Spilling/non-spilling of the male seed?


#1

When did the marital act become SOLELY about the spilling/non-spilling of the male seed? How can anal sex in marriage be permitted?

I find this absolutely stomach churning and revolting.

Apparently, some Catholics think that anything goes in marriage as long as the seed ends up in the woman. Where did this thinking come from and what is it’s principles? The seed not being spilled is absolutely essential, but when did it become the SOLE feature of a sexual act, such that ANY kind of sex before the release of the seed however unnatural or perverse is considered mere “foreplay” and therefore (per this false ideology) not subject to considerations of its intrinsic sinfulness/rightness based on the natural law principle of the unitive and procreative purposes of sex?


#2

[quote="Marybeloved, post:1, topic:278269"]
I find this absolutely stomach churning and revolting.

Apparently, some Catholics think that anything goes in marriage as long as the seed ends up in the woman. Where did this thinking come from and what is it's principles? The seed not being spilled is absolutely essential, but when did it become the SOLE feature of a sexual act, such that ANY kind of sex before the release of the seed however unnatural or perverse is considered mere "foreplay" and therefore (per this false ideology) not subject to considerations of its intrinsic sinfulness/rightness based on the natural law principle of the unitive and procreative purposes of sex?

[/quote]

I have heard this view referred to here on CAF, but have never read anything stating the source of the view. Could you direct me toward the source of such notions? It seems contrary to the immemorial customs of the People of God.


#3

I actually just discovered this view a few hours ago here at CAF when I replied to a question about what a married couple could or couldn’t do in bed. Naturally, I listed what I thought were obvious no-no’s like anal sex, contraception etc and then someone said, essentially,

“As long as it’s unitive and procreative, anything including anal sex, oral sex was Aok!”

To which I replied

“How is anal sex unitive or procreative?”

Then someone said,

“As long as the act is “completed” in the woman (man climaxes in the woman)- then it’s ok and what is before is merely foreplay”

I then asked if their sole definition of sex was the final part (climax) so that all else before (including the acts of penetration) were just “foreplay” and not sexual acts- We had a debate but the thread was pulled due to I think it’s graphic and explicit content.


#4

[quote="Marybeloved, post:1, topic:278269"]
I find this absolutely stomach churning and revolting.

Apparently, some Catholics think that anything goes in marriage as long as the seed ends up in the woman. Where did this thinking come from and what is it's principles? The seed not being spilled is absolutely essential, but when did it become the SOLE feature of a sexual act, such that ANY kind of sex before the release of the seed however unnatural or perverse is considered mere "foreplay" and therefore (per this false ideology) not subject to considerations of its intrinsic sinfulness/rightness based on the natural law principle of the unitive and procreative purposes of sex?

[/quote]

Why do you care what a husband and wife do in the privacy of their bedroom (especially if were taking it as a given that the sex is 'procreative')?

What business is it of yours or the Church?
If sex is good (as the Catholic Church now claims that it believes and has always taught) then why do so many Catholics speak of it as though it were a necessary evil?


#5

Of course “anal sex” is neither unitive nor procreative and therefore totally against the ends of the marital act. “Catholics” are not real Catholics when they make up their own rules.

What the Church teaches is the totality of an act which is directed to procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the formation of children in mutual love and self-giving. A true marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society.

**The late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN puts it succinctly.
marital sex
Question on June-08-2006:

Between a husband and wife, is oral sex a sin if it is performed as part of foreplay and culminates in intercourse?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June-08-2006: **
The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church's teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church's teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse. But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate. Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one's spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: "Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man's seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts." Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, "Contemporary Moral Theology," vol. 2, "Marriage Questions" (New man Press, 1964), p. 212.

[Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].


#6

Lol @ the idea that anal sex could be considered foreplay. :rolleyes:


#7

[quote="Abu, post:5, topic:278269"]
Of course “anal sex” is neither unitive nor procreative and therefore totally against the ends of the marital act. “Catholics” are not real Catholics when they make up their own rules.

What the Church teaches is the totality of an act which is directed to procreative and unitive ends of marriage and the formation of children in mutual love and self-giving. A true marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society.

**The late great Fr Stephen Torraco of EWTN puts it succinctly.
marital sex
Question on June-08-2006:

Between a husband and wife, is oral sex a sin if it is performed as part of foreplay and culminates in intercourse?

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June-08-2006: **
The statement that oral sex is allowable in marriage as long as the activity concludes with procreative sex reflects part of the Church's teaching, but not the whole of it. On the one hand, the Church's teaching that intercourse open to procreation is the only legitimate form of complete sexual expression, even between spouses, does not imply that mutual genital stimulation other than intercourse is forbidden for spouses as part of the preliminaries to marital intercourse.** But on the other hand, the activities of the spouses prior to intercourse must be moderate.** Spouses are required to seek moderation and self-restraint necessary to preserve their love-making from becoming the pursuit of the shallow and apparent good of isolated sexual pleasure, rather than the authentic good of human love, sexually expressed in shared joy. There are no hard and fast rules for avoiding the immoderate pursuit of sexual pleasure, given that the life-giving and person-uniting goods of marriage are respected. Nevertheless, there are certain marks of immoderation and certain broad guidelines for marital chastity that spouses and confessors may refer to: a preoccupation with sexual pleasure, succumbing to desire in circumstances in which it would be wise to refrain, and insisting against serious reluctance of one's spouse. Pope Pius XII put it in this way: "Marriage is a mutual commitment in which each side ceases to be autonomous, in various ways and also sexually: the sexual liberty in agreement together is great; here, so long as they are not immoderate so as to become slaves of sensuality, nothing is shameful, if the complete acts - the ones involving ejaculation of the man's seed - that they engage in are true and real marriage acts." Pope Pius XII addressed these matters in his "Address to the Second World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, " May 19, 1956 (AAS, 48.473). The English translation can be found in John C. Ford, SJ, and Gerald A. Kelly, SJ, "Contemporary Moral Theology," vol. 2, "Marriage Questions" (New man Press, 1964), p. 212.

[Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church].

[/quote]

Lines like this make me suspect that even now many members of the (all celibate male) Catholic Hierarchy still regard sex as a kind of necessary evil.

The Vatican doesn't advocate moderation when it comes to self sacrifice, love of one's fellow man, or devotion to God. Indeed when it comes to things that the Church deems good it usually encourages people to embrace such things wholeheartedly (even if pragmaticism and practicality would suggest some moderation).

But when it comes to (marital) sex suddenly you can all too easily have too much of a good thing:rolleyes:

But perhaps I'm being too cynical:shrug:


#8

AngryAtheist8 #7
Lines like this make me suspect that even now many members of the (all celibate male) Catholic Hierarchy still regard sex as a kind of necessary evil.
when it comes to (marital) sex suddenly you can all too easily have too much of a good thing

The birth dearth occurring in Europe and much of the world outside of Africa demonstrates the wisdom of responsible procreation and formation within the family.

The celibate male clergy come from the Apostolic norm given by Christ the Son of God to His Church.

The concocted fantasy of “sex as a kind of necessary evil” shows the ignorance of the natural moral law, of the biblical injunction from God to fill the earth, and therefore of the use of the marital act without placing any barriers to its fruition. Behaving like animals is in the nature of animals, not of human beings.


#9

[quote="Abu, post:8, topic:278269"]
The birth dearth occurring in Europe and much of the world outside of Africa demonstrates the wisdom of responsible procreation and formation within the family.
The celibate male clergy come from the Apostolic norm given by Christ the Son of God to His Church.

The concocted fantasy of “sex as a kind of necessary evil” shows the ignorance of the natural moral law, of the biblical injunction from God to fill the earth, and therefore of the use of the marital act without placing any barriers to its fruition. Behaving like animals is in the nature of animals, not of human beings.

[/quote]

That would suggest that more 'procreative' sex is necessary, not that sex in general needs to be curtailed.


#10

[quote="Abu, post:8, topic:278269"]
The birth dearth occurring in Europe and much of the world outside of Africa demonstrates the wisdom of responsible procreation and formation within the family.

The celibate male clergy come from the Apostolic norm given by Christ the Son of God to His Church.

The concocted fantasy of “sex as a kind of necessary evil” shows the ignorance of the natural moral law, of the biblical injunction from God to fill the earth, and therefore of the use of the marital act without placing any barriers to its fruition. Behaving like animals is in the nature of animals, not of human beings.

[/quote]

What are you talking about?
Plenty of prominent Churchmen (including some Church Fathers and saints) in Catholic and Protestant history talked about sex (and in some cases women as well) like it was a necessary evil that should only be tolerated for the sake of having children.

Moreover, having sex specifically (and only) to breed is exactly what virtually all animals do.
When human beings have sex for pleasure, money, to make someone feel better, etc.; while rejecting the urge to breed, were acting less like animals.


#11

[quote="AngryAtheist8, post:4, topic:278269"]
Why do you care what a husband and wife do in the privacy of their bedroom (especially if were taking it as a given that the sex is 'procreative')?

What business is it of yours or the Church?
If sex is good (as the Catholic Church now claims that it believes and has always taught) then why do so many Catholics speak of it as though it were a necessary evil?

[/quote]

anal sex is sodomy and a damning sin at that. It is not something any Catholic should get involved in, even if they are happily married and living otherwise Catholic lives.


#12

Both Christopher West and Gregory Popcak say that the idea that other acts of foreplay are unnatural comes is simply the opposite side of the same coin of how our culture treats sex. It is based on the idea that we are souls inside bodies. One side of the coin says we can simply use the body the way we want. The other side of the coin overspiritualizes everything. Sex is therefore seen as dirty because it is of the flesh. It thus is rationalized as something that must be tolerated for the sake of procreation.

Ultimately what the Church tries to teach people is to leave sex being what it is. Do not supress it from being what it is. It is a procreative act. It is also an act that unites a couple, strengthens their marital bond, and gives them a unique way to express their marital love. What must be understood is the personalistic norm. "This norm, in its negative aspect, states that the person is the kind of good which does not admit of use and cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the means to an end. In its positive form the personalistic norm confirms this: the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love".

As such, when it comes to what it involved in foreplay, the question to ask is whether you are striving toward a personal encounter with a person, or whether you are using each other merely as stimulation tools to pursue pleasure as the main end of sex. People have different attitudes about what reduces sex to objectifying the person for physical pleasure. My mom, for instance, has criticized my sister for having personal lubricant. She assumes that it would only be used to heighten the sexual pleasure and that it'd somehow be a dirty form of sex.

Its very easy for people with sexual hang ups to look at the surface of the Church's teaching on sexuality as an affirmation of their hang ups. I had major hang ups (so much so I had difficulty consumating my marriage) and prior to marriage I found safety and affirmation in the Church's teaching. I was able to ignore that I had a very unhealthy negative view of sexuality. As such, its very easy for such people to teach not only what the Church teaches but their own attitudes to the younger generations giving them the impression that the Church sex more about sex than it does.


#13

[quote="AngryAtheist8, post:7, topic:278269"]
Lines like this make me suspect that even now many members of the (all celibate male) Catholic Hierarchy still regard sex as a kind of necessary evil.

The Vatican doesn't advocate moderation when it comes to self sacrifice, love of one's fellow man, or devotion to God. Indeed when it comes to things that the Church deems good it usually encourages people to embrace such things wholeheartedly (even if pragmaticism and practicality would suggest some moderation).

[/quote]

I don't know why some people use the term moderate. It implies that sexual pleasure is so morally degrading and corrupting that people have to spend a lot of time trying to surpress sexual pleasure. Well, I have news for them. Supressing sexual pleasure and being resistant to it hinders the sexual act and can cause problems like vaginismus and other sexual difficulties like I had to go through. Learning to not be afraid that the pleasure would turn me into some lustful objectifying monster was part of the process of learning how to engage in sex. You can't keep your logical mind going during sex anyone. Part of your brain has to turn off to allow the instincts to take over. If it doesn't, you end up overthinking it and can't do it.

JPII was wise in affirming the personalistic norm. Meditating on that was very helpful and helped me to keep my faith during my struggles. It also helped me to realize that trying to force intensely painful intercourse (that could only be acheived if my husband tried to keep his mind completely disconnected to my reactions to the pian) was immoral even though we tried it because we didn't want my husband to be tempted to masturbate. I mean my attitude was "I'll sacrifice and endure lots of pain to keep my husband out of mortal sin."

Its just wrong thinking.

Thankfully when it comes to the teachings of JPII, they give wonderful principals without dictating to people what the applications of those principals would be in every marriage.

That said, its hard for me to imagine sodomy acheiving the personalistic norm and I think there is enough biblical evidence to refrain from it. Plus there is the hygene issue too.


#14

[quote="AngryAtheist8, post:4, topic:278269"]
Why do you care what a husband and wife do in the privacy of their bedroom (especially if were taking it as a given that the sex is 'procreative')?

What business is it of yours or the Church?
If sex is good (as the Catholic Church now claims that it believes and has always taught) then why do so many Catholics speak of it as though it were a necessary evil?

[/quote]

What is business is it of yours that I start a thread a bout a topic that's interesting to me? I care- and it's relevant to the sub forum. Now give me the catholic answers or stop bothering me, I'm not here to prove anything to you.


#15

[quote="AngryAtheist8, post:4, topic:278269"]
Why do you care what a husband and wife do in the privacy of their bedroom (especially if were taking it as a given that the sex is 'procreative')?

What business is it of yours or the Church?
If sex is good (as the Catholic Church now claims that it believes and has always taught) then why do so many Catholics speak of it as though it were a necessary evil?

[/quote]

You must feel so much at home in this Catholic forum that you think it is appropriate for you, an atheist, to ask a Catholic member what business it is of hers and the Church in the Moral Theology sub-forum, for bringing up a subject that occasionally comes up among Catholics!

In case you have not come across such threads or topic, the issue of sodomy (anal sex, to be specific) is not regarded by many Catholics as okay in the context of marital foreplay. It is difficult to justify anal penetration as a loving act of foreplay to the marital embrace. It is an act that seems to stem much more from the disorder of lust than from a genuine desire to express love in physical union with one's spouse. The act of sodomy, whether carried out by homosexuals or by spouses is intrinsically evil and a perversion. Not to mention unaesthetic and unsanitary as non-religious reasons in staying away from the practice. I do not expect you to accept or to understand this position, but I would like to provide this link to the OP, which should help her defend her position the next time she is faced with the controversy in this forum.

[quote="AngryAtheist8, post:9, topic:278269"]
That would suggest that more 'procreative' sex is necessary, not that sex in general needs to be curtailed.

[/quote]

Procreative sex between spouses, that is. Sex outside marriage needs to be curtailed. As for the subject of marital foreplay, the kind that the OP has raised, the problem is lust as mentioned above, which is sinful. Indeed some are drawn into sinful acts as a prelude to intercourse including sadomasochist acts, the viewing of pornography to stimulate sexual excitement, and sodomy.
,


#16

[quote="Marybeloved, post:14, topic:278269"]
What is business is it of yours that I start a thread a bout a topic that's interesting to me? I care- and it's relevant to the sub forum. Now give me the catholic answers or stop bothering me, I'm not here to prove anything to you.

[/quote]

   :popcorn:

:slapfight::nunchuk:


#17

[quote="twoangels, post:12, topic:278269"]
Both Christopher West and Gregory Popcak say that the idea that other acts of foreplay are unnatural comes is simply the opposite side of the same coin of how our culture treats sex.

[/quote]

I think they are both wrong- They start on a false premise that intrinsically evil sexual acts are "foreplay" just because you make sure you spill the seed in the right place eventually.

They define sex using only the last part of it (that the man climaxes in the woman)-Since when did the only thing that shows a sexual act is whether or not the man climaxes?

It is based on the idea that we are souls inside bodies.

This is false. It is based on the idea of judging all sexual acts on their unitive and procreative elements to determine their legitimacy or not. West and other proponents of this anal sex circumvent this rule that will clearly destroy the supposed licitness they presume by renaming those gravely disodered acts "foreplay".

The other side of the coin overspiritualizes everything. Sex is therefore seen as dirty because it is of the flesh. It thus is rationalized as something that must be tolerated for the sake of procreation.

We are discussing 'anal sex" right? Of course it's dirty! It's disordered and unnatural, it abuses the natural purpose of the sexual organs. Only natural, open-to-life sex is clean, good and wholesome. The points you raise are completely off-base, they have nothing to with the real reason that these sexual acts are considered intinsically evil.

Ultimately what the Church tries to teach people is to leave sex being what it is. Do not supress it from being what it is. It is a procreative act.

Exactly- so by virtue of that alone, anal sex is out :shrug:. That's my point.

It is also an act that unites a couple, strengthens their marital bond, and gives them a unique way to express their marital love.

Unitive does not simply mean "bodies touch"- It is an expression of what happens when a man naturally joins with his wife in the embrace of natural sex- The ultimate form of total mutual self-giving possible for humans.

It's very easy for people with sexual hang ups to look at the surface of the Church's teaching on sexuality as an affirmation of their hang ups. I had major hang ups (so much so I had difficulty consumating my marriage) and prior to marriage I found safety and affirmation in the Church's teaching. I was able to ignore that I had a very unhealthy negative view of sexuality. As such, its very easy for such people to teach not only what the Church teaches but their own attitudes to the younger generations giving them the impression that the Church sex more about sex than it does.

I have no hangups- I just judge all types of sex according to their unitive and procreative purposes to determine their licitness or not, and anal sex fails miserably.


#18

[quote="twoangels, post:12, topic:278269"]
Both Christopher West and Gregory Popcak say that the idea that other acts of foreplay are unnatural comes is simply the opposite side of the same coin of how our culture treats sex.

[/quote]

I think they are both wrong- They start on a false premise that intrinsically evil sexual acts are "foreplay" just because you make sure you spill the seed in the right place eventually.

They define sex using only the last part of it (that the man climaxes in the woman)-Since when did the only thing that shows a sexual act is whether or not the man climaxes?

It is based on the idea that we are souls inside bodies.

This is false. It is based on the idea of judging all sexual acts on their unitive and procreative elements to determine their legitimacy or not. West and other proponents of this anal sex circumvent this rule that will clearly destroy the supposed licitness they presume by renaming those gravely disodered acts "foreplay".

The other side of the coin overspiritualizes everything. Sex is therefore seen as dirty because it is of the flesh. It thus is rationalized as something that must be tolerated for the sake of procreation.

We are discussing 'anal sex" right? Of course it's dirty! It's disordered and unnatural, it abuses the natural purpose of the sexual organs. Only natural, open-to-life sex is clean, good and wholesome. The points you raise are completely off-base, they have nothing to with the real reason that these sexual acts are considered intinsically evil.

Ultimately what the Church tries to teach people is to leave sex being what it is. Do not supress it from being what it is. It is a procreative act.

Exactly- so by virtue of that alone, anal sex is out :shrug:. That's my point.

It is also an act that unites a couple, strengthens their marital bond, and gives them a unique way to express their marital love.

Unitive does not simply mean "bodies touch"- It is an expression of what happens when a man naturally joins with his wife in the embrace of natural sex- The ultimate form of total mutual self-giving possible for humans.

It's very easy for people with sexual hang ups to look at the surface of the Church's teaching on sexuality as an affirmation of their hang ups. I had major hang ups (so much so I had difficulty consumating my marriage) and prior to marriage I found safety and affirmation in the Church's teaching. I was able to ignore that I had a very unhealthy negative view of sexuality. As such, its very easy for such people to teach not only what the Church teaches but their own attitudes to the younger generations giving them the impression that the Church sex more about sex than it does.

I have no hangups- I just judge all types of sex according to the standard that the church has infallibly set for sexual acts in marriage (That is- according to their unitive and procreative elements) to determine their licitness or not, and anal sex fails miserably.


#19

I think they are both wrong- They start on a false premise that intrinsically evil sexual acts are “foreplay” just because you make sure you spill the seed in the right place eventually.

They define sex using only the last part of it (that the man climaxes in the woman)-Since when did the only thing that shows a sexual act is whether or not the man climaxes?

It is based on the idea that we are souls inside bodies.

This is false. It is based on the idea of judging all sexual acts on their unitive and procreative elements to determine their legitimacy or not. West and other proponents of this anal sex circumvent this rule that will clearly destroy the supposed licitness they presume by renaming those gravely disodered acts “foreplay”.

The other side of the coin overspiritualizes everything. Sex is therefore seen as dirty because it is of the flesh. It thus is rationalized as something that must be tolerated for the sake of procreation.

We are discussing 'anal sex" right? Of course it’s dirty! It’s disordered and unnatural, it abuses the natural purpose of the sexual organs. Only natural, open-to-life sex is clean, good and wholesome. The points you raise are completely off-base, they have nothing to with the real reason that these sexual acts are considered intinsically evil.

Ultimately what the Church tries to teach people is to leave sex being what it is. Do not supress it from being what it is. It is a procreative act.

Exactly- so by virtue of that alone, anal sex is out :shrug:. That’s my point.

It is also an act that unites a couple, strengthens their marital bond, and gives them a unique way to express their marital love.

Unitive does not simply mean “bodies touch”- It is an expression of what happens when a man naturally joins with his wife in the embrace of natural sex- The ultimate form of total mutual self-giving possible for humans.

It’s very easy for people with sexual hang ups to look at the surface of the Church’s teaching on sexuality as an affirmation of their hang ups. I had major hang ups (so much so I had difficulty consumating my marriage) and prior to marriage I found safety and affirmation in the Church’s teaching. I was able to ignore that I had a very unhealthy negative view of sexuality. As such, its very easy for such people to teach not only what the Church teaches but their own attitudes to the younger generations giving them the impression that the Church sex more about sex than it does.

I have no hangups- I just judge all types of sex according to the standard that the church has infallibly set for sexual acts in marriage (That is- according to their unitive and procreative elements) to determine their licitness or not, and anal sex fails miserably on both fronts.


#20

AngryAtheist8 #10
Plenty of prominent Churchmen (including some Church Fathers and saints) in Catholic and Protestant history talked about sex (and in some cases women as well) like it was a necessary evil that should only be tolerated for the sake of having children.

False.
As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it." [45]
45. St. August., De coniug. adult., lib. II, n. 12, Gen, XXXVIII, 8-10.

Further, from early in the tradition, a secondary purpose was recognized. St Augustine put it this way:
“Husband and wife owe one another not only the faithful association of sexual union for the sake of getting children—which makes the first society of the human race in this our mortality—but more than that a kind of mutual service of bearing the burden of one another’s weakness, so as to prevent unlawful intercourse. (12)
(12) Quoted in Elizabeth Anscombe, Contraception and Chastity
jesus-logos.blogspot.com/2010/12/marriage-and-prophylactic-use-of.html

Reality of truth is what faithful Catholics accept, assent to, and offer.

St. John Chrysostom also affirmed the sacrament of love in marriage and acknowledged the unitive purpose:
"The procreation of children in marriage is the 'heritage' and 'reward' of the Lord; a blessing of God (cf. Psalm 127:3). It is the natural result of the act of sexual intercourse in marriage, which is a sacred union through which God Himself joins the two together into 'one flesh' (Genesis 1-2, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5, et. al.). The procreation of children is not in itself the sole purpose of marriage, but a marriage without the desire for children, and the prayer to God to bear and nurture them, is contrary to the 'sacrament of love.'" 19
Note:
19. St. John Chrysostom, *Homily on Ephesians *20, PG.
forum.ancient-future.net/index.php?showtopic=315

Catholic Medical Weekly
cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007...raception.html
“Pope Sixtus, in the late 1500's, condemned simultaneously contraception and abortion.[10] The Holy Office under Pope Pius IX (1846-1878) handed down several decisions condemning contraception, noting that the wrongness of contraception is a wrong against human nature. That is, it is not a "situational" wrong, but is a universal wrong against the nature of man, as is abortion and infanticide.[11]
[W. E. May, *Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000.
[10] pg 144
[11] pg. 371.”

When human beings have sex for pleasure, money, to make someone feel better, etc.; while rejecting the urge to breed, were acting less like animals.

False.
The failure is in acting while deliberately placing a barrier to conception, thus denying the fact that the pleasure is for the purpose of procreation which is not to be thwarted deliberately by a self-imposed barrier.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.