Today, the catholic church says that both of them are necessary (cumulative conditions).
In Humanae Vitae, the marital act has to be unitive and procreative. Are you okay? There is the same level, no hierarchy.
The same thing in:
The Catechism of the Council of Trent:
But why marriage was instituted is a subject which demands exposition The first reason of its institution is because nature instinctively tends to such a union ; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. Another is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.
and
The Catechism of Saint Pius X:
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.
Generally speaking in the catholic theology, when a couple practices the marital act, he is not in the moral obligation to want, to will, to desire and to make a baby. Are you okay with this statement?
Do you think really that the teaching of catholic church on responsible procreation and NFP was and is, per se, only objectively contextual???
There is the same level, no hierarchy.
This is not true and is an error in modern thinking. People think that documents that come from the Vatican are like US legal code in that the new code replaces the old. Teaching in the Church is revealed truth and is guaranteed when stated ex cathedra (you will see statements like “We declare, define, say…”). Humane Vitae just chose to not restate the primary and secondary ends of marraige. It did not say “We change the ends of marraige to be co-equal and one is not subbordinate to the other.”
It would be like saying how to drive a car. A simple statement such as “Get in the car and drive to the store” because it did not say you had to wear a seatbelt now means seatbelts are not required. See the error in thinking that because the document did not re-state what was previously said it now means the requirement has changed.
That is what I mean when I say that when pressed modern prelates will admit that modern documents must be read through the lens of previous teachings. If we do not do this then there is no revealed truth and they are just making it up as they go along, changing core teachings of faith to match with the whims of modern society.
This is what bread the oath against modernism that the modern Church did away with.
Generally speaking in the catholic theology, when a couple practices the marital act, he is not in the moral obligation to want, to will, to desire and to make a baby. Are you okay with this statement?
Correct. That is perfectly fine so long as he does not actively work to thwart the primary end of marraige he is under no requirement to DESIRE it. See the difference? I can desire to have sex with my spouse so long as that desire is not coupled with trying to avoid having a child. If I choose not to have sex with my spouse or use some other method to prevent having a child then I am actively trying to thwart having a child.
If a couple chooses to not have sex for a period of time, they are free to do that. What becomes a problem is if one spouse wants to have sex with the other during a time when there may be a higher potential to conceive a child and the other spouse rejects them, then that would be wrong. This obviously does not apply when one spouse is sick, or has other good reasons to not be having sexual relations.
NFP, when practiced to avoid having children but still have sexual relations, is done with a contraceptive mentality. Saying that well we can still have a child outside of the fertile time, that may be true, but by actively avoiding a child the possibility of one spouse feeling rejected,etc. is higher.
Mutual agreement on when to have sex is one thing. Making a schedule on when to have sex in order to avoid the primary end of marraige would be a lack of trust in God’s plan for your family. The semantics come in when other people try to determine what is a grave reason and that is the whole dance with this topic.
Grave reason for MOST people is not money, etc. It is health, mental stability, etc. Most of the greatest saints in history were born into abject poverty. Our Lord was born in a cave with animals. Did Mary hold up the Angel and say “They will be done, but I need a house, college fund, good education, etc. before I say yes unless God wants to push the issue”
Think about it.
