Vatican I vs. Vatican II

  • Thread starter Thread starter klmt123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

klmt123

Guest
Do you think that Vatican I or Vatican II, was correct on the teaching of marital relations? Why do you think it suddenly changed when Pope John Paul the II became Pope? Do you think it should have been the teaching from the very beginning during Vatican I, biblically speaking. Do you feel the church was just trying to change with the times on that matter for fear of losing members of the church or do you think it was always meant to be both procreative and unitive? I am currently reading Catholic Sexual Ethics 3rd edition and it’s definitely a question I am researching because I want to do the right thing when I get married. I just want to hear other opinions currentlt, there may be a question similar on here, but I am asking you current readers this question. 💚🐢☘️🐊💚
 
Vatican I teaching was that the marital act was meant for having children and raising them in the faith.

Vatican II teaching is that the marital act is meant for not only having children and raising them in the faith, but also for the relationship between the husband and the wife.
 
Last edited:
klmt123 said:
Vatican I teaching was that the marital act was meant for having children and raising them in the faith.
Click to expand...
Where is this in the Vatican I documents? I don’t see where they spoke of marriage at all.
 
Ah…well, using that as a point of reference…
klmt123 said:
Do you think that Vatican I or Vatican II, was correct on the teaching of marital relations?
Click to expand...
I think Vatican I was incomplete and Vatican II was more correct.
klmt123 said:
Why do you think it suddenly changed when Pope John Paul the II became Pope?
Click to expand...
No idea - perhaps JP II was more on the ball with regard to family life than previous Popes.
klmt123 said:
Do you think it should have been the teaching from the very beginning during Vatican I, biblically speaking.
Click to expand...
Yes…
klmt123 said:
Do you feel the church was just trying to change with the times on that matter for fear of losing members of the church or do you think it was always meant to be both procreative and unitive?
Click to expand...
Well, that’s a question, isn’t it…if you go through the almost 2000 years of writings by Church Fathers, and such, it isn’t all that hard to find writings that suggest that specific individuals had opinions about sexual intercourse in marriage that were not particularly aligned with that of today’s companionate marriage model and the idea that sexual pleasure is a positive good within marriage.

On the other hand, other writers - and certainly some Priests ‘in the trenches’ of pastoral care - recognized that sexual pleasure in marriage is a positive good that should be encouraged.

I doubt there was too much concern about losing members - I think it had more to do with a general recognition that pleasurable sex in marriage is good and that writers who had suggested it wasn’t might have been bringing their own biases into their arguments.
klmt123 said:
I am currently reading Catholic Sexual Ethics 3rd edition and it’s definitely a question I am researching because I want to do the right thing when I get married.
Click to expand...
Okay, well my considered opinion after many years of marriage is that passionate, lusty, enthusiastic sexual relations within marriage is a good thing that strengthens the marriage bond.
 
klmt123 said:
Vatican I teaching was that the marital act was meant for having children and raising them in the faith.

Vatican II teaching is that the marital act is meant for not only having children and raising them in the faith, but also for the relationship between the husband and the wife.
Click to expand...
That’s not a contradiction. If I told you in the morning, “I am wearing denim today,” and then in the evening I told you, “I am not only wearing denim, I also have a cotton undershirt,” that would not be a contradiction. It would just be additional information. In order for it to be a contradiction the first one would have to say “only.” And based on your post it doesn’t appear that Vatican 1 said procreation is “only” for raising children – it just said it is for raising children, which Vatican 2 clearly agrees with, even though it adds additional information. It would help if you could provide a link though – searching through the whole text of Vatican 1 here, I can’t find any reference to marriage. Do you have a link to what you were reading?
 
Last edited:
I wasn’t around long enough to remember Vatican 1, but Vatican 2 seems to make sense in that not all couples can have children. The “marital act” is an expression “God’s love”.
 
I think you may be creating a false dichotomy in your position of “Vatican I vs. Vatican II” and assuming that the Church changed her teaching on this matter.
klmt123 said:
I am currently reading Catholic Sexual Ethics 3rd edition and it’s definitely a question I am researching because I want to do the right thing when I get married.
Click to expand...
Just curious; can you be more specific in what you mean by this statement? How do you see the answer to your question affecting your future marriage?
 
Last edited:
The author of the article says the two documents are in conflict, but I don’t see how. Both seem to clearly say that marriage has two purposes, the procreative and the unitive. The 1983 document uses the following terms: “the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children.” The 1917 document uses slightly different terms, but they seem to mean the same things: “the procreation and education of children…[and] mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.” Don’t they both describe marriage as having two purposes? Because I don’t see the conflict.
 
Last edited:
“Before Vatican II, it was very clear what the purpose of marriage was for, having children and educating them. Secondarily it was for mutual help and a remedy for the distorted sexual drive (concupiscence) caused by Adam and Eve. If you have studied biology 101, you know that reproductive organs are for having babies (procreation). And as a human being you know well that you are not always pure in your sexual desires (concupiscence).
After Vatican II the primary purpose of marriage was changed from having children to “the unitive” (man and woman coming together as one). Then the next purpose was procreation (having children). This was a huge change and paradigm switch.”
 
Last edited:
"Before Vatican II, it was very clear what the purpose of marriage was for, having children and educating them. Secondarily it was for mutual help and a remedy for the distorted sexual drive (concupiscence) caused by Adam and Eve. If you have studied biology 101, you know that reproductive organs are for having babies (procreation). And as a human being you know well that you are not always pure in your sexual desires (concupiscence).

After Vatican II the primary purpose of marriage was changed from having children to “the unitive” (man and woman coming together as one). Then the next purpose was procreation (having children). This was a huge change and paradigm switch."
 
Where did Vatican I get such crazy ideas? Genesis 2 clearly tells us:

The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man. ”
That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
(Gen 2: 23-24)

No mention of procreation there, that only comes after the Fall. The only purpose to marriage mentioned is the unitive.
 
There was no contradiction, but the Church generally spoke more clearly before Vatican II.
 
The 1983 document doesn’t say which of the things it lists is primary or secondary. I think the author of the article judges that because the unitive purpose is mentioned first and the procreative purpose is mentioned second, therefore the unitive purpose is intended as primary and the procreative purpose is intended as secondary; however, the document doesn’t say that, and such inferences need to be backed up by evidence, not just assumed.

Imagine that I asserted there is a contraction in the Bible because Matthew 10:2 lists the apostles as “first” Peter and then James and John, and the rest; but Galatians 2:9 mentions Peter second, saying, “James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars.” How would you respond if I asserted that by listing Peter second Paul teaches that his rank was inferior to James? I hope you would respond that Paul doesn’t teach this because not every list is by order of rank. Similarly, the author of that article you quoted seems to imply that the 1983 code of canon law, by listing procreation second, teaches that procreation is the secondary purpose of marriage. But it doesn’t teach that – because not every list is by order of rank.

Also, the same pope who promulgated that code of canon law had already reaffirmed that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage: “the primary vocation of married couples to participate in God’s creative activity: by begetting in love and for love a new person.” Familiaris Consortio 36. “procreation and education…this constitutes its primary and irreplaceable form of expression.” Familiaris Consortio 44.

Since Pope John Paul 2 had already reaffirmed the primacy of procreation in 1981 in Familiaris Consortio, it is unlikely that he reduced it to a secondary role in the 1983 code of canon law. And since not every list is ordered by rank, the fact that that document mentions procreation second does not imply that it teaches it is of secondary rank. Therefore there is no contradiction, and the Church continues to teach both before and after Vatican 2 that the primary purpose of marriage is procreative, and the secondary purpose is unitive. I hope this helps. God bless.
 
Last edited:
klmt123 said:
Vatican II - NFP was introduced
Click to expand...
Actually Casti Connubi 53 already introduced NFP in 1930, decades before the Second Vatican Council: “offspring…[may] be carefully avoided by married people…through virtuous continence…which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent.” Casti Connubi 53.
 
Thanks! 1 Corinthians 7 says not to withhold the marital rite from your spouse, only abstain if agreed upon, for time in prayer, then come together again, so that the devil won’t tempt either of the spouses to cheat on the other.
 
Last edited:
So it’s not Vatican 1 vs. Vatican 2, it’s the 1917 code of canon law vs. the 1983 code of canon law.

Either way, I don’t see a contradiction between the two. I think this person is looking for controversy where there is none.
 
The primary ends of marriage have remained constant, they were not changed by Vatican II.

Children
Good of the spouses
Relief from concupiscence (granted, in recent decades this one is not often discussed)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top