Premise #1: The Roman Catholic Church teaches that sex is for procreation
Peter Turner has an excellent answer to the question on Onan. In it, he suggests that Onan really was misusing sex, and that angers God.
When I also consider priestly celibacy and the general nature of Roman teaching on contraception, masturbation, and other regulations around sex, it seems like the Roman church really wants to suggest that the beauty of sex is when it furthers the end of "being fruitful and multiply"ing. I'm probably not doing it justice, but it seems like procreation is the point of sex.
Now, my question then, could be mis-read as antagonstic, but its not. I really do want to understand how these go together. Here's my conundrum -
Premise #2: The canonical Song of Solomon celebrates the passion of sex
The Song of Solomon clearly celebrates a sexual relationship between a man and a woman who dearly love each other. I know that some have historically tried to say that the Song of Solomon is Christ's love for his church, but I can't buy that with verses like these:
SOS 5:3 I have taken off my robe— must I put it on again? I have washed my feet— must I soil them again? 4 My beloved thrust his hand through the latch-opening; my heart began to pound for him. 5 I arose to open for my beloved, and my hands dripped with myrrh, my fingers with flowing myrrh, on the handles of the bolt.
I find it very hard to read that and not think that is physical. (We're all grownups here, right?)
The book goes on to warn us not to "arouse or awaken love, until it so desires, because love is as strong as death." (Its a common refrain). Clearly here the focus is on that passion.
But, that passion is seemingly celebrated, and not necessarily because of the kids that result. It may be dangerous, like fire, but the two lovers aren't saying its a bad thing at all.
Question: How do these fit together?
So, the question in all sincerity is this - How do Romans read the Song of Solomon? How is it reconciled with the seeming Papal preference for purely procreative reproduction?
Or, am I misreading Catholics here - maybe they're not nearly as stuffy as people make them out to be? The Puritans were no prudes either, and it would be nice to understand if a Roman could endorse "the joy of (marital) sex."