Church teaching on marital sexuality

[mia.s]

It seems to me that the Early Church Fathers taught that sex was solely for procreation. In my readings, I was surprised to learn that St. Augustine thought sex with one's spouse was a venial sin (!), and then there were all of the bans in place. This teaching existed for hundreds of years, and then there's a shift closer to the modern era.

Perhaps I'm incorrect in thinking this, but it seems to me the Church didn't change Her teaching on married sexuality until it was forced to due to changing social norms: aka contraception. When the Anglican Church changes its stance on contraception, that was thousands of years after what the Early Church Fathers taught.

Why the change? Why can't the Church continue to teach that the purpose of the conjugal act is solely procreation, since it was considered so in the Old Testament? Now the Church teaches that it's procreative and unitive (and I understand why), but it seems that the change in this teaching was timed a certain way.

[Doom]

Augustine did not teach that marital sex was a venial sin, he said that even between spouses our motives can never be 100% pure so that intercourse always involves at least a hint of the sin of lust. This is not even close to the same thing as saying that sex is a sin. It surely hardly needs to be said that a venial sin like that is not something worth confessing or even feeling guilty about.

I am by no means certain that this is always true, because I know that, for example when a couple is struggling with infertility and trying to conceive, sex can become rote and mechanical and ceases to even be enjoyable. There will be times when the woman knows she is ovulating and neither one is in the mood but they do it because they want to get pregnant. Surely there is no lust in such a situation.

[Vern Humphrey]

Saint John Paul II said there is no part of the human body that cannot be kissed. I think this is a recognition of the unitive property of sex. Sex out of wedlock is a sin, certainly, but within wedlock it is a great gift from God.

[peregrinator]

I think it is difficult to hold that the marital act is always a venial sin considering that each spouse has a right to it (and this right doesn't end with fertility) - we don't have a right to commit sin, not even venial sin - therefore the act can't be intrinsically sinful.

[Vern Humphrey]

I think it is difficult to hold that the marital act is always a venial sin considering that each spouse has a right to it (and this right doesn't end with fertility) - we don't have a right to commit sin, not even venial sin - therefore the act can't be intrinsically sinful.

Exactly!!

I think of sex after menopause as building up a bank account -- an account you will draw upon when one of you becomes helpless and the other has to become the care giver.

[Doom]

I think it is difficult to hold that the marital act is always a venial sin considering that each spouse has a right to it (and this right doesn't end with fertility) - we don't have a right to commit sin, not even venial sin - therefore the act can't be intrinsically sinful.

Then it is good that neither Augustine nor any other theologian who wasn't condemned as a heretic ever said it!

[mia.s]

I kind of forgot about this topic, oops.

Is it the Church's traditional teaching that marriage is for procreation? If so, what does that mean? Is marriage for breeding?

[peregrinator]

The primary end of marriage is the begetting and raising of children. But there are secondary ends too.

[mia.s]

The primary end of marriage is the begetting and raising of children. But there are secondary ends too.

If a married couple can't fulfill the primary ends, is that where the secondary ends are relevant? I was reading Baltimore Catechism and noticed that the teaching for the purpose of marriage has three reasons. The first said to aid each other to get into heaven, then the second one said for the creation and rearing of children.

It is still confusing to me that the Church teaches today that there are two purposes of marriage, unitive and procreative.

[peregrinator]

The secondary ends are always relevant, but a marriage isn't invalid or even "lesser" if the primary end can't be fulfilled. It's when the primary end is willfully frustrated that there are problems.

[mia.s]

The secondary ends are always relevant, but a marriage isn't invalid or even "lesser" if the primary end can't be fulfilled. It's when the primary end is willfully frustrated that there are problems.

Ah okay, I always thought that the primary ends had to be fulfilled. For example, I've read arguments about why couples 40+ or why people with fertility issues or known infertility shouldn't marry, because they can't have children.

[peregrinator]

Ah okay, I always thought that the primary ends had to be fulfilled. For example, I've read arguments about why couples 40+ or why people with fertility issues or known infertility shouldn't marry, because they can't have children.

Well whether they "should" is a separate question from whether they "can" (and not one that I as a layman would feel comfortable answering in the negative!).

[Doom]

The secondary ends are always relevant, but a marriage isn't invalid or even "lesser" if the primary end can't be fulfilled. It's when the primary end is willfully frustrated that there are problems.

Ah okay, I always thought that the primary ends had to be fulfilled. For example, I've read arguments about why couples 40+ or why people with fertility issues or known infertility shouldn't marry, because they can't have children.

I have never heard anybody say that, marriage is a sacrament, which means it is a means of grace. And of course, if there is sexual attraction and desire, it should be expressed only within marriage, to say they cannot get married would be to say that infertile people are required to be celibate, or that they are allowed to fornicate.

[gherkin]

I do believe that impotence is an impediment to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Doom]

I do believe that impotence is an impediment to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, it is, if you can't consummate the union no union can possbly exist, this is radically different from a Josephite marriage where the ability exists but for one reason or another they choose not to do so.

[gherkin]

I do believe that impotence is an impediment to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, it is, if you can't consummate the union no union can possbly exist, this is radically different from a Josephite marriage where the ability exists but for one reason or another they choose not to do so.

Just noting that "infertility" could come in different forms.

[peregrinator]

I do believe that impotence is an impediment to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Perpetual impotence is an impediment, yes - one who is impotent can't exchange marriage rights with his or her would-be spouse. Of course impotence later acquired wouldn't end a marriage contract.

[Vern Humphrey]

I do believe that impotence is an impediment to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Perpetual impotence is an impediment, yes - one who is impotent can't exchange marriage rights with his or her would-be spouse. Of course impotence later acquired wouldn't end a marriage contract.

The congregation of my little church is almost exclusively retired people. We have had marriages between octogenarians (widows and widowers.) Were those marriages not valid?

[peregrinator]

The congregation of my little church is almost exclusively retired people. We have had marriages between octogenarians (widows and widowers.) Were those marriages not valid?

I have no idea - but those who are impotent cannot contract marriage because they can't exchange marriage rights.

[mia.s]

I do believe that impotence is an impediment to marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Perpetual impotence is an impediment, yes - one who is impotent can't exchange marriage rights with his or her would-be spouse. Of course impotence later acquired wouldn't end a marriage contract.

The congregation of my little church is almost exclusively retired people. We have had marriages between octogenarians (widows and widowers.) Were those marriages not valid?

I'd think that the priest would've covered that issue with the couples before marriage?