giving is seen as being a mistake.
God must be present in all part of our lives, including the bedroom.
Being selfish in day to day life is seen as being wrong...wel so is being selfish in bed with your spouse.
and contraception makes the mentality of the sexual act very very selfish indeed.
Natural Family Planning, as I mentioned earlier, works WITH the God-given fertility of a woman.
It complements what God has give to her.
It is of nature, and thus of God.
It does not insult God's wonderful gift of fertility, or see it as a disease, but rather works in harmony with it.
A women is fertile for no more than 6 days per month. She is infertile the rest of the time.
A couple who can not have a child at the moment due to their life circumstances etc may abstain from intercourse during the fertile days, and only have intercourse during the infertile days.
Put excellently below:
As Pope John Paul II states in his Apostolic Letter, Familiaris Consortio: “When . . . by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as ‘ministers’ of God’s plan and they ‘benefit from’ their sexuality according to the original dynamism of ‘total self-giving’, without manipulation or alteration.”
Furthermore, contraception and NFP are not the same.
When judging the morality of an act one cannot just look at the end, but at the means used to come to that end.
If you want to do something good (e.g. feeding the poor) but have to employ a bad means (e.g. stealing from a bank) then the ends does not justify the means.
Similarly, the end of 'avoiding children at the moment' must be examined in the light of the means used, i.e. either
- contraception:
- NFP
Contraception violates the order established in nature by God between intercourse and procreation.
Also, there is a profound difference between an immoral act and no act at all. This difference is not only metaphysical (between being and nonbeing), but can be felt personally and intensely on a psychological level.
Suppose, for example, an engaged couple is preparing its list of wedding guests. The couple wants some people to come and others not to come. The traditional approach is to invite those whom you want to be your guests, and not invite those whom you do not.
But let is imagine that this particular couple, instead of simply not inviting certain people, sends them a disinvitation: “Dear John and Mary: We are getting married, but we do not want you to come to our wedding. Our ushers have been instructed to escort you to the parking lot if you dare show up. Your presence is not wanted. Stay away. We do not want to see you.”
It is not difficult to appreciate the difference in impact on John’s and Mary’s feelings that receiving such a “disinvitation” would have, as compared with their not receiving an invitation. Sending out such a disinvitation could very well ruin whatever vestige of friendship existed between the two parties. The difference between the disinvitation and no invitation is the difference between insult and etiquette, contempt and civility. It is one thing not to invite a person; it is quite another to explain to him that his presence is unwanted.
Using contraception is like sending a disinvitation to God. It is like telling God that He should not show up, that His creative act is not only unwanted, but disrespected.
But abstaining from intercourse as part of NFP does not send any such message. By refraining from intercourse at a time when a couple does not want to conceive sends an altogether different and more tacit message: “We do not invite or invoke your creative act at this time, but we will not insult you by profaning the means you have established to inititate new life by exploiting it for our own purposes while disinviting your presence through contraception. We will abstain rather than profane.”
anyway, I hope that all makes sense and clears up your ideas.
The Church thinks sex is a wonderful, amazing and increadible gift. One so special that it must be treasured for your spouse ONLY. and one that must not be profaned by insult to God in the use of artificial contraception.
--
nb: I had help with my answer from a website whose address I have lost, so I'll give them credit where it's due..!
