Now the plain meaning of this statement is that sexual union should take
place for the sole purpose of procreation, that sexual union as _an_ end
in itself--not, mind you, _the_ only end--(there we should all agree), but
sexual union as _an_ end in itself is to be condemned.
That means that sexual intercourse should rightly take place _only_ for
the purpose of procreation.
Now the large majority of conceptions take place immediately after and
before the monthly period.
Quite a large family could easily result from quite a few sexual unions.
For the rest the couple should be celibate. Any intercourse not having
procreation as its intention is "sexual union as an end in itself," and
therefore by inference condemned by the Lambeth Conference.
Think of the facts of life. Let us recall our own love--our marriage,
our honeymoon. Has not sexual union over and over again been the
physical expression of our love without thought or intention of
procreation? Have we all been wrong? Or is it that the Church lacks that
vital contact with the realities of life which accounts for the gulf
between her and the people?
The love envisaged by the Lambeth Conference is an invertebrate joyless
thing--not worth the having. Fortunately it is in contrast to the real
thing as practised by clergy and laity.
Fancy an ardent lover (and what respect have you for a lover who is not
ardent)--the type you would like your daughter to marry--virile,
ambitious, chivalrous--a man who means to work hard and love hard. Fancy
putting before these lovers--eager and expectant of the joys before
them--the Lambeth picture of marriage. Do you expect to gain their
confidence?
They ask for bread; you give them a stone.