The Ends of Marriage

[Kephapaulos]

Geremia,

I remember a few years ago, you pointed out a past pre-Vatican II text that expressed the development of understanding and logical conclusion of why procreation is the primary end of marriage and the union of the spouses the secondary end. Do you recall that text?

What other sources could be read on the subject before the Council that are explicit on the matter? I was reading Prümmer, and he seems to only list offspring first but does not explicitly say that procreation is the primary end of marriage, unless I am missing it?

[Geremia]

I remember a few years ago, you pointed out a past pre-Vatican II text that expressed the development of understanding and logical conclusion of why procreation is the primary end of marriage and the union of the spouses the secondary end. Do you recall that text?

Perhaps you're referring to the last two quotes here, from Pius XI's Casti Connubii and St. Thomas, respectively.
Or perhaps the Holy Office's April 1, 1944, decree, Denzinger 2295:

The Purposes of Matrimony *

[Decree of the Holy Office, April 1, 1944]

2295 Certain publications concerning the purposes (fines, ends) of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

 In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one's own person; and many other such things.

 In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

 This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them "Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

I was reading Prümmer, and he seems to only list offspring first but does not explicitly say that procreation is the primary end of marriage, unless I am missing it?

Prümmer, O.P., is very clear (vol. 3 §686, PDF p. 1599):

1. Bonum prolis est proximus finis matrimonii; unde matrimonium est ab initio nullum, si a contrahentibus excluditur ius ad generationem prolis, vel etiam si copula carnalis exercetur quidem, sed cum explicita stipulatione, ut generatio prolis vitetur.

1. The good of offspring is the proximate end of marriage; wherefore matrimony is null from the start, if those contracting [it] exclude the right to generation of offspring, or if carnal copulation is indeed practiced, but with an explicit stipulation that the generation of offspring be avoided.

Though he says "proximus finis" instead of "primary end" as in the Holy Office's decree.

[Kephapaulos]

Prümmer, O.P., is very clear (vol. 3 §686, PDF p. 1599):

1. Bonum prolis est proximus finis matrimonii; unde matrimonium est ab initio nullum, si a contrahentibus excluditur ius ad generationem prolis, vel etiam si copula carnalis exercetur quidem, sed cum explicita stipulatione, ut generatio prolis vitetur.

1. The good of offspring is the proximate end of marriage; wherefore matrimony is null from the start, if those contracting [it] exclude the right to generation of offspring, or if carnal copulation is indeed practiced, but with an explicit stipulation that the generation of offspring be avoided.

Though he says "proximus finis" instead of "primary end" as in the Holy Office's decree.

Gratias tibi ago, Jeremias! I failed to read or forgot that I read that part of Prümmer. Would that mean that possibly a majority of marriages today are invalid if the rights to have children were not exchanged it would seem? I remember Fr. Stephen de Lallo mentioning that some marriages, perhaps alluding to those of celebrities, are not valid due to this reason. Would that most married couples today contracept suggest that there could be invalidity if there was a defect in the giving of the rights to have children on the part of one or both of the parties?

A priest friend of mine also told me in the past about many who have gotten married, in light of what Pope Francis said in Amoris laetitia, have or had the mentality of an immature child or something to that effect when they conferred vows at their wedding, but I do not think that is in the list of impediments to the validity of a marriage if the person is obviously an adult who has the use of the reason. How can it truly proven that there was an immaturity that would have thwarted the will in such a case? Or that such a level of immaturity really existed?

Simply would it not be that a good fast rule for most cases is if it was not a "shotgun wedding," then it's valid?

[Geremia]

possibly a majority of marriages today are invalid if the rights to have children were not exchanged it would seem?

1917 Canon 1081:

§ 2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts perpetual and exclusive rights to the body, for those actions that are of themselves suitable for the generation of children.

Those rights don't have to be exercised (thus virginal marriages or unconsummated ones are valid), but positively excluding the aforementioned rights (e.g., by promising to always contracept) would not be a marriage.