S
stanley123
Guest
I don’t accept this as a given. I contend that Church taught in the past that the procreation of children is the primary end of marriage.
- Status
S
stanley123
Guest
In my opinion one does not equal two. To say that the rules have changed and that one now equals two would constitute a radical break.
S
stanley123
Guest
Not true before Vatican II. Before Vatican II, it taught that there was one primary end of marriage:
**Justin Martyr **
“But whether we [Christians] marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently” (* First Apology *29 [A.D. 151]).
**Athenagoras **
“Therefore, having the hope of eternal life, we despise the things of this life, even to the pleasures of the soul, each of us reckoning her his wife whom he has married according to the laws laid down by us, and that only for the purpose of having children” (* Plea for the Christians *33 [AD. 177]).
**Augustine **
“The procreation of children is the first and natural and lawful reason for marriage” (* On Adulterous Marriages *2:12:12 [A.D. 419]).
Thomas Aquinas stated, “It is clear that offspring is the most essential thing in marriage, secondly fidelity, and thirdly [the] sacrament; even as to man it is more essential to be in nature than to be in grace, although it is more excellent to be in grace” (Summa Theologiae IIIb:49:3).
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Here you have a development of the doctrine on marriage illustrated in your quotations. It is stated first by Justin Martyr and Athenagoras that the only purpose of marriage is procreation. However, by the time we get to St. Thomas, there are now three essential things in marriage, and eventually we have the three purposes of different primacy: first procreation, second mutual help, third remedy for concupiscence.
That is clearly a contradiction with the early understanding, for they say “only” – the concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary is an innovation.
S
stanley123
Guest
It may illustrate another contradiction in the Church’s teaching, but my point still stands that the Church has taught in the past that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children.
P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Everyone agrees with your point: the Church has taught in the past that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children.
In fact, the Church still teaches that.
However, you seem obsessed with finding contradictions in the Church’s teaching, and so, if something at first glance appears contradictory, you neither give it the benefit of the doubt nor make any effort to see how those things may be reasonably harmonized.
Let’s use an analogy. Suppose we say, “The mother is the primary caregiver of the family.” Then, however, we discover that the father is also an equal caregiver, in his own way. Now we can say that each one is a primary caregiver, and together they are the primary caregivers of the family.
Having two equal caregivers (if they are in fact equal) in no way means that they cannot be in a primary position.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Stanley123,
We trust and rely, based on the promise of Christ, that the Church will grow in her understanding of God’s teachings and that the Pope and the Council of Bishops are protected from teaching erroneously when it comes to faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.
Yes, for a long time the Church’s understanding and teaching was that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children. She has learned, over time, that there is more to the marital embrace which God intended for the couple to grow closer to Him through each other in the unitive aspect. This is a deeper understanding the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church and as is her responsibility, she has passed that on to us.
One does not take away from the other or supercede the other, it is just a fuller understanding. Perhaps someday God will reveal even more with regard to marriage, if that should happen we can trust in our Church to fill us in on the new understandings.
S
stanley123
Guest
I ageee with the first sentence. I am not sure, but I don’t think that the second sentence is true. In fact, a post on this thread has indicated that the current teaching of the RCC is that there are two primary purposes to marriage.
So it looks like the following:
- Before Vatican II, the teaching was that there was one primary purpose to marriage.
- After Vatican II, the teaching was that there were two primary purposes to marriage.
You say that you agree to point 1. Do you also agree to point #2?
O
otm
Guest
So essentially what you are saying is that there can only be one primary end of marriage.
However, on the contrary, there can be several primary ends; they are distinguishalble from secondary ends. But the fact that there are several primary ends does not necessarily make them co-equal; neither does the fact that they may not be co-equal imply that only one is primary.
Although it is not the first definition of the word “primary”, one of the definitions of the word is “being of the simplest or most basic order of its kind or their kind”.
So long as you insist that primary equates with only one thing (in other words, “first”), this discussion will go nowhere. The Church, however, does not use the word “primary” in the way you are insisting it has to.
O
otm
Guest
About as much coincidence as that it occured aduring and after the Viet Nam war.
O
otm
Guest
- the Pope was speaking about contraception. The Episcopal/Anglican Church had just allowed contraception to be used within the confines of marriage and he was responding to that.
O
otm
Guest
As I said, you are locked on one definition of primary. The Church doesn’t use it that way.
O
otm
Guest
To further the point; there may be a baby sitter, and two sets of grandparents, all of whom are caregivers to the child. They would, however, be secondary to the primary caregivers of the child.
Most people would get the point that the parents are the primary cargivers of the child, and would have no problem dealing with the fact that, if the mother was a stay-at-home mother, she would spend the most time with the child; this would not prevent the father from being a primary caregiver too. In fact, the child may be emotionally attached more to the father than the mother; but that would not preclude the mother from being the primary caregiver in amount of time.
S
stanley123
Guest
Right. So like I said:
- Before Vatican II, the teaching was that there was one primary purpose of marriage.
- After Vatican II, the teaching is that there are two primary purposes of marriage.
It looks like you are all agreeing to this?
Is that correct that everyone is in agreement here on these two points?
C
Christ_Soldier
Guest
In my opinion, this has become a very heated issue in not only this forum, but the entire Church today. For marraige is among one of the most sacred institutions of the faith.
Perhaps what may be the case here is that we are misunderstanding the definition of Natural Family. Now I don’t claim to have done an extensive amount of research on the subject, but taking into consideration sevreal different catholic sources, I would define the concept as the following: use of the naturally infertile period of the wife’s cycle for having conjugal relations when a married couple has sufficiently serious reasons for wanting to avoid conception". Am I wrong in this definition?
According to the CCC, there are two mutually inseparable properties to be fulfilled when considering the fecundity of marriage (the capacity for procreation): “the unitive and procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act”. (2366)
Now I have heard the proposition argued in defense of NFP that it fulfills the unitive aspect of the marriage act, therefore it is valid. Now the question we must consider here is whether we believe that these two properties can be fulfilled separately. Remeber that the Catechism says that that the bond between these two is, "the inseparable connection, established by God, which man of his own initiative may not break . Does this clearly not mean that the two properties must be fulfilled within the same marriage act, not separate acts?
To speak right to the topic, the Catechism says conerning the concept of NFP: (2368)
"For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity generosity apropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
If I am not mistaken, does this not say that only through the VIRTUE OF MARRIED CHASTITY can we attain harmony of maried life (like for instance the use of the naturally infertile period of the wife’s cycle for having conjugal relations-AKA-NFP) with the responsibility of the transmission of lfie (like for instance the purpose of conjugal relations FOR the purpose of procreation)???
(Let us not forget that this is the CCC itself…okay)
When I first learned of the concept of NFP, I immediately thought to myself that it cannot be backed by the church, for it is the direct act of sexual relations without the fulfillment or even consideration of procreation. Am I wrong ? I understand the ongoing debate, and that there are those who believe there is another side of the argument, which I hope to include at some point.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Perhaps what may be the case here is that we are misunderstanding the definition of Natural Family. Now I don’t claim to have done an extensive amount of research on the subject, but taking into consideration sevreal different catholic sources, I would define the concept as the following: use of the naturally infertile period of the wife’s cycle for having conjugal relations when a married couple has sufficiently serious reasons for wanting to avoid conception". Am I wrong in this definition?
According to the CCC, there are two mutually inseparable properties to be fulfilled when considering the fecundity of marriage (the capacity for procreation): “the unitive and procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act”. (2366)
Now I have heard the proposition argued in defense of NFP that it fulfills the unitive aspect of the marriage act, therefore it is valid. Now the question we must consider here is whether we believe that these two properties can be fulfilled separately. Remeber that the Catechism says that that the bond between these two is, "the inseparable connection, established by God, which man of his own initiative may not break . Does this clearly not mean that the two properties must be fulfilled within the same marriage act, not separate acts?
To speak right to the topic, the Catechism says conerning the concept of NFP: (2368)
"For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity generosity apropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
Code:
*When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, critreia drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love;* **this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart".**(Let us not forget that this is the CCC itself…okay)
When I first learned of the concept of NFP, I immediately thought to myself that it cannot be backed by the church, for it is the direct act of sexual relations without the fulfillment or even consideration of procreation. Am I wrong ? I understand the ongoing debate, and that there are those who believe there is another side of the argument, which I hope to include at some point.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
C
Christ_Soldier
Guest
Another great source for this debate is a book I have read much of entitled, “Catholic Replies”, by James J. Drummey, a religious educator, co-author of the popular apologetics text Catholicism and Reason, and editor of the Catholic Replies newspaper column. In his book, which is set up in a basic Q&A style, two questioners ask (pg.315):
Code:
Q. I understand that it would be wrong for a young couple to marrry without the intention of ever having children. But what about a couple in their mid-forties (one with a widow with two teenage children) hwo plan to marry and are not favor of more children Would it be wrong for them to practice Natural Family Planning as a means of avoiding pregnancy?
Q. Is it a sin for a couple with four children to forego any further children by practicing Natural Family Planning so they can enjoy some luxuries, like a second home or taking vacations around the world?
A. It is the teaching of the Church that, "the true practice of conjugal love and the whole meaning of family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior, who through them willl enrich his own family day by day" (Vatican II, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern world, n.50)
Relating these statements to the practice of Natural Family Planning, Pope John Paul II has warned that NFP can be abused "if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number births in their family below the morally correct level, [which is] established by taking into account not only the good of one's own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of the whole mankind.
**"Responsible parenthood [is] in no way exclusively directed to limiting, much less excluding, children; it means also the willingness to accept larger family"** * (L'Osservatore Romano, April 11, 1988)*
** The bottom line for both questioners revolves aroud trusting the providence of God and responding with generosity in acccepting and raising children.** We cannot decide for either couple what generosity means in their particular situations, although we must say that a desire for luxuries is not a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy. We could agree with John Kippley of the Couple to Couple League who says in his book, *Sex and the marriage Covenant*, that the key is get a couple "to really ask themselves if they truly have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, whether they are answering God's call to generosity in the service of life."
Mr. Kippley recommends a "reflective reading of sections 49 and 50 of the *Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World* to help answer those questions. And we would*For all creditation purposes, everything bewteen these two lines was taken directly from Catholic Replies by James J. Drummey Pgs. 315-316
So there you have it…just about everything I can possibly and humanly muster of the subject. I understand the concept of objectivity very clearly, and it is not my intention to put forward a biast viewpoint. Almost all that I have said has either come from the CCC, or James J. Drummey’s Catholic Replies. Anything else that could be considered my opinion, is really not opinion, but conclusions made from the two inspired texts, although they are my conclusions on the subject. **and also…if you are really and seriously interested in the subject of NFP, read this post very carefully. Trust me…it won’t take that long to read if your interested… assuredly a lot less time than it took me to write it!**
Grace and divine wisdom in your discernment.Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam! (in the greater glory of God!),
R.A.H.
C
Catilieth
Guest
First of all, when someone says that there is a primary reason, it usually indicates that there are secondary and possibly tertiary reasons. There is no need to say “primary” if there is only one. If that were the case, one would say “the only reason” . There is no contradiction in saying that the procreation of children is the primary reason for marriage(and sex) and then saying that there is also a unitive reason/aspect.
Secondly, to understand why procreation** is ** the primary reason, lets walk away from the whole morality issue and look at the world God created. In all the natural world, what is the only reason for male and female? The reason is to reproduce. Some living things are both male and female (most flowers have both male and female parts.[yes,flowers have ovaries]…some plants have flowers that are only male and only female). ) Having separate male and female individuals gives a genetic advantage. Nature doesn’t have male and female just because she wants everyone to have a good time…gee, fish don’t even touch when they “do it”. Most animals won’t even consider breeding except right at ovulation, nature is that reproduction driven…not one ounce of wasted energy unless there is a good chance of producing offspring
So, anyone who is honest with themselves has to see that the primary purpose for sex is reproduction.
Because we are also made in the image of God, there is also the unitive aspect. That, to me, does not seem to be a contradiction of anything.
Secondly, to understand why procreation** is ** the primary reason, lets walk away from the whole morality issue and look at the world God created. In all the natural world, what is the only reason for male and female? The reason is to reproduce. Some living things are both male and female (most flowers have both male and female parts.[yes,flowers have ovaries]…some plants have flowers that are only male and only female). ) Having separate male and female individuals gives a genetic advantage. Nature doesn’t have male and female just because she wants everyone to have a good time…gee, fish don’t even touch when they “do it”. Most animals won’t even consider breeding except right at ovulation, nature is that reproduction driven…not one ounce of wasted energy unless there is a good chance of producing offspring
So, anyone who is honest with themselves has to see that the primary purpose for sex is reproduction.
Because we are also made in the image of God, there is also the unitive aspect. That, to me, does not seem to be a contradiction of anything.
S
stanley123
Guest
Right. This was the teaching before Vatican II. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation and education of children. The secondary purpose was unitive.
The teaching after Vatican II was that a primary purpose of marriage was the procreation and education of children, because now there are two primary purposes of marriage. Please see post number 23.
“The Church teaches that there are two primary ends of marriage; the procreation of children and the unitive aspect - the two shall become one flesh.”
To sum up:
- Before Vatican II, the teaching was that there is one primary purpose of marriage.
- After Vatican II, the teaching is that there are two primary purposes of marriage.
C
cheeto1
Guest
What if two married people disagree on whether to
have more children? Should NFP continue until they agree
or discontinue until they agree?
have more children? Should NFP continue until they agree
or discontinue until they agree?
C
Catilieth
Guest
I think that to discontinue NFP is to agree to have more children…the likelyhood is that pregnancy will occur within 6 months. To continure to use NFP would not negate having children later on.
- Status