top of page
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • RSS

Sex is for Kids

  • Writer: Andrew Comiskey
    Andrew Comiskey
  • Apr 7
  • 3 min read

‘Each and every marital act must remain open to the transmission of life…that teaching is founded upon the inseparable connection between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning…By safeguarding both, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness true mutual love’ (Humanae Vitae 11,12).

   

One of the strangest truths I encountered as an evangelical (and seminarian) was the encyclical Humanae Vitae, written by Pope St. Paul Vl in 1968. In less than 7000 words, he kindly refused to separate sexual intercourse from conceiving new life. How? By prohibiting birth control.  

 

What? In the middle of the sexual revolution? No little pills for those who want to space out kids or wait until after grad school or refuse them altogether?

 

I was big on the unitive dimension of intercourse. Nothing better conveys and confirms one flesh, a dynamic replay of the covenant we made with our bodies. But no contraception? A decidedly non-Protestant demand. Too much, like indissoluble marriage. Let us plan our family our way, and if that doesn’t work out, no-fault divorce!

 

Humanae Vitae shocked, and convicted, me. Pope St. Paul VI was one brave man to not bend the Catholic knee to separating sex from kids, as did all his Protestant counterparts. Scientific advances in birth control gave people authority over their bodies. Instead of chemistry, Catholics insisted on smart chastity.

 

Pope St. John Paul ll helped by pastorally accompanying men and women seeking to live Humanae Vitae. He wrote Theology of the Body (from ’79-’84) to form those seeking to honor God in the whole of their lives together. Masterful in its biblical and spiritual depth, TOB casts vision and awakens hope that life in Christ can free man and woman from lust, for love, and establish a relational base sound enough to welcome new life until death do us part. 

 

Smart chastity. In marriage. Read the seasons. Use self-control; learn to love the whole of your spouse without orgasm. No power plays. Open to the life that may be conceived in every act of intercourse. Welcome and cherish the fruit of becoming one flesh.

 

Holding tension between the unitive and procreative is tough. I didn’t agree with Paul Vl way back when. But it rang true. Without settling the HV question, Annette and I had babies rapid-fire and were stopped only by a secular doctor who advised us to have a tubal ligation, a ‘yes’ we regret to this day. (We wanted more kids!)

 

While pondering Humanae Vitae, I noticed something else at my seminary. A well-known and respected professor there, Dr. Mel White, came out of the closet, left his family, claimed to be intrinsically ‘gay,’ went on 60 Minutes, got a partner, invoked sympathy, etc. (His son, btw, is Mike White, boy wonder of the razor-sharp and salacious The White Lotus series.) Other leaders followed Mel, and the seminary became wary of my claim that people could actually come out of homosexuality and embrace marriage happily.  Philosopher Lew Smedes, a friend of White’s and former advocate of mine, prodded me: ‘When are you leaving your wife for a man?’

 

Perhaps White had lived two lives for so long that he couldn’t imagine transforming lust into love. It takes Jesus’ full gift, a patient community, and complete surrender. Instead, White divided the seminary.

 

I wondered then about this link between contraception and the weakening of marriage. If marriage is just about two people enjoying themselves, with or without kids, then why not switch partners? In ‘80’s California, Christian marriage was dissoluble, and birth control gave couples as much freedom as they wanted to not even bother with kids.

 

In a way, Mel’s changing partners made sense. No-fault divorce—justifiable. The man apparently ‘needed’ gay sex and partnership. Why not dignify it with ‘gay’ marriage? After all, ‘marriage’ need not involve kids.

 

That was forty years ago. The road goes down and down. If Joe and Jane can do whatever they want with their bodies while preventing the transmission of life, then why shouldn’t Mel and partner? Why shouldn’t anybody?

 

Thanks Pope St. Paul Vl and Pope St. John Paul ll. You saw further than we did. Your light still shows us the Way.  

16 Comments


George Buehler
3 days ago

This is a bunch of confusing blather, written in a lighthearted tone that is offensive.

Like

daveleo
6 days ago

Well Andy---I dont think I can agree with your latest article.......lets look at the scriptures...1 Cor 7 and proverbs 5:15-20 spell it out pretty good ----


Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it…


Like
Daveleo
5 days ago
Replying to

Thanks for the reply Andy---but the title of your blog says it all "Sex is for kids"

Like

Guest
Apr 08

"A decidedly non-Protestant demand. Too much, like indissoluble marriage". There is nothing new under the sun Mr. Comiskey. Catholic puritanism is just as pernicious as it's protestant near cousins, with the focuses on particular moral idealism. Jesus said: beware the leaven of the pharisees.


All kudos to Paul VI and John Paul II for seeing further back to the garden. However, Guttmacher has shown conclusively how out of touch the Vatican has been and is still to those struggling at the coalface of real family living.

Like
Guest
Apr 09
Replying to

Thank you. Interesting.


Three questions: Has Desert Stream Ministries at any time permitted divorced and remarried staff or volunteers, including couples, to serve in the ministry (including as a Living Waters Co-Ordinator)?


If so, has your organization made any exclusionary changes to policy because of your reception into the Roman Catholic Church?


Thirdly, if affirmative to the second question, have you subsequently removed anyone divorced and remarried while they were serving with efficacy?

Like

Jonevan
Apr 07

In Eden that was true. Not after...

Pre-contraception, couples had more than a dozen children. Yet, many (even Catholics) used the rhythm method to avoid pregnancy. Why did they? Economics!

Today, who can afford 15 children? The good pope didn't have to worry about that and could be idealistic. Not today! Advocating 'semen retention' to procreation only is rather hard.

I know a Catholic family with 15 kids. The father was never home as he worked three jobs to support them. The mother was emotionally absent due to fatigue in cleaning and feeding all these kids. Three boys are in gay marriages. The other children not doing well in adulthood.

Only in Eden would that work.

Like
Guest
Apr 09
Replying to

I am glad you see it as not always easy which speaks to the reality that the human mind sees your point, but the human heart is weak such that the humans need mercy. Having 15 kids because one struggles with lust is not fair to those kids. Mercy is proper birth control to mitigate that potential harm and the crippling guilt when one fails.

Like

Guest
Apr 07

It might be wise to change the title “sex is for having kids”?? Rather shocking to think you’re suggesting children should be having sex (which is how I first read it) i.e sex is for kids…

Like
bottom of page