73
edits
Changes
m
→The Theology of the Body
: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 Fr. Lev's 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 Fr. Lev's 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.''
:''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 , so I'm left in no doubt as to what I should believe?* What alternate accounts can be given to people such as myself that find it an exceptionally beautiful vision of the marital act? For example, can anyone present a vision of contraceptive sex that is as beautiful and glorious as the above account of the life-giving marital act? Or, can anyone present an alternate anthropology where the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act are truly separable in a way that continues to allow the marital act to be a Sign of the Gospel? Or, can anyone explain how the mere giving and taking of a sensation can be as beautiful and meaningful as the life-giving marital act? Or, how does one partner's desire to be given a certain kind of sensation and nothing else amount to the same self-sacrificial act of fully giving himself entirely and receiving his wife completely which would be the ''sine qua non'' of the expression of the bond of love?* If it the Theology of the Body as summarized above is true, what does it actually mean? For I don't think it is at all obvious that the account it gives 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)