• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

In regard to unitive versus procreative, are they equal?

Status
Not open for further replies.

marciadietrich

Senior Veteran
Dec 5, 2002
4,385
296
62
Visit site
✟28,560.00
Faith
Catholic
Since the other recent thread was locked, can someone please quote an official document that says the unitive aspects of marriage are "equal" to the procreative as an end of marriage?

Humanae Vitae only says both are "essential" (as does CCC 2369) or both "inherent" and that they can't be seperated. Which is true. Still that doesn't mean they are equal as ends of marriage. Even the CCC dances around this by simply saying procreation (fecundity) is "an end of marriage" in CCC, without affirming procreation and raising children as the "primary" end of marriage.

Can someone say why the red quoted statement below is not a Pope, in his authority to teach on faith and morals, affirming a constant teaching of the Church and thus asserting the infallibility of the ordinary magisterium on this point?

http://www.catholicculture.org/docs...cfm?recnum=3462
The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception. It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.
 

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,483
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Marcia, the link is broken - what is the name of the document you are quoting?

Also, may I ask the reason you ask this question? Is it simply intellectual curiousity? I will begin investigating it, but I am not sure there is an explicit answer from the Magisterium.
This may be one of those questions like "in regards to walking, is my right leg, or my left leg more important."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michelina
Upvote 0

Michelina

.
Site Supporter
Nov 6, 2003
13,640
663
✟19,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Hi, Marcia!

The document you quote is not a Magisterial pronouncement. But the whole thrust of Church teaching is that the procreative and unitive are inherently united and cannot be separated. That is the basis of Humanae Vitae. It doesn't mean that sexual intercourse is any less 'sacramental' or meritiorious when it does not result in procreation. It only means that it is sinful (ergo not 'sacramental' and meritorious) when the procreative bonum is artificially separated from the unitive. Acc to the thinking of JPG, such an act is not really even unitive because it is contrary to nature.

There are many places where you can see the procreative end indicated to be primary, e.g. some theological manuals. But that is looking at the question from a biological perspective and the emphasis should be understood in the context of the arguments which are proposed in order to divorce the two purposes.

Casti Connubii makes it clear that the context of the encylical was the contraceptive mentality that became publically espoused by Protestants and Pagans during the 20's. We should keep that in mind when trying to fine tune our understanding of these questions. We should also keep in mind what St. Paul says about marriage, i.e. that it is a reflection of the relationship of the Father and the Son in the Most Holy Trinity, ergo something sacred in itself.

I would like to have responded to your excellent posts in that thread yesterday but the OP requested that it be closed because she was concerned that it might be confusing and/or upsetting people.
 
Upvote 0

Grace815

Active Member
Apr 20, 2005
155
11
42
Texas
✟22,841.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Michelina said:
Hi, Marcia!
But the whole thrust of Church teaching is that the procreative and unitive are inherently united and cannot be separated. That is the basis of Humanae Vitae. It doesn't mean that sexual intercourse is any less 'sacramental' or meritiorious when it does not result in procreation. It only means that it is sinful (ergo not 'sacramental' and meritorious) when the procreative bonum is artificially separated from the unitive. Acc to the thinking of JPG, such an act is not really even unitive because it is contrary to nature.

I definitely agree that the procreative and unitive can not be seperated and I loved the way you that that is is sinful when the "procreative bonum is artifically seperated from the unitive."

Don't you think that either extreme could be taken - exclusive emphasis on procreation to the detriment of one's spouse and exclusive emphasis on the unitive to the detriment of one's children?
 
Upvote 0

Michelina

.
Site Supporter
Nov 6, 2003
13,640
663
✟19,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Grace815 said:
...Don't you think that either extreme could be taken - exclusive emphasis on procreation to the detriment of one's spouse and exclusive emphasis on the unitive to the detriment of one's children?
Absolutely, Grace.

And St Thomas tells us that the marriage act, when motivated primarily for sensual satisfaction, is at least venially sinful. I.e. when one or both partners engage in intercourse primarily for sexual gratification, it is not in accordance with God's will.
 
Upvote 0

Grace815

Active Member
Apr 20, 2005
155
11
42
Texas
✟22,841.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Michelina said:
Absolutely, Grace.

And St Thomas tells us that the marriage act, when motivated primarily for sensual satisfaction, is at least venially sinful. I.e. when one or both partners engage in intercourse primarily for sexual gratification, it is not in accordance with God's will.

Yes - but engaging in intercourse and being sexually gratified is not wrong. If that is your primary motive, then certainly it's wrong and you are using the other person.

But part of a call to marriage is to also love and nuture our spouse.
 
Upvote 0

Robbie_James_Francis

May all beings have happiness and its causes
Apr 12, 2005
9,317
661
36
England, UK
✟35,261.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Michelina said:
We should also keep in mind what St. Paul says about marriage, i.e. that it is a reflection of the relationship of the Father and the Son in the Most Holy Trinity, ergo something sacred in itself.

Sorry to be pedantic...but wasn't it a comparison between Christ the Son and the Church? Great post, though.:thumbsup:

Peace

Robbie;)
 
Upvote 0

Irenaeus

Sub tuum praesidium confugimus!
May 16, 2004
6,576
518
USA
✟25,968.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Michelina,

I think that's a very good observation, in regard to Thomas Aquinas.

Augustine talks extensively about it in his writings on marriage and on concupiscence in De Civitate Dei. Those who procreate solely for pleasure are like those who eat solely for pleasure, or anything not according to the rule of reason and love. It causes an infraction against the virtue of temperance.
 
Upvote 0

geocajun

Priest of the holy smackrament
Dec 25, 2002
25,483
1,689
✟35,477.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Irenaeus said:
Augustine talks extensively about it in his writings on marriage and on concupiscence in De Civitate Dei. Those who procreate solely for pleasure are like those who eat solely for pleasure, or anything not according to the rule of reason and love. It causes an infraction against the virtue of temperance.

hmmm so what does that indicate about candy bars, and ice cream? nobody eats them for the nutritional value.
 
Upvote 0

marciadietrich

Senior Veteran
Dec 5, 2002
4,385
296
62
Visit site
✟28,560.00
Faith
Catholic
Hi Guys...

In the conversation in the other thread it seemed that the unitive and procreative were presented as equal ends and the only consideration to the opening post (by some, not all posters) was are they being open to life if a pregnancy occured while working on the unitive aspects and/or the circumstances that cause them to not feel ready for children. I see other factors in older teachings. Jason, the document linked to was Pius XII's Address to the midwives on catholicculture.org - http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3462 which you might need to be logged into it with a username. So sorry if that doesn't work again.

Michelina, I did look to Casti Connubii to see what it said, because I thought that is where Pius XII was drawing some thought from and the Catechism does quote that document as well.

17. Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth,[18] let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: "As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,"[19] - and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children."[20]
So an acknowledgement of the primary end of marriage here, and appears exactly what Pius XII was looking at in his address to midwives, and then later in the encyclical:
59. Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end(1*) and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved(2**).

So there are supposed to be two checks to be sure you are not acting against the nature of marriage when delaying childbirth is a necessity: (1*) a subordination to the primary end of marriage and (2**) not violating the intrinsic nature of the marital act.

All the focus in the other thread seemed to be on as long as we don't violate the intrinsic nature of the act we're always okay concentrating on unity because it is 'just as important' or 'equally important.' There seemed to be no acknowledgement of the first point, that the other aspects of marriage should be "subordinated" to the primary end (procreation and education of children) - it seems like it is rejected as being the same as "you mean you have to try to have a baby every time you have sex with your spouse" - which that isn't the case. The primary end of marriage is the same even for couples who are beyond childbearing years.

Now that subordination of unitive to procreative is likely similiar to the subordination of the wife to the husband, it isn't a dictatorship but the natural order and a sort of loving and reciprocal relationship between the unitive and the procreative. Still the teaching that the procreative appears to be that the primary end of marriage is there and I'm not sure a couple can have a completely and properly formed conscience on the subject if they don't know, or don't acknowledge, the hierarchy of the ends of marriage.

Does that make sense?

Marcia
 
Upvote 0

ShannonMcCatholic

I swallowed a bug
Feb 2, 2004
15,792
1,447
✟45,743.00
Faith
Catholic
Thank you for continuing this discusion y'all- I thought my original question seemed accusatory to some, and that there was too wide of a focus- these seems much better, a much narrower question at hand!

Marcia I have to say that my heart agrees with what you write- though I don't have the smarts to argue it authoritatively. Emotionally- I wish that I could just be totally open to not regulating my births at all...whenever I am not really able to have a baby it leaves a great, gaping wound in my heart...
 
Upvote 0

Cosmic Charlie

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated
Oct 14, 2003
15,771
2,486
✟98,459.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No theologian I have ever talked to on this subject can point a a document that makes an authoritaive comment on unity/procreation.

However, I can not think of any reason that they should not be considered equal since breaking the bond, breaks the bond, as it were.


Most thelogical discussion and papers seem to assume they are equal in importance.
 
Upvote 0

Grace815

Active Member
Apr 20, 2005
155
11
42
Texas
✟22,841.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
marciadietrich said:
Hi Guys...
Now that subordination of unitive to procreative is likely similiar to the subordination of the wife to the husband, it isn't a dictatorship but the natural order and a sort of loving and reciprocal relationship between the unitive and the procreative. Still the teaching that the procreative appears to be that the primary end of marriage is there and I'm not sure a couple can have a completely and properly formed conscience on the subject if they don't know, or don't acknowledge, the hierarchy of the ends of marriage.

Does that make sense?

I do see what you are saying. However, ultimately what we are all talking about is the idea of "marital chastity" - "People should cultivate chastity in the way that is suited to their state of life...Married people are called to live conjugal chastity..." (CCC 2349).

The CCC then goes on to state what the offenses against chastity are - "lust, masturbation, fornication, pornography, prostitution and rape." (CCC 2351-2356).

The only argument I can see (in terms of our discussion) for an offense against marital chastity (in this particular context we are discussing) is lust. However, let's look at how the CCC defines lust - "Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive aspects." (CCC 2351). (emphasis added).

Let's take the opposite then - sexual pleasure is NOT morally disordered when it is NOT sought for itself, and when it is NOT isolated from its procreative AND unitive aspects. This means that as long as a couple is OPEN to the possibilty that life could conceive, they may unite together and show one each other their mutual love without engaging explicitly in the act for the purposes of making a baby. By remaining open to the possibility of life, they are making love implicitly with the procreative and unitive aspects.
 
Upvote 0

Michelina

.
Site Supporter
Nov 6, 2003
13,640
663
✟19,733.00
Faith
Catholic
Does that make sense?
Marcia
It makes perfect sense, Marcia. But it should not be overstated in such a way as to lead people to think that in the hypothetical situation given in the OP yesterday, people shouldn't marry. That is why I mentioned that doctrinal pronouncements must be understood in the context in which they were written. Both Pius XI and XII are addressing a pernicious error.
CConubii said:
but you, also, Venerable Brethren, see, and seeing deeply grieve with Us that a great number of men, forgetful of that divine work of redemption, either entirely ignore or shamelessly deny the great sanctity of Christian wedlock, or relying on the false principles of a new and utterly perverse morality, too often trample it under foot. And since these most pernicious errors and depraved morals have begun to spread even amongst the faithful.
The teaching must be understood in a balanced way, not as a reason for postponing marriage. The fact that the Church everywhere accepts the integrity of the intentions of young couples manifests the more balanced interpretation of the intent of the teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Grace815

Active Member
Apr 20, 2005
155
11
42
Texas
✟22,841.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
Michelina said:
It makes perfect sense, Marcia. But it should not be overstated in such a way as to lead people to think that in the hypothetical situation given in the OP yesterday, people shouldn't marry. That is why I mentioned that doctrinal pronouncements must be understood in the context in which they were written. Both Pius XI and XII are addressing a pernicious error.

The teaching must be understood in a balanced way, not as a reason for postponing marriage. The fact that the Church everywhere accepts the integrity of the intentions of young couples manifests the more balanced interpretation of the intent of the teaching.

I definitely agree! Thanks for advcoating that balanced approach.

I found this article on http://www.catholic-pages.com/marriage/sacrament.asp written by Paul McLachlan from St. Leo's College in Brisbane. I really enjoyed this snipet.

"How, then do we live our marriages so as to reap the benefits of the Sacrament and please God? St Augustine teaches that there are three "blessings" of marriage, or in Natural Law terms, three "goods": fecundity, fidelity and indissolubility. These three goods apply to all true marriages, even marriages that are not sacramental. The Church also teaches that marriage has two main purposes: the more important is procreation, the begetting and education of Children, raising them to worship God; the second, is the consortium vitae, the companionship and union of married love.

To live our marriages in a way pleasing to God, to take full advantage of the graces He offers and not put obstacles in their way, we must always respect these blessings and ends of marriage. Without going into much detail, because they are topics in and of themselves:
  • we must respect the blessing of fecundity in marriage: entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment because you aren't consenting to be married at all; blocking God out of your fertility, using technology to control it, limiting family size without serious reason are all attacks on the blessing of fecundity, contrary to God's command to "be fruitful and multiply", contrary to the generous love we are called to live every day, contrary to the faith and trust God wants us to have in Him. The atrocity of procured abortion is a direct attack on the fecundity of marriage. Resorting to technology for the conception of children, as Pope Paul VI terms it in Humanae Vitae, deliberately removing the unitive purpose of sexual intercourse, attacks the good of fecundity.
  • we must respect the blessing of fidelity in marriage, we must fulfil the purpose of a communion of mutual benefit, the consortium vitae. Adultery obviously attacks this, but so does "adultery of the eyes and the heart". Contraception and premarital sex in their own ways also attack the blessing of fidelity because they muddy our vision of sexual intercourse. Instead of a truly holy act, when each spouse says to the other, I love you with my whole self, I give you my whole self, they are led to treat sex as a means solely of deriving personal pleasure, to treat each other as objects of gratification rather than to give themselves as subjects of love. Doing the dishes strengthens the blessing of fidelity, holding each other while you watch the children sleep strengthens the blessing of fidelity, the million and one ways of saying I love you, I am yours, we are one in flesh and mind all strengthen the blessing of fidelity.
  • and finally, we must respect the blessing of indissolubility. We must not treat marriage as a transitory thing, temporary or impermanent. "
I enjoyed the way he discussed Augustine and the "goods" of marriage. I think this issue is a good/better type of discussion. Just like we know the Bible says it is BETTER to remain celibate, it is good to be married.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.