Comments for Vatican II and the Two Ends of Marriage at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:43:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9912 @Howard Kainz:"You may be right that the unitive dimension of marriage has been exaggerated over the procreative, but the Church's position is that they are equally important." No, that is NOT the teaching of the Church. They are NOT "equally important." One is clearly subordinate to the other. If they WERE "equally important," one could never be at fault emphasizing one over the other. THAT they ARE considered "equally important" is the theological foundation of both TOB and NFP, and that foundation is clearly contradicted by CENTURIES of Church teaching. To recognize the clear purpose of marriage as 1)procreation and 2)spousal union does not mean that married couples MAY or OUGHT TO engage in sexual relations ONLY when fertile or consciously intending procreation. It means that the primary end of marriage defines the boundaries of sexual expression, i.e., within marriage and without intentions or actions that contradict the end of marriage. Church teaching on these matters hasn't changed. We have, for this historical period, suffered a loss of clarity on these issues, probably because our culture has become so hypersexualized and we act as if we are considering questions never asked before. They have been. They have been answered. And right now we're "off the mark." - Terry Carroll Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:13:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9819 @Terry Carroll: It's important to keep in mind that one of the most important uses of NFP is to have children. Many infertile couples have become pregnant with these methods. Unlike contraception, it does not involve blocking procreation. You may be right that the unitive dimension of marriage has been exaggerated over the procreative, but the Church's position is that they are equally important. We have to distinguish between the biological purpose of sex and the purpose of marriage. - Howard Kainz Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:37:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9812 Terry Carroll, please think about what you're saying. If "'Union' is the CONSEQUENCE, 'procreation' is the PURPOSE", then you're essentially stating that all marital intimacies outside of the very narrow period of a woman's fertile time are forbidden. Which makes life extremely difficult for married couples, most especially for the infertile. I have yet to read anywhere, in the Scriptures or in any Church document, that says this is the case. Why? Because the two ends of the marital act are united and cannot be divided. And they are equal. By your standards, imagine a newly married couple who happen to have married just after the bride's fertile period is ended. By law, they must consummate their marriage in order for it to be valid. Without that act, the marriage is "ratum non consummatum" and, if the couple separate without having had sexual relations, they could have their marriage declared null. So by your standards, this couple must wait, somewhere around a month or so, before they can consummate their marriage. Imagine a sudden military assignment or the unexpected death of one those newly-spoused before the consummation. Ah, but they didn't have "Sex as ANY kind of end in itself." Cold comfort for the surviving spouse. - Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz Tue, 07 Feb 2012 03:20:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9792 I don't think there's any question that the importance of the "unitive dimension" of marriage has, today, been exaggerated to the point that it is now the primary end in practice. The default position for Catholics entering marriage now is that "you will practice some form of birth control, and that's okay, just so long as you aren't TOTALLY closed to procreation and, of course, only use approved methods." It's almost impossible to marry in the Church today without completing a course in "authorized birth control methods" (NFP), conceding from the very beginning that "birth control" is now a Catholic value. This is so spectacularly contrary to 19 centuries of Catholic teaching that I think it is inevitable that the pendulum will swing back to orthodoxy and both Theology of the Body and NFP will be consigned to the same fate as Jansenism, the opposing extreme. Can you even IMAGINE Our Blessed Mother even THINKING in TOB or NFP terms much less TEACHING such to young Jewish maidens?! Catholics want to be just as hypersexual as the rest of our culture, and the only way to do that is to "celebrate our sexuality" (TOB) and pretend that birth control is both necessary and even good (NFP). We are saturated with immodesty and unchastity and, for now, embrace moral compromise as virtue. When theological sanity returns, it will laugh at the hubris of today's "theologies of sex." Just name me one married Saint who wouldn't blush reading TOB and NFP literature. How can anyone look at the "biological apparatus" of male and female and conclude that "union" is even EQUAL to the procreative purpose of marriage? "Union" is the CONSEQUENCE, "procreation" is the PURPOSE, even for the infertile. Sex as ANY kind of end in itself is just nonsense and to think otherwise is self-deception. - Terry Carroll Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:40:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9791 The pastor in question is a sham, a false priest. By what authority does he substantiate his claim to go against the Church's teaching? He proposes false teaching or the false interpretation of teaching to justify his actions. Any priest who would willfully disregard the received teaching of the Church is not worthy to call himself a priest of God. Yes, we all fall short in some way. That, however, is not an excuse to deliberately misuse one's freewill and intellect to abet a crime against heaven and earth. It is one thing to, in a moment of weakness, give in to sin then repent. It is quite another to willfully and obstinately disobey and provoke others to do the same. The hierarchs must to tow the line and expect priests and laity to tow the line. People's souls are on that very same line. The options are as follows: be strict and refuse to marry dissidents while calling everyone to embrace the life giving teaching of Christ and His Church; or water down the teaching out of some misguided sense of compassion and bless what the Lord Himself curses - lust, licentiousness and sterility. - Warren Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:11:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9788 The Canon Law is very clear here, even to an untrained reader. It states (Canon 1101.2) "If... either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude... some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly." Canon 1096 defines the essential properties of marriage as "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." By definitively excluding having children, this couple failed to give the necessary consent to enter into a valid marriage. The same would have been the case if they had agreed to have an "open" (i.e., unfaithful) marriage. What is most shocking about this situation is that as part of the Rite of Marriage, the couple is asked "Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?" For the Rite to continue, this couple must have publicly answered "yes" to that question. This public false oath, given the seriousness of the situation, would have been a very grave sin. Even worse, if the priest knew it to be false, he would have been a party to the sin. If other people knew of the couple's intent, the sin of scandal would be added to it all. That pastor did this couple a very grave disservice by not properly instructing them about the authentic meaning of marriage. He is doing his congregation a disservice by not properly instructing himself as to the authentic teaching of the Church, and conveying that faithfully to them. - Ed Mechmann Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:06:40 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9779 @Janice Belbey: My understanding is that a couple living together before marriage could be married, but not in a nuptial Mass, with consecration of the Eucharist, unless they receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation first. Sometimes pastors will ask them to live separately before the wedding. It's a common but difficult situation. I'm glad I'm not a pastor. - Howard Kainz Sat, 04 Feb 2012 07:29:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9772 I have a question related to the validity of marriage. As we are all aware, many couples seeking to be married in the Church are already living together....approximately 90% by some accounts from those in marriage prep ministries. If a couple stands at the altar in mortal sin, do they receive sacramental grace? This seems an obvious answer to me....no. Is the marriage canonically valid? Is it licit? Are the priests that are silent on this matter complicit in mortal sin? If so, why are they not explaining the beauty and gift of grace in a marriage to these naive and unchurched couples? Perhaps that's more than one question! I would very much appreciate a greater understanding of this issue. - Janice Belbey Sat, 04 Feb 2012 03:52:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage.html#comment-9770 Am I alone in finding an eerie similarity between the “Truce of 1968,” as George Weigal calls it, when the Congregation for the Clergy decreed that Cardinal O’Boyle should lift canonical penalties against those priests whom he had disciplined for their public dissent from Humanae Vitae ” and the “Peace of Clement IX” during the Jansenist controversy? In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive. In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In The Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit. The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites. Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion? - Michael Paterson-Seymour Sat, 04 Feb 2012 02:43:53 +0100