Comments on: Primary and Secondary Goods of Marriage

By: Clara

Clara — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:31:00 +0000

As I think I mentioned when we discussed this in Catechism, this is one subject on which the 20th century has produced a lot more good literature than earlier centuries. Pope John Paul II was particularly interested in this subject. I haven’t read too much of this (the Doctor is much more up on it) but I thought I’d throw out that one phrase he uses a lot is “mutual self-giving.”

It’s a bit hard to understand what this should mean, especially since love tends to blur in one’s mind the ordinarily sharp categories of giving and receiving. But it’s worth pointing out that physical intimacy in any case tends to create a feeling of dependency, and of “giving oneself”, particularly for women. So, in the marital act, she can consent to what she will already naturally feel, and give herself in a spirit of love, trust and service. From a man’s perspective, I think the act tends to be psychologically somewhat different; he will tend to have a feeling of having triumphed, or conquered something. For him, the key might be to view himself, not as a victor with spoils to use as he will, but rather as a steward accepting an important responsibility. The act will then remind each of them that they are joined as one, and that they have each given themselves wholly to the other.

Of course, I’m not married either, so I don’t have firsthand experience to speak from, but I think this is along the lines of what John Paul II has said on this issue, and actually, it seems to me consonant with Cosmo’s thoughts on the subject.

By: Cosmo

Cosmo — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:59:00 +0000

As a married man, I would talk about the whole expereince like eating. If I am eating, if my eating is subject to my reason, and if that subjectation becomes habitual, I begin to expereince a lot of freedom in the act, and pursue and enjoy the act without much thought. However, when I start to let my eyes and my stomach make decisions, I start feeling (and becoming) unhealthy, and have to purposely struggle to get back on track…
Only slightly related, the issue of willling the same end, but being justified or condemned by different means, seems very analogous to the euthanasia issue. There, the difference between killing and “letting die” seems important and obvious. I wonder why the distinction it is not intuitively so with artificial or natural contraception?

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:25:00 +0000

Interesting, a former professor of mine from Valparaiso, Gilbert Meilaender had this to say about Humanae Vitae (from the link Tobias gave):

“As theologians representing the Lutheran and Anglican churches who seek a common mind with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we think it most appropriate for us to direct our attention to the first of the questions posed for this symposium: ‘Do you judge the argument of Humanae Vitae with respect to artificial means of contraception convincing?’ Our answer in brief is no … Though the first three chapters of Genesis are generally cited as loci classici for beginning a discussion of marriage and sex, they are not discussed in Humanae Vitae. Had more adequate reference been made to Holy Scripture, it might indeed have proved to be the case that ‘a teaching rooted in natural law’ would have been ‘illuminated and made richer by divine revelation.”

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 09:03:00 +0000

“I’m not married, so I guess I can’t really say, but wouldn’t most couples think to have sex, on a particular occasion, because of something other than “expressing and consolidating their union”?”

Maybe choice of wording makes a difference here. If we rephrase “think to have sex” as “think to make love,” then perhaps we (celibate bachelors) might better understand how Pope Paul’s Vaticanese “expressing and consolidating their union” might reflect conjugal reality. I mean, the choice of wording influences one’s view of the hypothetical scenario; “having sex” refers to a neutral process, “making love” is not. Hope that isn’t too R-rated for the blog.

By: Tobias Petrus

Tobias Petrus — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 08:55:00 +0000

For one traditional Catholic’s interpretations of Humanae Vitae, please see the following link: http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/galvin.asp

By: Iosephus

Iosephus — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:36:00 +0000

This is one question, I think, which it would be nice to sort out: Paul VI explains that even when the marriage act can be foreseen to be infecund, as perhaps, in the case of those who are older or incapacitated somehow, it is still licit since it remains ordained towards expressing the consolidating the union.

Now Blessed Innocent XI condemns the proposition: “The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all fault and venial defect.”

I’m not married, so I guess I can’t really say, but wouldn’t most couples think to have sex, on a particular occasion, because of something other than “expressing and consolidating their union”?

So many tricky issues of conscience in this area, some of which we discussed at another time in light of some things which St. Thomas says in the Summa. How does one examine one’s conscience about whether one had sex too lustily with one’s wife? But Thomas leaves no doubt that this is an issue to consider.

By: Cosmo

Cosmo — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:57:00 +0000

16. …If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.[20]
The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.
21. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery. To dominate instinct by means of one’s reason and free will undoubtedly requires ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence. Yet this discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence, husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility. By its means, parents acquire the capacity of having a deeper and more efficacious influence in the education of their offspring; little children and youths grow up with a just appraisal of human values, and in the serene and harmonious development of their spiritual and sensitive faculties.

By: Cosmo

Cosmo — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 06:56:00 +0000

These quotes from Humanae Vitae seem relavent to the discussion…

11. These acts, by which husband and wife are united in chaste intimacy, and by means of which human life is transmitted, are, as the Council recalled, “noble and worthy,”[11] and they do not cease to be lawful if, for causes independent of the will of husband and wife, they are foreseen to be infecund, since they always remain ordained towards expressing and consolidating their union. In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life.[12]

12. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. 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. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.