Where are all the large Catholic families?

[fpt]

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

. Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968):
God’s Loving Design
8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who “is love,” the Father “from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.”
Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.
The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.

Married Love
9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.
This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.

It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner’s own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare.”

Observing the Natural Law
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.

Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

===== No concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage.

 

[fpt]

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

II. All the documents with the concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage:

Code of Canon Law of 1917:
Canon 1013 - § 1:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.

Castis Connubii, Pius XI (31 December 1930):

1. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.”[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.”[14]
2. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man’s dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man.[15] From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.

Pius XII 1951 Alloc: “the procreation and education of the offspring”.

 

[CatholicFireman]

Where are all the large Catholic families?

Northern Virginia.

 

[fpt]

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

The Story is the following :

Before Vatican the first, no concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Do you think of the magisterium was false and wrong? I don’t think so and I don’t believe it.

From Vatican the First and to 1917 no concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Do you think of the magisterium was false and wrong? I don’t think so and and I don’t believe it.

From 1917 to the Vatican the Second the concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage was writing, was teaching. Do you think of the magisterium was false and wrong? I don’t think so and and I don’t believe it.

After Vatican the Second, there is no concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Do you think of the magisterium is false and wrong? I don’t think so and I don’t believe it.

The solution for solving these " apparent incompatiblities " is to be okay with the continuity of the doctrine without rupture and the fact of being okay with the concept of the organic development of catholic thought on the conjugal moral. In moral the pope cannot publish wrong and dangerous doctrine. It is impossible, otherwise there is a problem with the dogma of infallibleness and its corollaries

Therefore, in Humanae Vitae there is the real and true synthesis (the moral is total and complete). The marital act has to be " unitive and procreative ". That is the Holy synthesis.

 

[thewanderer]

The Story is the following :

Before Vatican the first, no concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Do you think of the magisterium was false and wrong? I don’t think so and I don’t believe it.

From Vatican the First and to 1917 no concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Do you think of the magisterium was false and wrong? I don’t think so and and I don’t believe it.

From 1917 to the Vatican the Second the concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage was writing, was teaching. Do you think of the magisterium was false and wrong? I don’t think so and and I don’t believe it.

After Vatican the Second, there is no concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage. Do you think of the magisterium is false and wrong? I don’t think so and I don’t believe it.

The solution for solving these " apparent incompatiblities " is to be okay with the continuity of the doctrine without rupture and the fact of being okay with the concept of the organic development of catholic thought on the conjugal moral. In moral the pope cannot publish wrong and dangerous doctrine. It is impossible, otherwise there is a problem with the dogma of infallibleness and its corollaries

Therefore, in Humanae Vitae there is the real and true synthesis (the moral is total and complete). The marital act has to be " unitive and procreative ". That is the Holy synthesis.

I think you think having a hierarchy between the ends iimplies something that it doesn’t. I see no apparant contradiction that neds to be cleared up. Of course marital relations need to be both unitive and procreative, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t also be a hierarchy among these ends. And saying there is a hierarchy among the ends doesn’t mean that it would never be ok to have relations without having a child, or without trying for a child. I agree with all the tecahings that have been posted but I still don’t see anything wrong with also saying that there is a hierarchy among the ends.

 

[fpt]

I think you think having a hierarchy between the ends iimplies something that it doesn’t. I see no apparant contradiction that neds to be cleared up. Of course marital relations need to be both unitive and procreative, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t also be a hierarchy among these ends. And saying there is a hierarchy among the ends doesn’t mean that it would never be ok to have relations without having a child, or without trying for a child. I agree with all the tecahings that have been posted but I still don’t see anything wrong with also saying that there is a hierarchy among the ends.

" I still don’t see anything wrong with also saying that there is a hierarchy among the ends " . Say like that, I am okay with you.

But, The fact of affirming, like the SSPX and her friends, that " there is a moral dogma on the hierarchy of the ends of marriage" is not fine. Because, it is not true.

According to the catholic teaching of Roman Church, it is impossible to state that: " We have to believe that there is an hierarchy of the ends of marriage".

But, we are in the moral obligation the believe that the marital act is unitive and procreative. Two cumulatives conditions.

 

[fpt]

I think you think having a hierarchy between the ends iimplies something that it doesn’t. I see no apparant contradiction that neds to be cleared up. Of course marital relations need to be both unitive and procreative, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t also be a hierarchy among these ends. And saying there is a hierarchy among the ends doesn’t mean that it would never be ok to have relations without having a child, or without trying for a child. I agree with all the tecahings that have been posted but I still don’t see anything wrong with also saying that there is a hierarchy among the ends.

We are okay on the hard core of the doctrine. On the principle, we are on the same line about the marriage and the morality of the marital act.

Next time, I will talk to you about the NFP and the responsible procreation. I need to find document and to write my thought: English is not my native language.

 

[moon1234]

" I still don’t see anything wrong with also saying that there is a hierarchy among the ends " . Say like that, I am okay with you.

But, The fact of affirming, like the SSPX and her friends, that " there is a moral dogma on the hierarchy of the ends of marriage" is not fine. Because, it is not true.

According to the catholic teaching of Roman Church, it is impossible to state that: " We have to believe that there is an hierarchy of the ends of marriage".

But, we are in the moral obligation the believe that the marital act is unitive and procreative. Two cumulatives conditions.

If you want the earliest quote I guess it would be from Genesis:

*And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. *

So it would appear that God was the one who setup a primary and secondary end to marraige. He did not say “Go forth and be unitive, one to the other.”, rather he said “Go forth and multiply…”. This would imply that the PRIMARY end of marraige is procreative and followed by the secondary ends.

You also seem to think that because a document does not re-state a primary and secondary end of marraige it must mean there is not one. You use your assumption, due to lack of a statement in some documents, to then conclude that your viewpoint is correct?

Reductio ad absurdum

 

[fpt]

If you want the earliest quote I guess it would be from Genesis:

*And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. *

So it would appear that God was the one who setup a primary and secondary end to marraige. He did not say “Go forth and be unitive, one to the other.”, rather he said “Go forth and multiply…”. This would imply that the PRIMARY end of marraige is procreative and followed by the secondary ends.

You also seem to think that because a document does not re-state a primary and secondary end of marraige it must mean there is not one. You use your assumption, due to lack of a statement in some documents, to then conclude that your viewpoint is correct?

Reductio ad absurdum

If the hierarchy of the ends of marriage is totally true and real, I mean a variety of faith, a verity from the natural law of the state of marriage, where do you find this affirmation? When? In which document? What is the degree of authority of this document? How do you interpret it? What is your method?

What do you think of "theology of the body " of John Paul the Second? What is your point of view on the catholic conjugal moral from Vatican II to now? What is your thought on the documents from the Holy See concerning this intimate topics?

The hierarchy of the ends of marriage is a moral obligation??? yes or no???

What do you think of the position of the SSPX on the Marriage? Are you okay with her?

 

[fpt]

If the hierarchy of the ends of marriage is totally true and real, I mean a verity of faith, a verity from the natural law of the state of marriage, where do you find this affirmation? When? In which document? What is the degree of authority of this document? How do you interpret it? What is your method?

What do you think of "theology of the body " of John Paul the Second? What is your point of view on the catholic conjugal moral from Vatican II to now? What is your thought on the documents from the Holy See concerning this intimate topics?

The hierarchy of the ends of marriage is a moral obligation??? yes or no???

What do you think of the position of the SSPX on the Marriage? Are you okay with her?

 

[adopted_heir]

I’m curious–what again is the SSPX position on marriage? Because I’ve always thought it was the Catholic position on marriage…

 

[Corki]

The hierarchy of the ends of marriage is a moral obligation??? yes or no???

Moral obligations refer to things we do - actions. Marriage is not an action, it’s a state of life and a vocation.

At any point in time, for any given couple, the ends of marriage will have different values. A young couple eager to start a family will have the procreative end higher in the heirarch than a mature couple might. The obligation is to always value both ends - there is not an obligation to put them in a specific order.

 

[fpt]

We are okay on the hard core of the doctrine. On the principle, we are on the same line about the marriage and the morality of the marital act.

Next time, I will talk to you about the NFP and the responsible procreation. I need to find document and to write my thought: English is not my native language.

n catholic philosophy and in the catholic theology, if there is a hierarchy among the ends of marriage, that means something. What are the effects of this hierarchy? Otherwise, it is not logic!!! What are the special implications?

 

[fpt]

I’m curious–what again is the SSPX position on marriage? Because I’ve always thought it was the Catholic position on marriage…

The question is:

What are the ends of marriage according to the catholic religion? Is there a hierarchy of the ends of marriage according to the catholic religion? Is the hierarchy of the ends of marriage: an element of the conjugal moral?

The hierarchy of the ends of marriage: a verity of the conjugal moral? yes or no? I do not think so. But for the SSPX, it is almost a verity from the conjugal moral or totally a verity from the conjugal moral.

 

[Cable]

…I mean, they continue doing things as have been done by Catholics for 1,950–odd years and suddenly they have to stop because they’re not Catholic anymore?.."

No. They don’t stop attending the Catholic Mass and participating in other Catholic Sacraments and practices.

"…As far as not being reconciled regarding certain doctrines, those are documents that are purposefully vague and have still not shown any kind of clarification. You can’t really demand someone abide by doctrines that, for all their wording, are inconclusive bordering on nonsensical… "

Wowser. It’s understandable why Catholics, who continue to abide, even in the face of doubts and questions, could find the approach/view you describe to be off-putting.

 

[adopted_heir]

I guess I’m not understanding what you’re saying.

I don’t understand why SSPX was brought up as though we are not Catholic and do not hold Catholic moral teaching. Are you saying SSPX does not teach the two functions of marriage (unity & procreation) or elevates one at the disadvantage of the other?

 

[adopted_heir]

adopted heir;9715749:

…I mean, they continue doing things as have been done by Catholics for 1,950–odd years and suddenly they have to stop because they’re not Catholic anymore?.."

No. They don’t stop attending the Catholic Mass and participating in other Catholic Sacraments and practices.

"…As far as not being reconciled regarding certain doctrines, those are documents that are purposefully vague and have still not shown any kind of clarification. You can’t really demand someone abide by doctrines that, for all their wording, are inconclusive bordering on nonsensical

… "

Wowser. It’s understandable why Catholics, who continue to abide, even in the face of doubts and questions, could find the approach/view you describe to be off-putting.

The hangup has been waiting for an interpretation of documents that could be read as contrary to past teachings protected by infallible councils. SSPX position is, by all means explain it to us in a way that doesn’t seem heretical or contrary. That’s what they’re waiting on, because the vague interpretations that were run away with in the name of the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ cause (justifiable) unease.

 

[fpt]

I guess I’m not understanding what you’re saying.

I don’t understand why SSPX was brought up as though we are not Catholic and do not hold Catholic moral teaching. Are you saying SSPX does not teach the two functions of marriage (unity & procreation) or elevates one at the disadvantage of the other?

If you read the position of SSPX, and of her friends, very often, they say that there is a hierarchy of the ends of marriage with implications and corollaries: Code of Canon Law of 1917: (Canon 1013 - § 1:The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.) For SSPX, the theological debate and the philosophical debate with Holy See, on this topic, are important. SSPX is not okay with the Canon Law of 1983 on the marriage.

May be, it would be relevant to write a new thread with like title: The debate on the ends of marriage (before Vatican II and after). The questions asked by the SSPX and friends.

 

[thewanderer]

We are okay on the hard core of the doctrine. On the principle, we are on the same line about the marriage and the morality of the marital act.

I think I see where you are coming from now.

You are saying that if there is a hierarchy among the ends then that means we need to behave in a different way than if they were equal. All I have to say is that might be true… if the nature of the act itself did not always requires every act to be both unitive and procreative. That much is a given because of the nature of human sexuality. With that given, whether or not there is a hierarchy among the ends does not change the way we must act, at least insofar as each act must still be unitive and procreative. It does seem like the hierarchy would make the offense against the procreative aspect worse than the offense against the unitive, but again, just because one is worsse doesn’t mean they are both extremely sinful. Does that help clear things up? A hierarchy of the ends doesn’t change the way we have to act, it simply makes one of the two ends more important, but seeing as we are never supposed to act for one end at the expense of the other, that doesn’t change the moral teaching about marital relations. Is that more clear?

 

[fpt]

I guess I’m not understanding what you’re saying.

I don’t understand why SSPX was brought up as though we are not Catholic and do not hold Catholic moral teaching. Are you saying SSPX does not teach the two functions of marriage (unity & procreation) or elevates one at the disadvantage of the other?

Often, members of SSPX are okay with the conclusions of Humanae Vitae, but are not okay with the intellectual approach of the motivation. For the priest of SSPX, the motivations are too much philosophical and is too much antropological, and not enough theological; then too modernism, not enough traditional.