Where are all the large Catholic families?

[moon1234]

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.

You seem all hung up on “After Vatican II”. Superdogma to you? Here are some proofs from post VII documents (many which we have problems with), that back a primary and secondary end to sexual relations in marraige:

**Gaudium et Spes: **
48. …By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown…

Humanae Vitae
9.* . . .] And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. **“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.”*8]

12.* …By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and** its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood**…*

From Pope John Paul II’s Book Love and Responsibility
As we come to the end of this part of the discussion, which was intended to give a correct interpretation of the sexual urge, in part by eliminating incorrect interpretation, some conclusions connected with the traditional teaching on the ends of marriage ask to be drawn. The Church, as has been mentioned previously, teaches, and has always taught, that the primary end of marriage is procreatio, but that it has a secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium. Apart from these, a tertiary aim is mentioned – remedium concupiscentiae. Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire. The ends of marriage in the order mentioned are incompatible with any subjectivist interpretation of the sexual urge, and therefore demand from man, as a person, objectivity in his thinking on sexual matters, and above all in his behavior. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality

I can go on and on, but the idea that there is a primary end of marraige and a secondary end has existed for all of Church history, essentially from the time God told man to be fruitful and multiply. It is not until modern man and perversions of VII and ambiguities in VII documents have allowed some to assert that neither end of marraige, procreation or unitive, is to be placed as a higher calling.

People want to have sex without kids and they try to pervert the unclear documents from VII to do so. It is really THAT simple.

 

[mountee]

I believe an honest answer is that there are many Catholic couples who want to be in the Church but they disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control and do not want to find out how many children God might bless them with over time. I have many old friends who feel this way and I see them in church all the time. They are the people who would vote to have a Catholic Church of America. Whether you agree or disagree, this is the truth and many of you know exactly what I am talking about.

 

[adopted_heir]

In the case of an apparent contradiction wouldn’t it be prudent to adhere to the older, clearer law established in a doctrinal council rather than a vague, new law introduced in a pastoral council?

From the quick look at the two versions of canon law, it does seem that brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[moon1234]

I believe an honest answer is that there are many Catholic couples who want to be in the Church but they disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control and do not want to find out how many children God might bless them with over time. I have many old friends who feel this way and I see them in church all the time. They are the people who would vote to have a Catholic Church of America. Whether you agree or disagree, this is the truth and many of you know exactly what I am talking about.

I agree, they are not Catholic. They may call themselves Catholic, they may attend a Catholic Church, but if they do not believe what Catholics believe, they really are NOT Catholics.

That is the problem in the Church today. Clear dogma is no longer taught. Homilies on the sins of sexual perversions are never preached. Imagine hearing a homily that explained all of this and then called Catholics to be faithful. How many people would walk out? How many would not come back? After a few weeks the Catholics who actually live their Catholic faith would still be there as they would feel good about living their faith well. Those that can not get past their habitual vices will leave.

It is sad, but many need to be catechized today. They do NOT understand their faith.

 

[fpt]

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?

You point the great issue!!!

The natural moral conjugal order is dual coming from the contract and from the institution. How to conciliate both of them if there is a problematic? (the personalist approach - contractual approach versus institutional approach)!!!

The question is the hierarchy of sins? No sin, venial sin or mortal sin.

Sin against the Life, Sin against the potential Life; Sin against the health; Sin against the chastety; Sin against the liberty; Sin against the unity; Sin against the sexual charity for the spouses; Sin against the right on the body…etc.

 

[fpt]

As catholic lay person I can state that:
The ends of marriage are:

. the good of the spouses : for helping the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support, for giving them grace to love one another holily, the mutual help

. the procreation and education of offspring ( the procreation and education of children) : 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.; to bring up their children as Christians.

. the allaying of concupiscence.

In addition, the marital act has to be unitive and procreative. Unity and potential procreativity.

Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):
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.

. The Little Catechism of Saint Pius X for children (14 June 1905):
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.

. The Great Catechism of Saint Pius X (14 June 1905):
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.

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

Code of Canon Law of 1983:
Can. 1055 §1. " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized ".

. Catechism of the Catholic Church (11 October 1992):
1601. “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Marriage in the order of creation:
1604. “God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.
1605. “Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh “.

. Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (28 June 2005):
337. What is the plan of God regarding man and woman?
God who is love and who created man and woman for love has called them to love. By creating man and woman he called them to an intimate communion of life and of love in marriage: “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6). God said to them in blessing “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

1. For what ends has God instituted Matrimony?
   The marital union of man and woman, which is founded and endowed with its own proper laws by the Creator, is by its very nature ordered to the communion and good of the couple and to the generation and education of children. According to the original divine plan this conjugal union is indissoluble, as Jesus Christ affirmed: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:9).
2. What is matrimonial consent?
   Matrimonial consent is given when a man and a woman manifest the will to give themselves to each other irrevocably in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. Since consent constitutes Matrimony, it is indispensable and irreplaceable. For a valid marriage the consent must have as its object true Matrimony, and be a human act which is conscious and free and not determined by duress or coercion.

Per se, I am not obliged to believe that there is a hierarchy of the ends. Am i Catholic on this topic?

 

[mountee]

I agree, they are not Catholic. They may call themselves Catholic, they may attend a Catholic Church, but if they do not believe what Catholics believe, they really are NOT Catholics.

That is the problem in the Church today. Clear dogma is no longer taught. Homilies on the sins of sexual perversions are never preached. Imagine hearing a homily that explained all of this and then called Catholics to be faithful. How many people would walk out? How many would not come back? After a few weeks the Catholics who actually live their Catholic faith would still be there as they would feel good about living their faith well. Those that can not get past their habitual vices will leave.

It is sad, but many need to be catechized today. They do NOT understand their faith.

Right on the money!

 

[TimothyH]

I agree, they are not Catholic. They may call themselves Catholic, they may attend a Catholic Church, but if they do not believe what Catholics believe, they really are NOT Catholics.

That is the problem in the Church today. Clear dogma is no longer taught. Homilies on the sins of sexual perversions are never preached. Imagine hearing a homily that explained all of this and then called Catholics to be faithful. How many people would walk out? How many would not come back? After a few weeks the Catholics who actually live their Catholic faith would still be there as they would feel good about living their faith well. Those that can not get past their habitual vices will leave.

It is sad, but many need to be catechized today. They do NOT understand their faith.

Yea. Kick those sinners out, that’s what I say. If they can’t change, then to hell with them!

After all, Jesus needs to be protected from sinners.

Maybe then the rest of us can get on with feeling good about our righteousness.

-Tim-

 

[thewanderer]

You point the great issue!!!

The natural moral conjugal order is dual coming from the contract and from the institution. How to conciliate both of them if there is a problematic? (the personalist approach - contractual approach versus institutional approach)!!!

The question is the hierarchy of sins? No sin, venial sin or mortal sin.

Sin against the Life, Sin against the potential Life; Sin against the health; Sin against the chastety; Sin against the liberty; Sin against the unity; Sin against the sexual charity for the spouses; Sin against the right on the body…etc.

I don’t just mean in the order of sins, but that is probably the main place that one would notice a difference. Although thats not to say that the violating the unitive aspect isn’t very sinful. There are more degrees than just sinless, venial and mortal, but they don’t matter as much practically speaking because either your in the state of Grace or not.

To sum up what I’m saying, Having a hierarchy doesn’t affect the way we must act, all it does is affect the way we think about the two ends. I only brought up the idea of sin in case it would help make that more clear, but perhaps it is just clouding the issue.

 

[fpt]

You seem all hung up on “After Vatican II”. Superdogma to you? Here are some proofs from post VII documents (many which we have problems with), that back a primary and secondary end to sexual relations in marraige:

**Gaudium et Spes: **
48. …By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown…

Humanae Vitae
9.* . . .] And finally this love is fecund for it is not exhausted by the communion between husband and wife, but is destined to continue, raising up new lives. **“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.”***8]

12.* …By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and** its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood***…

From Pope John Paul II’s Book Love and Responsibility
As we come to the end of this part of the discussion, which was intended to give a correct interpretation of the sexual urge, in part by eliminating incorrect interpretation, some conclusions connected with the traditional teaching on the ends of marriage ask to be drawn. The Church, as has been mentioned previously, teaches, and has always taught, that the primary end of marriage is procreatio, but that it has a secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium. Apart from these, a tertiary aim is mentioned – remedium concupiscentiae. Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire. Could you explain, please? The ends of marriage in the order mentioned are incompatible with any subjectivist interpretation of the sexual urge, and therefore demand from man, as a person, objectivity in his thinking on sexual matters, and above all in his behavior. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality

I can go on and on, but the idea that there is a primary end of marraige and a secondary end has existed for all of Church history, essentially from the time God told man to be fruitful and multiply. It is not until modern man and perversions of VII and ambiguities in VII documents have allowed some to assert that neither end of marraige, procreation or unitive, is to be placed as a higher calling.

People want to have sex without kids and they try to pervert the unclear documents from VII to do so. It is really THAT simple.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I agree, they are not Catholic. They may call themselves Catholic, they may attend a Catholic Church, but if they do not believe what Catholics believe, they really are NOT Catholics.

It is sad, but many need to be catechized today. They do NOT understand their faith.

A person can not be charged with not believing their faith if they do not understand it. Additionally, it would be more correct to say “they do not believe what the Church teaches.” Your original wording implies that what we (Catholics) believe is determine by how popular that particular belief is among Catholics. A “majority rules” approach. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[thewanderer]

moon1234 I am still waiting to find out whether you think NFP to avoid is always sinful. If you do I advise you to reread the Church teachings on this matter as the Church clearly teaches that it can be permissable if one has a serious, or just, reason. You should be very careful not to throw out Church teaching just because it doesn’t line up with your own personal perception of the world.

 

[fpt]

I don’t just mean in the order of sins, but that is probably the main place that one would notice a difference. Although thats not to say that the violating the unitive aspect isn’t very sinful. There are more degrees than just sinless, venial and mortal, but they don’t matter as much practically speaking because either your in the state of Grace or not.

To sum up what I’m saying, Having a hierarchy doesn’t affect the way we must act, all it does is affect the way we think about the two ends. I only brought up the idea of sin in case it would help make that more clear, but perhaps it is just clouding the issue.

In natural moral law and in the catholic theology , I mean in the catholic paradigm, is there an order ( a hierarchy) of sins of the marital act?

The acts against the life and the health: of husband (wife with a STD, wife being capable to put in danger the health or life of her husband by a marital act), of wife (husband with a STD, husband being capable to put in danger the health or the life of his wife by a marital act), of baby in the womb (direct and voluntary abortion).

The acts against the potential fecundity: the direct and voluntary contraception);

The act against the request of marital debt: the fact of refusing the request without good reasons with all the corollaries (cf. intimate acts bettween spouses, to give and to receive, the giver and the receiver during the marital act): the sins against the sexual charity;

The acts against the conjugal fidelity;

The acts against the purety;

What is the order? No order, but there are venial sins and mortal sins!!!

 

[fpt]

In natural moral law and in the catholic theology , I mean in the catholic paradigm, is there an order ( a hierarchy) of sins of the marital act?

The acts against the life and the health: of husband (wife with a STD, wife being capable to put in danger the health or life of her husband by a marital act), of wife (husband with a STD, husband being capable to put in danger the health or the life of his wife by a marital act), of baby in the womb (direct and voluntary abortion).

The acts against the potential fecundity: the direct and voluntary contraception);

The act against the request of marital debt: the fact of refusing the request without good reasons with all the corollaries (cf. intimate acts bettween spouses, to give and to receive, the giver and the receiver during the marital act): the sins against the sexual charity;

The acts against the conjugal fidelity;

The acts against the purety;

What is the order? No order, but there are venial sins and mortal sins!!!

my humble answer:
there are acts that by nature are, all the times, wrong because by themselves and of themselves are wrong and bad;

the neutral acts, bad or good in function of circuntances;

 

[fpt]

moon1234 I am still waiting to find out whether you think NFP to avoid is always sinful. If you do I advise you to reread the Church teachings on this matter as the Church clearly teaches that it can be permissable if one has a serious, or just, reason. You should be very careful not to throw out Church teaching just because it doesn’t line up with your own personal perception of the world.

By nature, NFP is only a method for practicing the responsible procreation, thus it is neutral, per se. Only a bad circuntance, in this case a wrong reason that is not fair and is not serious can change this neutral behaviour in immoral action.

 

[thewanderer]

In natural moral law and in the catholic theology , I mean in the catholic paradigm, is there an order ( a hierarchy) of sins of the marital act?

The acts against the life and the health: of husband (wife with a STD, wife being capable to put in danger the health or life of her husband by a marital act), of wife (husband with a STD, husband being capable to put in danger the health or the life of his wife by a marital act), of baby in the womb (direct and voluntary abortion).

The acts against the potential fecundity: the direct and voluntary contraception);

The act against the request of marital debt: the fact of refusing the request without good reasons with all the corollaries (cf. intimate acts bettween spouses, to give and to receive, the giver and the receiver during the marital act): the sins against the sexual charity;

The acts against the conjugal fidelity;

The acts against the purety;

What is the order? No order, but there are venial sins and mortal sins!!!

I’m sure it is partially the language barrier, but I’m am fairly confident that there is a misunderstanding going on here in what we think the other is saying. You feel strongly that it is wrong to say that there is a hierarchy of the ends of matrimony, this is despite the fact that the Church herself actually teaches that there is. Because of this I have tried to find out why you think it is problematic, and as far as I can tell it is because you misunderstand what such a hierarchy would actually be. The Church teaches it exists. Believing it exists does not change the fact that every act must be both unitive and procreative, it does not change the way that spouses must relate to each other. It simply means that, when you think about the two ends, you realize that in the context of the whole of reality, one of them is more important than the other. That is the difference. Its nothing to be upset about. It is taught by the Church and fits in very well with Theology of the Body, Humanae Vitae, and well, all teachings of the Church both pre and post VII. You are seeing problems where they don’t exist. The language of hierarchy is fine and good. Just like the language of marital debt is fine and good. Sure, they can both be misunderstood, and are always going to end up being twisted by somebody somewhere to mean something that they don’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that they, when understood correctly, express an important concept that is good to understand.

 

[fpt]

Are you okay with those statements concerning the NFP that are coming from catholic lay persons of the traditional movements? Me, no. These sentences are very wrong.

“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

“The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children.”

" NFP for spacing wouldn’t be needed in the agricultural society that existed in the time you are speaking of. Until relatively recently (post-industrial revolution) having a large family was considered a blessing by nearly everyone " .

“The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful.”

“The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil].”

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Are you okay with those statements concerning the NFP that are coming from catholic lay persons of the traditional movements? Me, no. These sentences are very wrong.

“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

“The natural family planning is a concession to human weakness. The ideal is to have sex only when you are happy to have children.”

" NFP for spacing wouldn’t be needed in the agricultural society that existed in the time you are speaking of. Until relatively recently (post-industrial revolution) having a large family was considered a blessing by nearly everyone " .

“The natural family regulation is a birth control sinful.”

“The Natural Family Planning is diabolical [Evil].”

I’m not okay with these statements either. They actually go against what the Church actually teaches about NFP.

 

[fpt]

I’m sure it is partially the language barrier, but I’m am fairly confident that there is a misunderstanding going on here in what we think the other is saying. You feel strongly that it is wrong to say that there is a hierarchy of the ends of matrimony, this is despite the fact that the Church herself actually teaches that there is. Because of this I have tried to find out why you think it is problematic, and as far as I can tell it is because you misunderstand what such a hierarchy would actually be. The Church teaches it exists. Believing it exists does not change the fact that every act must be both unitive and procreative, it does not change the way that spouses must relate to each other. It simply means that, when you think about the two ends, you realize that in the context of the whole of reality, one of them is more important than the other. That is the difference. Its nothing to be upset about. It is taught by the Church and fits in very well with Theology of the Body, Humanae Vitae, and well, all teachings of the Church both pre and post VII. You are seeing problems where they don’t exist. The language of hierarchy is fine and good. Just like the language of marital debt is fine and good. Sure, they can both be misunderstood, and are always going to end up being twisted by somebody somewhere to mean something that they don’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that they, when understood correctly, express an important concept that is good to understand.

I do not say that you cannot think that there is a hierarchy of the ends of marriage.

I say only that you can not state dogmatically or almost dogmatically that there is a hierarchy of the ends of marriage.

I know traditional persons who have a strong speech on this topic and when you are not okay with this hierarchy of the ends of marriage, they say dogmatically that you are wrong and that you are not in link with the catholic doxa.

For me, this question can be still debated, because the official teaching is not so clear.

Otherwise, I think that we are okay concerning subtopics of this topic.

 

[jannes]

Try having more than two children in the Seattle area. If only I had a dollar for every snide, “Are you done yet?”, “You know what causes that, right?” and stuff that I won’t repeat.

In reference to the annual priest visit, I’m guessing that’s a little dramatic exaggeration, showing how backwards the Church used to be…caring for souls and what not.

Let me assure you the above staement is not an exaggeration.I grew up in Scotland and many priests thought it was their duty to show up unannounced after a new birth to demand and warn about having the next one .Even in those days many women suffered severe health issues after childbirth ,my own God mother died at thirty three in childbirth so I would assume health issues were not classed as a serious reason not to have any more