The Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research, a collection of progressive malcontents that strive to promote “gender equality and shared decision-making in the Church,” recently released a statement calling on “the Catholic hierarchy to reverse their stance against so-called ‘artificial’ contraceptives.”
Among the statement’s 151 “Catholic” signatories are Fr. Thomas Rosica’s idol, the Canadian heretic Gregory Baum, more than twenty professors of theology, and no less than half-a-dozen Jesuits; all of whom insist that the arguments set forth by Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae are faulty.
In response, a group of some five hundred Catholic scholars issued a counterstatement that applauds the encyclical as a “prophetic” text that “focuses, as it should, on the person’s relationship to God and to other persons.”
With Humanae Vitae thus back in the headlines, the neo-Catholic choir is once more singing the praises of Pope Montini for his heroic defense of the Faith, but is it warranted?
An objective reading of Humanae Vitae through the lens of Catholic tradition, and a review of the circumstances leading up to its promulgation, tell a very different story.
Humanae Vitae is a conciliaresque document; one that at once repeats certain truths and then subtly undermines the same by failing to teach the fullness of Catholic doctrine.
Can it be said that Paul VI ably predicted the devastation that would follow should the voice of the Church be ignored?
Yes, but it must also be said that his incompetent handling of the matter all but guaranteed said devastation.
In this article, we will take a look at three of the ways in which Paul VI created the climate of dissent and confusion that exists even to this day concerning the matter of contraception:
- By charging a commission, the make-up of which included well-known dissenters, to study a “question” that was already well and truly settled.
As the text of Humanae Vitae itself states:
[Married couples] are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.
Elsewhere in the text, Paul VI claims recourse to the relevant “moral doctrine on marriage constantly taught by the magisterium of the Church.”
NB: The constant teaching of the Church was already known.
Finally, we come to the answer that the entire world was awaiting:
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.
Again, note well that we are in the realm of “constant doctrine,” of which Paul VI says:
The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself.
This being so, a change in said teaching was never a possibility; as such, one cannot but recognize just how much unnecessary chaos and confusion arose out of the mere existence of the commission given its mandate.
There is nothing untoward about a commission of experts being charged with giving the pope a greater understanding of a given issue (in the case under discussion here, as it concerned newly available therapies for regulating birth); with the specific purpose of equipping him to most effectively teach the immutable moral doctrine of the Church.
This, however, isn’t what happened; rather, Paul VI invited speculation, which quickly led to rampant anticipation, the results of which have been nothing short of disastrous.
- By lending credence to popular notions that did not merit the Church’s serious consideration; much less in a papal decree.
In the opening paragraphs of Humanae Vitae, Paul VI cites the reasons for exploring the regulation of birth therein, among them are the following:
In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources…
More egregious still is the following:
Also noteworthy is a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love.
Is it even possible that God at once charged mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” and yet failed to provide sufficient resources for a faithful response? Did “the dignity of women” only happen to dawn upon the Church in the 1960’s – the era of bra burning feminists who sought liberation from the “burden” of motherhood? Was the “value of conjugal love” somehow lost on the Church until the age of “free sex” was inaugurated?
Of course not, and yet Paul VI saw fit to encourage such thinking, even if only inadvertently.
Remember, Humanae Vitae was promulgated less than a decade after the death of Pope Pius XII, and nearly fifty years before Francis began making a mockery of papal encyclicals by taking up the cause of godless secular activism.
In this sense, Paul VI was truly a pioneer.
- By failing to teach the ends of marriage according to the Church’s constant doctrine.
In Humanae Vitae, Paul VI said that the “important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed” in order to address certain misguided attempts to justify “artificial methods of birth control.”
He went on to encourage others to do likewise, saying, for instance:
We are speaking especially to you who teach moral theology—to spell out clearly and completely the Church’s teaching on marriage.
Paul VI was entirely correct to note the importance of teaching Christian doctrine on marriage in all of its fullness.
One notes, however, that a central tenet of said doctrine is as follows:
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; its secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence. (1917 Code of Canon Law, the same in effect in 1968)
The closest Paul VI came to faithfully handing this teaching on was to say:
Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children.
Close enough? Hardly. Elsewhere in the text, Paul VI says:
In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.
Fair enough, but how can the children of the Church be expected to rightly order their priorities before God as husband and wife when the pope himself is unwilling to faithfully teach the hierarchy of the ends of marriage?
Worse still, Paul VI went on to comingle the ends of marriage vis-à-vis the conjugal act:
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 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.
It seems to me that certain crucial distinctions must be made; distinctions that, to my knowledge, have never been appropriately addressed by the post-conciliar magisterium:
First, this text is speaking of the “marriage act,” which is an aspect of marriage; it is not marriage itself.
Secondly, a distinction must be made between the significance and the qualities of the marriage act, and the ends of marriage. These things are often treated as interchangeable, when in fact they are not.
Paul VI is often hailed for firmly stating that the “unitive significance and the procreative significance” of the marriage act are inseparable. Fine, but what Paul VI failed to teach is that they are not, at least insofar as the ends of marriage are concerned, equals.
By deliberately avoiding recourse to the traditional doctrine concerning the ends of marriage (which, incidentally, is immutable), Paul VI invited the faithful to believe that the Church had, after some 1,900 years, finally come to realize that the ends of marriage were no longer to be understood hierarchically; i.e., as primary and secondary.
This erroneous view is a direct fruit of his lack of discretion in comingling, without proper distinction, the procreative and the unitive, and I would argue that the central problem is that these things are different in kind.
Marital unity is not, properly speaking, brought about by the conjugal act. Once consummated, the union between husband and wife is objectively real; “the two have become one flesh,” and their union is indissoluble – even if the relationship is lacking in intimacy.
The marriage act in its unitive significance is an outward expression of the underlying reality that is marital unity; i.e., it does not create marital unity.
One rightly notes that the marriage act has (or should have) the effect of engendering and enhancing the intimacy between the persons as uniquely made possible in marriage; deepening the sacrificial love between the spouses and taking it to new heights.
It must be said, however, that this falls squarely into the category of marriage’s secondary end; namely, “mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence.”
By contrast, the procreative significance of the conjugal act has, just as the name suggests, a genuinely creative aspect. It brings about new life; children that are lovingly begotten and then educated in the ways of the true Faith.
This, needless to say, is the primary end – importantly – of marriage itself.
These distinctions strike me as absolutely crucial; if for no other reason than they expose the fundamental flaw in pro-contraception arguments that cite the unitive significance of marriage acts between couples that are unable to conceive.
Specifically, the distinctions cited thus far bring clarity to the fact that the procreative significance of the marriage act remains even when the procreation of children is not naturally possible; the ends of marriage in no way being upended.
In short, unless it is made clear that ends and significance are two distinct things, as are the marriage act and marriage itself, Church teaching on the matter of contraception will remain incomprehensible to far too many who might otherwise come to grasp its unassailable logic.
At this, it bears noting that Paul VI did not employ the terms “procreative end” or “unitive end” anywhere in the text of Humanae Vitae. Even so, it is quite common for “conservative” voices, bishops included, to do so when attempting to defend Church teaching.
In fact, neither of these terms had ever been employed in a text of the Holy See until (wait for it…) the Final Report of the Synod of Bishops cited the “unitive end of marriage” in October 2015; a phrase that was repeated by Francis in Amoris Laetitia.
Now, that is not to suggest in any way whatsoever that Paul VI is blameless for the aforementioned confusion of concepts; on the contrary, it was he who invited the present climate of dissent and confusion by his failure to teach Catholic doctrine in its fullness.
CONCLUSION
Far from performing an act of heroism in promulgating Humanae Vitae, to say nothing of his mishandling of the process that preceded it, Pope Paul VI did the Holy Catholic Church and indeed the entire world a grave disservice.
And this, my friends, is the only thing his defenders can point to as the crowning achievement of an otherwise disastrous pontificate; the solitary achievement that allegedly justifies his being considered a “Blessed.”
Keep this in mind as his cause for canonization is relentlessly pushed forward.
Whenever I see a picture of Giovanni Montini I shudder.
If folks around here doubt Bergy’s claim to the papacy, then what do they make of Montini??
While I don’t share all the same conclusions as the people who made this following video, this summary of Paul VI is absolutely devastating, and is practically required viewing. When you see the Novus Ordo canonize this man at some point in the future, remember what you see here:
The Amazing heresies of Paul VI.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=SG&hl=en-GB&v=ODm338bA9-k
Back in 1968, after the Council, the Church and Society were changing in radical ways. Catholics were not interested in tradition or subtle distinctions like primary and secondary causes. The average Catholic was only interested in a YES or a NO.
Paul VI had waffled back and forth enough that the average Catholic was sure that the Pope’s answer on contraception would be a YES. With Humanae Vitae, the unexpected and dreaded NO hit them like a bombshell. They left the Church in droves.
Well said.
As to the “two ends of marriage” issue, there should be no surprise that Paul VI would consider them at equal levels, after all, he presided over Vatican II wherein Gaudium et Spes makes that same point quite clearly––or as least as clear as most anything else in that document.
But to further underscore your point as to just how “unserious” this writing actually was, Pope Paul VI and his bishops took absolutely no steps to enforce it. In fact, my distinct recollection of that period was that there was a belief among young Catholics that artificial birth control was still “technically” sinful––but not “really” a sin.
These were the days of Fr, Charlie Curran and others, so there was probably at least some truth to it. Many of the confessors in those days were advising penitents that acts such as masturbation and homosexual behavior were not sinful at all. I would presume their advice on birth control was equally flawed.
Thank you for astutely pointing out the revolutionary innovation of the phrase “unitive end of marriage” first appearing in the Final Report of the Synod of Bishops cited in October 2015; and then repeated in Amoris Laetitia. (I have offered wondered if any human act or operation can have two, or more, equal ends which define the essence of the act.)
Humanae Vitae is problematic in many ways, including the above-mentioned thumbs up to the population control and feminist movements. Nevertheless, I don’t think we can underestimate the importance of this papal reaffirmation of the condemnation of artificial birth control. It has been pointed out the that the solitary religious leader that stood forth on the world stage and firmly condemned the pill (and all other forms of artificial contraception) was a celibate and a Roman Catholic. Given the cultural context and the climate of revolution even within the Church, this reaffirmation (also prompted by the tenacity of faithful laymen) is nothing short of a miracle. Furthermore, Pope Paul VI was not entirely to blame for the defects of the document, as previous popes had added to the complexity of the discussion: Pope Pius XI seemed to have entertained personalistic notions on marriage and Pope Pius XII gave permission for the use of periodic continence for grave reasons, without qualifying that the practice remains deficient of itself.
I agree that the answer is to be found in recovering the Church’s timeless teaching on the hierarchical ends of marriage and in therefore exhorting couples to strive to not directly prevent children from being conceived. This is largely dependent on both the laity and clergy being properly formed by the propitiatory essence of Holy Mass, which is also hierarchical.
Mark 10:14
Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased, and saith to them: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God.”
By deliberately avoiding recourse to the traditional doctrine concerning the ends of marriage (which, incidentally, is immutable)
Is there any defined dogma or Papal document to indicate the ends of marriages as “immutable”?
Excellent!
A couple things:
1. Although Paul VI convened the marriage commission, the idea originated with John XXIII.
2. Vatican II first put conjugal love and procreation on an equal basis, thus effectively downgrading procreation. Gaudium et Spes: “Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen.”
3. Paul VI never enforced Humanae Vitae. He was so dismayed at the response, he spared us writing another encyclical. Charlie Curran and others were left to say and teach whatever they wanted. It was almost two decades until Curran was banned from teaching at Catholic schools by John Paul II, but never was excommunicated and defrocked. There’s a saying from secular law, “A law unenforced is no law at all. It is worse than no law.”
“Nothing short of a miracle” or “I don’t think we can underestimate the importance of this papal reaffirmation of the condemnation of artificial birth control.” Your bar appears to be low with your expectations from this time period. Regardless of the pressure, HV, was a calculated step in changing the teachings on marriage. HV does not support the doctrine of the hierarchial purposes of marriage whatsoever. HV sought to redefine marriage plain and simple. HV is outright poison. Always was and always will be.
Dear Louie,
I need to add to this article what I see as some needed clarification on the hierarchial purposes of marriage. As Casti Connubii explains so well, the secondary and tertiary purpose of marriage, i.e. secondary purpose ‘unity of the couple’ and tertiary purpose being the ‘properly ordered sexual urge’ are not only inseperable from each other purpose, in this hierarchy of purposes, but are, more importantly, both SUBORDINATE TO the purpose above it. For example, the third purpose, the properly ordered sexual urge, is subordinate to the secondary purpose of unity and to the primary purpose procreation. In other words the tertiary purpose of the sexual urge is ordered toward the service of these two ends or purposes above it. Likewise the secondary purpose, unity, is subordinate to and at the service of the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory. And if we wish to go a step further we can say the the primary purpose of procreation is subordinate to and at the service of Gods mandated mission to be fruitful and multiply for His glory. The soul is of an infinite value to God. The unity of the couple should never be looked at as something distinct and of special significance from the other purposes. This is why we speak of the hierarchial order of purposes. Of course unity of the couple is essential and even more than that it is the law. Divorce IS A MORTAL SIN! This unity is essential because of the justice owed to God and His laws which is due to the sacraficiality and sacredness of the grand mission of marriage to bring souls into the world for God’s glory. Marriage is a grand and sacred mission due to the of the infinite value the soul has to God which is by His design and laws is to be brought forth through the sacrament of marriage.
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“…You may have noticed this in the Pope’s (John Paul II) Wednesday conferences – I don’t know if you read them – but, if you read them, you can see: for well-nigh five years almost ad nauseam, he has spoken of the theology of the human body; we have really had our fill of it, we must say. There is no ascetical theology in it, and for him it seems that marriage will be sublimated right up to heaven and become, I don’t know, some sort of celestial mysticism. Incredible! Incomprehensible!
I don’t think anybody understands what he says; so mysterious is all this theology of the human body. One searches in vain for the old asceticism. All he does is praise marriage, praise the union according to the flesh, without a single mention of concupiscence, it’s unbelievable, since we must never forget that even after receiving Baptism, as St. Thomas says, we still have four profound wounds in our soul. He calls them the fomes peccati (remains of sin), which are: ignorance, malice, weakness and concupiscence; these are the four wounds which remain in us and of which we stand in need of a cure, and for this cure we need the merits of Our Lord. Well, all that is over with, finished. They say Baptism remits our sins and, most importantly, makes us members of the Christian community. There it is, exactly like the Protestants.
Now this different vision of Christian spirituality is exceedingly grave because it excludes once and for all the Cross, it excludes sacrifice, it casts aside the Cross and the Sacrifice and the Redemption of Our Savior.”
The Writing Style of The Use of Thomistic Language was undoubtedly Clear & Precise.
But Vatican II & Afterwards uses the Imprecise Language of Pastoral, which is NOT Precise.
One only needs to read the Thoughts of Chairman Bergoglio, in Evengelum Gaudium, Laudato No, No, No, No, No(To paraphrase One Christopher A Ferrara) & Amoris Laetitia, all Three being just outright Rambling, as well as writing which can lull The Faithful to sleep, confusion or both.
Wow Maryiloveher! I never read this before. What a gem. Thanks a bunch!
Perhaps I would have better wrote: “I don’t think we should underestimate the importance of this papal reaffirmation of the condemnation of birth control.” And, yes, I do believe that was a time of terrible upheaval and revolution, even within the Church.
Do you agree that upholding the procreative primary purpose of marriage means striving to not directly prevent children from being conceived?
“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 and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Casti Conubii, paragraph 59.
Here is the key, ” so long as THEY ARE SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved” I am not quite sure wether you quoted this as a quote to support a ‘carte Blanche’ to reject the conjugal a act’s primary purpose as being ordered toward procreation. Many people mistakenly quote this beleiving that since not all conjugal acts are guaranteed to be fertile we are free to separate, as NFP falsely teaches, in act and word or deed during conjugal intercourse the desire to submit to the conjugal act’s primary purpose of procreation with an integrity of thought ,word, or deed towards procreation. Infertile couples are, from no fault of their own, or for any manipulation of their own part in thought, word, or deed trying to prevent procreation. Of course even infertile couples are not guaranteed immunity from a contraceptive mentality. However, I repeat, they are, from no fault of their own, infertile. Theirs is a defect of nature not a defect of the selfish faithless mind in the hypocritical use of NFP that justifies the separtion of the primary purpose of procreation from the unitive purposes.
Not quite sure what you mean by “striving to not directly prevent children from being conceived” It is the word “directly” which gives me the most pause to ask for clarification by what you mean.
The stature of St Thomas Aquinas is large in the Church, so large in fact that it seems that no one dares question any position the man held. In fact the man’s name is almost synonymous with orthodoxy in the Catholic Church. People cannot fathom a Catholic world where the man might have gotten a bit of something wrong, or imagine a Church or a Pope who just lazily followed his lead. Is everyone willing to accept that St Thomas was correct 100% of the time and could commit no error? This would seem to put him on par with Jesus Christ ….no? For one commenter, St Thomas Aquinas and “Thomistic philosophy” were the very definition of Catholic theology, in complete disregard for what Jesus and the Scriptures may have said.
.
But – for Aquinas, every person is bound by their conscience , even one in error. If there is something that one believes one cannot do (even after attempting to inform one’s conscience ), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin. Likewise, if there is something you believe you must do, even when the Church forbids it, then you must do it or else commit a sin.
.
It seems that here is where Aquinas made man king and pushed Jesus aside, declaring in effect that EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS A KING, and it would seem that it would also permit God Himself to command you to sin ( and where have we heard of that lately?)
.
This is the spirit we have seen throughout the Vatican II cult, where no one can ever be condemned to Hell for following one’s conscience. This idea also is what gets the pagans off the hook according to Vatican II. The idea simply is poison gas to evangelization, apologetic and catechetical efforts, and also seems like it would have the effect of putting out the welcome mat for the willfully ignorant, and providing a convenient excuse for the intellectually lazy.
.
Michael F Poulin
1 Cor 4:4 For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.
“Directly” pertains to the intention. Is it your direct intention to prevent children, or is the prevention of children an indirect consequence of another intention (for example, abstaining from sexual relations because your spouse is sick, or absent, or abstaining for an ascetical reason).
Could you provide a quote or citation for St. Thomas’ teaching.
Doctoris Angelici
Pope Pius X
29 June 1914:
“…The experience of so many centuries has shown and every passing day more clearly proves the truth of the statement made by Our Predecessor John XXII: “He (Thomas Aquinas) enlightened the Church more than all the other Doctors together; a man can derive more profit from his books in one year than from a lifetime spent in pondering the philosophy of others” (Consistorial address of 1318). St. Pius V confirmed this opinion when he ordered the feast of St. Thomas as Doctor to be kept by the universal Church: “But inasmuch as, by the providence of Almighty God, the power and truth of the philosophy of the Angelic Doctor, ever since his enrolment amongst the citizens of Heaven, have confounded, refuted and routed many subsequent heresies, as was so often clearly seen in the past and was lately apparent in the sacred decrees of the Council of Trent, We order that the memory of the Doctor by whose valour the world is daily delivered from pestilential errors be cultivated more than ever before with feelings of pious and grateful devotion” (Bull Mirabilis Deus of the 11th April, 1567). To avoid recapitulating the many other resounding praises of Our Predecessors, We may adopt the following words of Benedict XIV as a summary of all the commendations bestowed upon the writings of Thomas Aquinas, more particularly the Summa Theologica: “Numerous Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, have borne glorious testimony to his philosophy. We also, in the books which We have written on various topics, after by diligent examination perceiving and considering the mind of the Angelic Doctor, have always adhered and subscribed with joy and admiration to his philosophy, and candidly confess that whatever good is to be found in Our own Writings is in no way to be attributed to Us, but entirely to so eminent a teacher” (Acta Cap. Gen. O.P., vol IX, p. 196).”
I’ll second that…What a gem!…we can always count on the saintly Archbishop LeFebvre!
As long as you are completly abstaining from sex during fertile AND infertile times for noble and grave reasons and one is not trying to plan to exclusively have sex during infertile times in order to separate in thought, word, or deed, procreation from unity one is not thwarting the sex act because there is no sex act going on and the complete abstaining is sincerely not rooted in selfishness or faithlessness. Even if the reason for NFP has, as a consequence, not the users primary intention of avoiding children but that the users use of NFP and its main intention was to alleviate the suffering of the spouses for grave reasons, such as illness or extreme financial stress is STILL no excuse. If they beleive that their reasons to abstain are so noble and that their intention isn’t so called ‘primarily to avoid having children’ how can one consider these reasons so grave and noble if they are willing to play Russian roulette with hypocritical NFP and how can one possibly consider that their intention is not to avoid having children. To excuse someone from contracepting because their intention to avoid having children is not as direct as their main intention to alliviate suffering is deceiving oneself and others. Even if avoiding procreation is not their primary intention it is and becomes still an intention nonetheless.
The act of thrawting the sex act by trying to justify separating its hierarchial purposes of conjugal intercourse as established by God through His laws on sexual purity DURING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is the grave sin. I might be wrong but didn’t we already have this discussion a while back?
I have read a few things about Paul VI, allegeing that he was a practicing homosexual ? I am not trying to slander the man but am curious if there exists any solid evidence re: this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeEkSJukLaw
You seem to make certain gratuitous assumptions as to why I posted the paragraph of Casti Conubii above. Nonetheless, the issue being considered is, arguably, more complex than a simple response might indicate.
” . . . marriage’s primary end is the procreation and education of children, firstly, in the sense of that end which is distinctive of it as such. Marriage is primarily instituted for this end when considered from the perspective that, were the nature of man constituted so that either offspring were not necessary37 or no particular stable union between persons were required for their upbringing, then it would not exist. When this need ceases in the next life, there will no longer be marrying and giving in marriage among the children of men.
The tending to holiness, on the other hand, is primary, not in this functional sense, but in the wider sense of a vocation as such being a call to the pursuit of the greatest good in the context of a certain manner of life and, more particularly here, the greatest good of someone else. Yet, without the previously mentioned end, there would be no need for a mutual moulding and union of the spouses or a need to “perfect each other” specifically, but only oneself in particular and other people in the generic sense that we are all meant to be each other’s keeper to some degree.
Thus, both assertions are true under a different aspect. For this reason, at least in part, I believe the Church has not focused so much on the hierarchical ordering of ends in the language of its documents in recent times. From this point of view it may be better to speak of two interrelated and essential ends. Yet as we have also seen, the Church does not reject this hierarchical ordering as wrong in itself or incorrect, provided it is understood properly.”
Matthew Buckley, Roman Theological Forum, January, 2010, no. 144 (http://rtforum.org/lt/lt144.html)
I really am having a hard time following this quote from Matthew Buckley in a 2010 forum. What two assertions are being made? It is not clear to me. I will have to read the link. In the meantime I would suggest reading the maryiloveher’s quote from Archbishop Lebvebre on the new modernistic wave of John Paul’s ‘Theology of the Body’. This quote by Archbishop pretty much sums it up and is priceless. I highly recommend you read it. It is about 6 or 7 posts ahead of this one on this aka discussion.
I shall read what you recommend. Let me say also that I am in full agreement with your insistence that what is termed NFP can assuredly be abused and constitute sinful action. However, to determine such would require great knowledge of specifics regarding the spouses, such as only a confessor might be granted.
Best regards.
Actually, what Aquinas’s reflections on conscience and obligation imply is that only the Holy Trinity can determine infallible who has truly violated their conscience, who was or was not culpable in their ignorance, etc.
That should have been “infallibly.”
One place where this is developed is Summa Theologica
Pay particular attention to the last sentance of Question19 Article 5 answer where he concludes:
.
” We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.”
.
Summa Theologica : First Part of the Second Part (Prima Secundæ Partis)
Question 19. The goodness and malice of the interior act of the will.
Article 5 Whether the will is evil when it is at variance with erring reason?
“….
I answer that, Since conscience is a kind of dictate of the reason (for it is an application of knowledge toaction, as was stated in the I, 19, 13), to inquire whether the will is evil when it is at variance with erringreason, is the same as to inquire “whether an erring conscience binds.” On this matter, some distinguished three kinds of actions: for some are good generically; some are indifferent; some are evil generically. And they say that if reason or conscience tell us to do something which is good generically, there is no error: and in like manner if it tell us not to do something which is evil generically; since it is the same reason that prescribes what is good and forbids what is evil. On the other hand if a man’s reason or conscience tells him that he is bound by precept to do what is evil in itself; or that what is good in itself, is forbidden, then his reason orconscience errs. In like manner if a man’s reason or conscience tell him, that what is indifferent in itself, for instance to raise a straw from the ground, is forbidden or commanded, his reason or conscience errs. They say, therefore, that reason or conscience when erring in matters of indifference, either by commanding or by forbidding them, binds: so that the will which is at variance with that erring reason is evil and sinful. But they say that when reason or conscience errs in commanding what is evil in itself, or in forbidding what is good in itself and necessary for salvation, it does not bind; wherefore in such cases the will which is at variance witherring reason or conscience is not evil.
But this is unreasonable. For in matters of indifference, the will that is at variance with erring reason orconscience, is evil in some way on account of the object, on which the goodness or malice of the will depends; not indeed on account of the object according as it is in its own nature; but according as it is accidentallyapprehended by reason as something evil to do or to avoid. And since the object of the will is that which is proposed by the reason, as stated above (Article 3), from the very fact that a thing is proposed by the reasonas being evil, the will by tending thereto becomes evil. And this is the case not only in indifferent matters, but also in those that are good or evil in themselves. For not only indifferent matters can received the character ofgoodness or malice accidentally; but also that which is good, can receive the character of evil, or that which isevil, can receive the character of goodness, on account of the reason apprehending it as such. For instance, to refrain from fornication is good: yet the will does not tend to this good except in so far as it is proposed by the reason. If, therefore, the erring reason propose it as an evil, the will tends to it as to something evil. Consequently the will is evil, because it wills evil, not indeed that which is evil in itself, but that which is evilaccidentally, through being apprehended as such by the reason. In like manner, to believe in Christ is good in itself, and necessary for salvation: but the will does not tend thereto, except inasmuch as it is proposed by the reason. Consequently if it be proposed by the reason as something evil, the will tends to it as to something evil: not as if it were evil in itself, but because it is evil accidentally, through the apprehension of the reason. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 9) that “properly speaking the incontinent man is one who does not follow right reason; but accidentally, he is also one who does not follow false reason.” We must therefore conclude that, absolutely speaking, every will at variance with reason, whether right or erring, is always evil.
…”
I believe this is a harmful line of reasoning (cfr. Mr. Buckley). It seems here that the motivation for marrying a particular person is being confused with the motivation for choosing the marital state. One chooses marriage in order to fulfill the primary and hierarchical end of marriage, which is procreation (this is why impotence is a diriment impediment to marriage). One chooses a particular person to marry in order to fulfill the good of this particular person, or to bring this spouse to perfection. Normally, a marital spouse is brought to perfection by perfecting those acts which are proper to marriage; namely the conception and birth of children. The more fruitfulness in marriage, the more perfection of the spouses in the marital state. Thus for the spouses to act directly against the primary end of marriage is to work against each other’s perfection. Spouses who are unable to conceive because of infertility also can reach a real level of mutual perfection because of the secondary ends of marriage, which are also beneficial to those in the marital state.
But the diminution of the primacy of the procreative end of marriage (such as positing “two interrelated and essential ends”) has been an unfortunate legacy of modern magisterial teaching on marriage, and as I mentioned above, Pius XI was partly to blame for appearing to entertain personalistic notions about marriage.
Totally agree on NFP. Tragic that ‘Catholics’ are in shock and awe when someone mentions its obvious faults and bad intentions.
Me three! Thank you for that.
Beautiful, succinct explanation, Anastasia. Thank you- I’m tucking it away in my brain for later.
Thank you, Father. Horrifically, you are a rare priest that teaches the truths of the Faith and of man’s nature, in this time of general apostasy. Crass subjectivism injected into objective matters, with the resultant distortion of truth and subjection of moral truth to arbitrary desires devoid of grace.
It seems odd to insist that a line of reasoning that strives to be based on the distinction between ‘finis operis’ and ‘finis operantis’ is “a harmful line.”
As for the motivation for marrying, I doubt one can establish that such is universally “in order to fulfill the primary and hierarchical end of marriage, which is procreation.” That, indeed is the ‘finis operis’ of the conjugal act and thus is necessarily implicated within marriage as such. But the motives of parties entering into a licit marriage admits of many variations, so long as there is no intention to undermine the very nature and finality of the conjugal act and preclude conception.
As for translating these considerations to some degree into ‘personalist’ discourse to make them more accessible, one would wonder why such, necessarily, is blameworthy, since all moral acts are of and by persons.
Such would not seem to jeopardize the integrity of reflections on the nature of acts and their finalities that are only moral (or not) because they are chosen by agents that we designate as human persons.
However, I am not assuming that Buckley is alleging (for no evidence indicates such) that fulfilling the good of ‘this particular person’ with integrity can involve directly (and habitually) intending to frustrate the primary natural end of marriage (‘finis operis’) as such, which is procreation.
@imprimipotest
Why confuse then the finis operantis with the finis operis? Why is the motivation to marry a particular person being confused with the purpose of marriage, such that dual and equal purposes are falsely being ascribed to marriage?
The harmful line is precisely in diminishing the hierarchical importance of procreation as the primary end of marriage. Since it is hiearchically primary, it is not to be directly acted against without adverse effect. As soon as you ascribe a personalistic end of marriage equal to that of procreation, you inevitably open the door to legitimizing “same-sex” marriage. By the way, the proponents of same-sex marriage are also acting persons, who then can take refuge in personalistic notions of marriage in order to advocate for their aberrant point of view.
Dear imprimipotest, don’t separate marriage from the end of the conjugal act. Mr. Buckley’s arguments are a bunch of hooey (“two interrelated and essential ends”). Don’t let yourself be deceived, or detoured. Marriage, and all of human sexuality, is divinely ordered to posterity. Period.
Actually, neither Buckley nor I are ascribing or promoting any intentional undermining of the essential ‘telos’ of the conjugal act as such. However, the essential end of marriage as such does not preclude considering what he as adverted to, much less permit one to justify so-called ‘homosexual marriage’, which is not only contradictory in speech but in nature.
Nonetheless:
“Matrimony is instituted both as an office of nature and as a sacrament of the Church. As an office of nature it is directed by two things, like every other virtuous act. one of these is required on the part of the agent and is the intention of the due end, and thus the ‘offspring’ is accounted a good of matrimony; the other is required on the part of the act, which is good generically through being about a due matter; and thus we have ‘faith,’ whereby a man has intercourse with his wife and with no other woman. Besides this it has a certain goodness as a sacrament, and this is signified by the very word ‘sacrament.'”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, 1, 49, 2.
The purpose of marriage, as instituted by God is, the procreation and education of children for God’s glory. Yes, married couples most certainly can be sanctified through the married state, just as a priest can be sanctified through the priesthood and the unmarried can be sanctified through their own lives in the world living with their neighbors. But it still remains that marriage was instituted specifically for bringing souls into the world by God who saw it fit and good to do so through the marital act through marriage, just as the priesthood was instituted by God for the administration of the sacraments for the slavation of souls. The Priesthood and marriage were not instituted for the purpose of the sanctification of the priest solely for himself, although he could achieve his sanctification through, this it is not why the priesthood was specifically created even though the outcome of a life in the priesthood could very well result in a priest’s sanctification and, we most certainly would expect and hope that it would bring the sanctification of the priest, just as we would expect marriage would bring the sanctification of the couple if it respected God’s laws governing marriage. The priesthood and marriage were not created specifically for the sanctification of the couple or the priest himself but for the bigger picture of being fruitful and multiplying and sanctified through the sacraments. All humans, regardless of their state or calling, are desired by God to be sanctified. We must distinguish the primary purpose of each sacrament in order to not be confused as to exactly what marriage is for or for that matter what the priesthood is for. Every human state has sanctification as its goal or end but each state also has a very specific function in how sanctification will be achieved for souls. There can be no sanctification if there are no souls created and there can be no sanctification if there are no priests to administer the sancraments.