What is the Purpose of Sex?
For a culture permeated by sex, most have a warped perspective of its purpose.
In May 2017, some friends from the apologetics graduate program at Houston Baptist University (now Houston Christian University) had a discussion about the ethics of contraception which, of course, included a discussion about marriage and sex. The discussion post grew into over 700 comments and 40,000 words. It was referred back to for incoming students over the years, then was plagiarized, and finally deleted from the group to cover up the plagiarism and theft. This is post is part of my Stolen Words series where I am share my part of the conversation, the words I wrote, in that thread.
As the people in the group didn’t want their words shared publicly, and since I am not a plagiarist, I’m just going to give a summary of the discussion that was taking place to give context to my comments.
As I mentioned in the first post, “Stolen Words,” the class this thread was discussing was “Modern and Post-Modernism and Apologetics” which was designed and taught by Dr. Holly Ordway, who is a Catholic. There was a little bit of discussion in the thread on whether or not one would be penalized for disagreeing with her Catholic position. I don’t think that was the case at all. In my experience, Dr. Ordway was fine if you held a different opinion … you just had to be able to properly defend it. If your arguments were weak, yes, I think you could expect pushback.
Catholics versus Protestants on Contraception
This particular leg of the megathread started off with a discussion on tolerance of differences in denominational positions. I will include this quote,
“There is an unspoken ‘tolerance’ for the protestant, but an underlying ‘but we really know that the (Roman) Catholics are right’”
Personally, I don’t think this was the case. Through the program, I did gain more of an appreciation for Catholicism as I gained a better understanding of what Catholics actually believe, but as you will see in my comments below, that didn’t convert me to Catholicism. There are many areas where I agree with Catholics, but where I don’t agree, it is because I think those particular doctrines are based on traditions of men that have misinterpreted or misapplied particular passages of Scripture.
When I was in the program, that is how I argued my position. I began from Scripture, looking at the relevant passages in the historical context, and explained why I thought the Catholic view was flawed in those areas. I never felt as if my views were dismissed, but I can see where someone might feel that way if they were arguing a point based on “well this is just what I believe.” That may fly in other programs, not in the one that I graduated from under Dr. Ordway.
Having said that, I did not take this class or do the reading for it. This is one I exempted for other classes. It is entirely possible that Catholic doctrine was pushed more heavily in this class than in others.
The discussion then turned to the Catholic promotion of Natural Family Planning. The definition of natural family planning is:
God designed marriage as an "intimate partnership of life and love" (see Gaudium et spes, no. 48). In God's design, marriage is a unique union of one man with one woman "for the whole of life" (see Canon 1055, The Code of Canon Law). Marriage is oriented to the good of the spouses and to the creation and nurture of new human life (see Gaudium et spes, no. 48). Making decisions therefore, about when and how many children to have in marriage is a sacred responsibility that God has entrusted to husband and wife. This is the foundation of what the Church calls, "Responsible Parenthood," the call to discern God's will for your marriage while respecting His design for life and love.
The Catholic Church supports the methods of Natural Family Planning (NFP) because they respect God's design for married love. In fact, NFP represents the only authentic approach to family planning available to husbands and wives because these methods can be used to both attempt or avoid pregnancy. When learning about NFP, it is important to know that:
Natural Family Planning is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid conception. These methods are based on the observation of the naturally occurring signs and symptoms of the fertile and infertile phases of a woman's menstrual cycle. Some natural methods include use of fertility monitors to better understand the time of the wife's fertility. Married couples using NFP to postpone conception abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the wife's cycle. No drugs, devices, or surgical procedures are used to avoid pregnancy. Married couples who use NFP to attempt a pregnancy, make use of the fertile window--the optimum time when conception is likely.
NFP reflects the dignity of the human person within the context of marriage and family life, promotes openness to life, and recognizes the value of the child. By respecting the love-giving and life-giving natures of marriage, NFP can enrich the bond between husband and wife. (Standards for Diocesan Natural Family Planning Ministry, p. 23)
I think it is interesting to compare the Catholic position on family planning versus segments of the evangelical church that are anti-contraception such as the Quiverfull movement which do not believe in putting any brakes on conception at all.
The Catholic position recognizes that there are many reasons where a couple may not want to have one pregnancy after another, whether that be for financial reasons or because of health concerns. Evangelicals seem to completely dismiss that and, in my mind, is a much more misogynistic attitude, because the woman is usually not taken into any consideration at all.
From the there, the discussion touched a little bit on the science of conception and then turned to one of the main questions of the thread, “What is the purpose of sex?” Is it for recreation, pleasure, union, or procreation?
My first response
*** *** ***
The primary purpose [of sex] is communion/union of two people. God does tell Adam and Eve to procreate and subdue the earth, but what is the standout verse regarding their union? [Genesis] 2:24. "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one."
Jesus quotes the same verse in Matthew 19:5 and Paul calls it is a "great mystery" in Ephesians 5:32. Paul also speaks about this in 1 Corinthians 6:16-17 and verse 17 makes clear the correlation between being united with the Lord in spirit.
Yes, there are a lot of Catholic interpretations in this program. I saw that in the Medieval class. I don't think I got marked down for disagreeing very strongly and at length about purgatory.
I'm glad this is a class I'm exempting
And he said, “‘This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.’ - Matthew 19:5 NLT
16 And don’t you realize that if a man joins himself to a prostitute, he becomes one body with her? For the Scriptures say, “The two are united into one.” 17 But the person who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with him. - 1 Corinthians 6:16-17
*** *** ***
The Male View on Sex
There was quite a bit of pushback in the thread as a whole from one person as seeing the primary purpose of sex as a union between a man and a woman. I’m not sure why that is such a radical concept unless seeing a wife as an equal partner that is capable of a true union was hard for this person to wrap their head around.
Obviously, I’m giving an explanation of what I think they mean from based on their response. If they had been willing for the conversation to be published, their words could have stood for themselves.
But the general gist of the responses from this person was that seeing sex as anything other than for procreation was a sin, which to me, is seeing a woman as an object, an organic incubator, and marriage not as a true partnership, but an arrangement where it’s all about the man and the woman is just there for what she can provide.
My Response to the Primary Purpose of Sex as Procreation
*** *** ***
I don't see it as a directive as the Catholics do. Without looking up the passage, the one where the man was struck dead, the issue was not preventing conception just to prevent conception, but because it was out of rebellion. The Jewish law instructed that a brother was responsible for ensuring that the one who had passed had an heir.
That is the only place I can think of where it is addressed, and I don't think the context warrants an extreme doctrine.
I think that contraceptives -could- be rebellion if a couple is seeking their own will and they believe that God is leading them otherwise, but that is true of anything.
No I don't think the procreative purpose is the main definition of the act. Not at all. It is the spiritual union. It is a real thing, not just an idea or a concept. That is what I see repeated in Scripture.
*** *** ***
Having said that, I do think children are a blessing and most contraceptives can have adverse medical effects, but I don't think that my friend with four kids and who almost died after the birth of her twins was sinning by having her tubes tied.
*** *** ***
I just went and looked at a Catholic answers site. Literally, the only Scripture they use is that one I mentioned about Onan. That is completely taking it out of context. There are some church writers that talk about it two centuries in, but 1) they were either making an entire doctrine out of that one passage, or 2) it was in some relation talking about adultery on the part of women. And like in the Talmud, there was a lot of misogyny in the writings of that time period.
It's like purgatory, an entire doctrine created out of one thing, which in the case of purgatory wasn't even Scripture but because of one reference to something the Maccabees did.
*** *** ***
The Faulty Basis of the Catholic Doctrine on Contraception
More of an explanation on Onan’s sin. This is an explanation from Catholic.com which claims that this passage in Genesis 38 is a condemnation of contraception.
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (see Gen. 19). - “Birth Control” Catholic.com
This is a gross misunderstanding of what was going on in Genesis 38. During that time, a woman’s only security was in having sons that would receive an inheritance and take care of her in her old age. That is the reason for the instruction in the Torah that a brother was to give a widow children. So the widow’s children would receive the inheritance her husband was supposed to have which would, in turn, provide for her in her old age.
Onan’s sin was exploitation
Onan was going in and having sex with Tamar repeatedly but ensuring she would not get pregnant … thus prolonging his use of her. Onan’s sin was exploitation, not pulling out. It was essentially rape … and the penalty for rape was death.
This Catholic argument completely dismisses the value and worth of the woman by not recognizing the point. Tamar was being used! The Lord ended her exploitation and judged Onan when no one else would.
That is the point of Genesis 38.
No, it is NOT a valid argument against contraception.
My final comments in this leg of the discussion thread.
Catholics are Not Always Against Birth Control
*** *** ***
So XXX: if you want to stir things up, here's this . . .
Catholic church's total ban on contraception challenged by scholars
*** *** ***
And did you know that Pope Francis allowed birth control for women that were at risk for contracting Zika? How is that coherent and consistent?
Pope Francis, answering on Zika risk, says use of contraception could be possibly permitted
https://www.americamagazine.org/content/all-things/pope-francis-zika-and-contraception
More on Catholic doctrine on contraception:
August 23, 2022: "The Vatican’s Contraception Confusion:
It's like the heady days of Humanae Vitae all over again. Will Pope Francis reverse the Church's teaching on contraception? Can he?"
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-vaticans-contraception-confusion
"What does the Catholic Church teach about contraception?", Institute of Clinical Bioethics, Saint Joseph's University,
https://www.sju.edu/centers/icb/blog/what-does-the-catholic-church-teach-about-contraception
If you haven’t already, be sure to subscribe to read more.