73
edits
Changes
→The Theology of the Body: new section
:As mentioned above, saying that marriage’s essential purpose is not procreation but the avoidance of fornication does not mean that actively separating procreation from marital sex is a good thing. Non sequitur. George S Gabriel’s interpretation tried to connect the two by his talk of not having to make provisions for the act resulting in children (which is a pretty way of saying something a little different: i.e. that it is ok to make provisions such that your sex does not result in children). --[[User:Gmharvey|Gmharvey]] ([[User talk:Gmharvey|talk]]) 11:43, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
== The Theology of the Body ==
Father Lev, or anyone else who wants to chime in,
I'm personally interested in this topic as I am trying to learn what Church or the Fathers teach about it. And I am here in good faith to learn.
Of all the subjects discussed here, many of them are irrelevant to me because, of course, I already agree. I do not have a dualistic / platonic idea of the body and the soul, I don't hate the flesh or the created physical world, I don't despise the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, I don't think that the celibate life is a "higher" vocation than the married life, I don't think the marital act is inherently sinful or evil, I don't think that it is only "excusable" when the procreation of children is part of it, and I don't think that the sin of Onan is relevant to this discussion. I do think that the sexual act is biologically ordained to procreation, i.e. that reproduction is it's telios. I do believe that the marital act is a beautiful Sign of the Gospel. I do believe that it "expresses" the bond of love between the husband and wife.
Furthermore, I agree that responsible parenting (or the health of one of the spouses) sometimes necessitates limiting the number of children. I don't think that Christians must have 10-15 children. Christian couples should have recourse to some form of birth control for grave reasons. But I don't know which are the morally acceptable means to that good end. And to me this question might best be answered if we think about what happens when the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act are divided.
To that end, let me begin with something Fr. Lev has written here. Concerning St Maximus' comments:
:''In relation to women, for example, sexual intercourse, rightly used, has as its purpose the begetting of children. He, therefore, who seeks in it only sensual pleasure uses it wrongly, for he reckons as good what is not good. When such a man has intercourse with a woman, he misuses her.'' (400 Chapters on love)?
He writes:
:IF Maximos is saying that procreation is the “only" purpose for sex, then I would venture to say that the Church has not accepted his opinion on the matter. But I’m not convinced that is what he is saying, as he is criticizing in that passage the person who seeks intercourse “only” for the purpose of sexual pleasure, '''and since to say that the purpose of intercourse is to have children is NOT to exclude other purposes (i.e., the unitive), I think it is more likely that you are trying to make more of what he said than his words warrant'''. Chrysostom is clear that procreation is not the primary purpose of marriage, and that it isn’t necessary, as we have already filled the earth.
So if I understand your position, the marital act should be '''*either*''' procreative or unitive or both, but not necessarily both every time. Openness to life ought to be measured "overall." The fact that sexual intercourse has as it's telios the reproduction of the species does not '''*preclude*''' other purposes. Is this a correct assessment of your position? I think this point of view is summed up quite well by the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America in their 1992 affirmation:
:''Married couples may '''*express* their love in sexual union''' without always intending the conception of a child, but only those means of controlling conception within marriage are acceptable which do not harm a fetus already conceived.''
The affirmation teaches us that the marital act is meant to '''“express their love in sexual union.”''' I believe that this is true and that this is the purpose of the marital act. However, if it is to “express” something then this implies that it is a symbolic act, a kind of language. Language is shared meaning. Language enables us to express our thoughts and feelings with others by employing symbols. Spoken language employs the symbols we call words. In the marital act the bodies are speaking a “language” to one another. The loving union of husband and wife is the “meaning” that this language is meant to express. The primary question I am concerned with is whether or not a sexual act that intentionally rejects the very bodily and conjugal symbol of this love—namely the procreative power of the couples bodies—can still “express” the same thing—namely the union of love? Or does it actually express something different?
“The Theology of the Body”, which presents the church with a glorious vision of the meaning of Holy Matrimony and the purpose of marital intercourse, might shed light on this question. According to the “Theology of the Body” marital intercourse is not just sharing a touch or a sensation, not just one form of affection among others. Rather, as God designed it, marital intercourse is meant to be a true self-giving and the union of two selves without reserve. In this way it is the sharing of a power — an extraordinary, life-giving, creative, physical, sexual power. In the marital union, husband and wife are meant to experience the fullness of human vitality in its very source. And it is this procreative power that the couple share with each other that uniquely symbolizes and truly communicates the love and one-flesh union of a husband and wife. This is why the two ends of marital intercourse — the procreative and the unitive — cannot be separated.
By contrast, according to the Catholic “Theology of the Body,” in contraceptive sex no unique power is being shared except the power to produce pleasure, stripping the act of its true significance and ability to communicate. When the couple merely go through the motions of sexuality but reject each other’s fertility neither of them are giving themselves fully or accepting the other entirely. Contraceptive sex is an exercise in meaninglessness. The couple start to say one thing very beautiful with their bodies, something that speaks of love through the language of life. Then they deny that very thing in a refusal to fully know one another and nothing real is shared except sensation. By trying to found the uniqueness of marital oneness and express their love in an act of contradiction the spouses are haunted by the suspicion that their love making might be merely a false, hollow, selfish taking of pleasure.
This vision of Matrimony and the sexual act of spouses could hardly be described as sex-negative or legalistic. Far from it. This teaching is about the truth, beauty, and goodness of creation (the gift of sex and marriage as God intended it), the ugly tragedy of the fall (the brokenness of sex as selfish grasping for pleasure), and the triumph of redemption (how The sacrament of Holy Matrimony turns marriage into a sign of the Gospel of the Kingdom and gives us grace to live our married lives together for the glory of God). In other words, we should read this as good news!
In line with the OCA’s Affirmations on Marriage, Stanley Harakas teaches that the marital act '''expresses “the mutual love of spouses.”''' If the marital act is expressing something then it has a meaning. The husband and wife are speaking to one another in this act through their bodies. The sexual act isn’t supposed to be rendered meaningless or silent. It is on this basis that the Church cannot condone one night stands, the hookup culture, homosexuality, adultery, and other sexual activity that turns the sexual act into a contradiction, that makes it speak a lie. The question for me is does the act of contraceptive sex actually express the bond of love. Or does the couple’s mutual rejection of each other’s complete selves destroy the acts capacity to speak the language of the bond of love?
Let me also comment on a quote from Fr Sergei Sveshnikov:
:''In such a worldview [i.e. that teaches that sex is only for procreation], any union of the spouses—the union of the souls, bodies, spirits, minds—is '''*completely devalued*''' in the absence of reproduction, and the sacrament of marriage completely loses its meaning in cases when reproduction is impossible for any reason.'' < https://frsergei.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/sex-and-contraception-in-a-christian-marriage/ >
I don't know if I fully understand Fr Sergei Sveshnikov. However, the doctrine that the marital act must be both unitive and procreative does not mean that the union of naturally infertile couples is “completely devalued.” Far from it, they come together and share all that they are, including their damaged fertility, and together offer their joy, sorrow and suffering to God in hopes of conceiving a child that they know they will love with all their hearts. There are wonderful examples of this in the history of salvation and I believe that it could possibly be a very beautiful and meaningful experience. However, in cases where a naturally fertile husband and wife deliberately choose to reject each other’s powers of reproduction '''it seems that it just is the couple’s intention to empty that act of the very life giving power which makes it capable of expressing that love''' in the first place. If the doctrine is true then it is not the doctrine that devalues their act but they themselves.
The pertinent questions, which have not yet been answered here, are:
* Is the Theology of the Body as summarized above true, in part or in whole?
* If it is false, what proofs of falsity can be offered (for the sake of subjective feelings of certainty) or what alternate accounts can be given to people such as myself that find it an exceptionally beautiful vision of the marital act?
* If it is true, what does it actually mean? For I don't think it is at all obvious that the account of "contraceptive sex" given above, even if true, necessarily proves that contraceptive sex is a sin.
Thank you all very much for your time and I look forward to reading your responses and learning from each of you in good faith!
Sincerely, --[[User:Ryan Close|Ryan Close]] ([[User talk:Ryan Close|talk]]) 17:55, August 21, 2018 (UTC)