You are likely right. It depends how strictly that phrase is taken and whether we are to understand it as a moral act or simply an outer description of heterosexual coitus. See below.
An act of sodomy is wrong because it (arguably) is neither unitive nor procreative (just as a handshake is neither) - it is simply a misuse of the sexual faculty. This is true of homosexual acts too.
I am a bit scared to ask what the subtle difference may be :o.
Quite a new vocabulary you’re working up there: condomized, condomistic, etc.
Its my tablet’s type-ahead feature which mistakes I sometimes miss!
Though I have seen the word used by others!
I believe having sex while on the Pill also does not meet the criteria for consummation of a marriage.
It would be interesting to see if the Rota ever actually pronounced on this.
Some might argue that sending their daughter home without her maidenhood intact is clear evidence of consummation.
Contraception deprives an act of sexual intercourse of its procreative meaning - separating it from the unitive - so that suggests that contracepted sex (eg. the Pill in marriage for sake of simplicity) is unitive (and marital), but not procreative. Of course, ‘forced’ sex also violates the unitive dimension.
I would go along with that also.
One may ask the question “what are the pre-requisites/characteristics of a unitive sexual act”. That is not crystal clear to me. I read this in a Ron Conte piece: “And in addition to many assertions on the separation of these two meanings (not the absence of both), I should point out to the reader that, in my extensive review of magisterial documents on contraception for my book, I found no magisterial assertion that the unitive meaning was absent in any contracepted sexual acts.” This suggests that contraception does not detract from the unitive (if present).
My findings also, though popular lay writers (ie Catholic doctors without strong theological formation) regularly deny this.
My sense however is that wearing a condom detracts from the unitive aspect - the two are less “one” than they could be. The unitive meaning is to my mind somewhat ordered to the procreative - and this is why sodomy is not a unitive act.
Generally agreed, though prob not quite the homosexual bit.
The two ends of marriage while obviously related are different afterall.
And while we may not accept homosexual acts as good, nevertheless the commitment and care over many years together that significant numbers in “civil unions” do effect does suggest a possibility that such acts may be capable of supporting an attenuated expression of unitive intent even if misguided and the impulse is not 100% unrestrained lust.
You’ll need to put that one in English for me!!
Type-ahead at work again!