Theological Studies by George L. Robinson (pp. 197, $1.75); The Christ vf Frank G. Beardsley (pp. 336, $1,50). Augsburg Publishing House: A Study of the Passion of Christ, Columbia University Press: The Lambeth Conferences·. The Pan-Anglican Organization, by William Redmond Curtis tpp W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Systematic Theology tion), by Louis Berkhof (pp. 759, $7.50); The Mystery am Israel, by Max I. Reich (pp. 110, $1.00). Harper and Brothers: The Christian Faith, by Nels F. Ferré (p $2.00); Documents of the Primitive Church, by Charles ( (pp. xviii -j- 309, $3.50) ; Introduction to the Old Testamei Henry Pfeiffer (pp. xûi - 917. $4.00 i. imprimerie Catholique. Beyrouth: ln:tiai;on an·. S;<: bert Valensin, S.J. < pp. xii — 677); Am So;.'iy· de .’»· '· " .···’ Grande Retraite. Tome I: Premiere Semaine ipn. ■♦ *,·. i>r Semaine (pp. 554) ; Tome III: Troisième Semone · ρρ. . > Quatrième Semaine (PP· 524). The Macmillan Co.: Medieval Humanism, by Gerald G. Wa' l· 4-10 5, $ 1.00) ; The Catholic Revival in England, by John J C vid — >02, $1.00) ; The Meaning of Revelation, by H. Eic (pp. x — 196, $2.00). National Conference of Christians and Jc···'·: R ligi' ’< e:^ ''e ( An Introduction t.s the Social Tcicrung * : 1 d? J Protestantism. edited es Bcn'-’n Y. 1 .mJ ■· pr j4 ’ 0 Princeton Unistrsiry Pr·.·- Tie '>■ ■>·.< . L '> i' " '■ transi iced ss:th in mcroduction H- V- . ; < ' " -■ ’ lear a··: I Tremoitug, b '·. Ai:rkeq.;.i:· : (■'p 'x.s 2s)’· tion, by S. Kierkeg-ia:d ·alii - 21'·?. 52 Reveal and Hitchcock: .'be Di ■ ·.·> r ; ‘.t'. i/--; Ία' ~ xi -f- 322. $3.1 (,·' . BI ■ H. Sadlier, Inc.. ,5 · ■■>? ’ ;iar’·· r- ·'.· . ’ ■ ■ '........... ■ Charles Sc.-.bncr'·. *κ;γ>·. T·.' terpre-“a:.on. Vc L_—e I· 5;.·-.; 30s, s2 ’S ■_ Sj... ■■ u’r pr $ i uns . Shwd se J «-a:,!· Tie Sei en Gt: is of the Hor Ghost, b' Bernai ix 4- 134. $:.Γί). Willett. Clunk x.-.l ■; ■ ·.■ i ·.Wdrer s >.- K:.-k ■ ■I Yale Um » ■+■ 2i8, S2.75). ,-p. s =. - If·' 51 ; ) We Keep the faith? br James Biss — •-c/j'tl· il’ * NVi-FR : " Ό .'·ί2 Theological Studies ■ '.lA-t-ny '.i^cu \ B.v.,-, H.· ’ ■ .·: t -r "«< Paint Tho mas J. Me Viapi·',, * 1' : “ ■ ’· e.'-v - 'f Xc.i-C.-T Ί c V.ur-ucs i . Dox'r< ’ ·.< { *.■ - 1 tn.rvr μ L Ά Si. .V’ v ' ; ; ■"m-C’* _·ι«η of Te Syr.-jp’ic Healing ' r ; ί. '·ΐ.-<3· ή - ·■. S C 'J ' Uah. h' i· a‘ justice .;u ruc / ι··<. kA.-’l '-’oL-iR ' ,e £ at' of the Irr -iortal * ' ■’* T Bxh e .eived -Ό- di. George C. Ring, S.J. 201 Σ i ’2 •C. , ■ .up- ..I >ι· he auspices? This. r. *·' ■ *'■ ■‘■■'· ‘·ί·ς· ■·■■■' would be m accordance ~ ’ ••cc.-nr . .J..: :i- ;iy [·. [Vll \fî{i WI7’r . W Jf . that Catholic? ».i.n;.d i-.r ·./. ■ disc- ss ·>γ... fut navi, them .-pen to non-Cat;:. ! .·$■ C Cardinal P.itolh, Scptu.mixr JΛ, 190C. T» the ec-.nt Cat lohcs advance ·ιι rhe frequency and thurnag·' \->s w.' ,di ’hey moot these matters among themvhc·. » * i ’.’.petence and durance in discussing them w»i pe ••r >tKr béliers. iftcr all r.it'M. considerations, the plain fact remains tr.erc >.ar be no adequate defense of vur civileition an s nr.··· an .nctuiy ns witr.nut a much greater 's an:’, than .A-t> r,i.v that this unity carrot r- ' •v.tp.>uc a lone and careful and co-opcritvx prob 'C p'mcipie·. ecr.ical and religious—’Unco v.e ί< · ra-hi< ·--. ;n Common wuii tho'C not rf our fa ’ .rne·tigatinn nectxirih encaih a rbk or rri'tiice.'-r Catholics What ii the path w:t of tbas ctx-mni ■ all factors into account? Dt.es not the s:>;u:: i· rcligio-sodal concept of end and politica· s^ He seems to me. is a matter our moral theologian' ::i..j 'Veil F,r Λ ■■;.·'£.—In the December issue Father Γ. Lincoln Bouscarer. S’.J. will write on tbe canonical aspects of the problem of co-operation, from an Historic i! >tandrûint. Correspondu nee on the 'ubiec: will te -λde.med. u. ·!χ Γ-·' i:-;hed if suitable. .- -.3 ■ MARRIAGE: ITS MEANING AND PURPOSES JOHN C. FORD, S..J. R Introduction URING the last few years Catholic theologians have de­ voted a considerable amount of attention to the doctrine ■ ' ίΐ. ·’·ΐΐι mj-uGge. Bxik' and articles have appeared in ..Crerr.s a tenJvncv to reconsider various phases of :gard to the relative impor­ te ndency has been to ■.-ιχπί ·■£ coniugal love, a e ·. nc.Geetcd or at least f marriage commonly J the true Catholic J, nif.r·Tile} > ; I T !;« emphasis were ■ mc.eaf.y r:c ;xc’. c’.'lcJ the primary icea on the personal elecommunity of life- In d.ry that procreation is rhe in winch St. Ii‘s ir.'.de it i D e- ·’ .... :·<-..· :;î.ïJ_- the cr<.jt<·· 1:’.·’ ■ ' .•nr·. ’ . -_'Λί , / j-j. T.ri· Docto; ·■■.” Ut,invr. Tjo/.cjii. ot the University of Breslau ·. V't. ,11 1 TV(f. c ■ 0f I r ■'· 5; I ■ ■■■·-■ --.i ■■■. < \· -ar. 1·'. lMt', had i’$ -V».,-. , <··■>« - '· » -u ■·-■-- -i.ter- u.·. • - b.erjch edition in ~ - L* .K, 2 ? ■*'. *7 and has appeared m English .n ' * · fir · ·· '· f' ’ * * ■ 334 Theological Studies The importance of this book is vouched for by the ass of comment it has evoked. It is the work of a scb.hr " requires, but repays, careful study. Its subject matter i such importance and its viewpoint so provocative tirât : mind it will not be time wasted to deal at some ier.r.: 5 The present paper will be divided into three parrs 7 -part will give a brief summary of that part of Dr. Dam » · in which he gives a "systematic exposition’’ of tiu m·.··.· marriage and its relation to the ends of marriage. TVmany other things in Dr. Dorns' work besides this ct.-r: but I am interested only in the theory of marriage ■.■■■■ ·· and so will restrict myself to that subject. In the sec . I shall attempt a "systematic exposition” of my o’ " gard to marriage and its ends: and I am going to c: * traditional” theory of the ends of marriage because i that for the most part it will be found to represent f ; : common teaching of Catholic thenu-.çy during toe .··’ centuries. From the placing of these two expt'· ’æ’’s side, the reader will be able perhaps co draw ins o'^-n - '■ ÜU, CXXXÎV -. 1938), ii «.·, review of Vo *» Sinn a«J Zi 4 ’ ' J? * T ror :f. Er.ch Pr.- ■>■>.·;, S.J., "Pi,cholog« oJer Th«>î<‘8« dec “ ■ (1917), 233 if. t. Ο.Γ.. "-ens et fin du n’.arüs®· 1 ,e“ . .. erieijje," He· :e Té.-iû/e, XLIV (1938), 7-7 ff ; "The Imerpreurw· «· - . Ac: and r w Theolog* yf Marnage. Apr pas of Recznt 36,‘ ::-î ' *’w. me n velle «’•‘-■bèse H dr :nne ** du ( 1 ? 3; ■, 2Λ ff A. M. '1' mariage état de uh iiard L’ai”?ur ■: l'enfant k*-es fins de manage—le ’ ser. * ibid., ** ff. F I_At» "La vie commune dans ’’ mariage» XXVIIÏ (19? 6-7), i.-' ff.; "T * . ..-mr .;ic de· rt-Âf, XXIX <1. ?’-»). 2V U. î 5- r.eïe:: ' i?u S/βΛβ X1H 3je ff M-7 ûei livre récent/' Rnw LXVIT 'N daprès S. Th-.'-.a',·’ Xr;w XLV r-cr.{;.i: nr : *c--î j ■·- d _ ’-î-î-..·. ' , ‘Kecenc T’ oL,;.· *' ■ \ \· -·_Μ R.· , j·, Ji fr . <-r· ; iMXnnatr Seozimr, 19-H). K- f Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 335 ..· tons as to what criticism I think should be made of Dr. Dorns’ · wc-rj . But in order to indicate more directly the points of and disagreement between the two theories, I shall z- ci a third part, which will be a criticism of certain points of ·’·/ theory in the light of the traditional theory. I. Dr. Doms’ Theory ôr. Doms distinguishes between the meaning (Sw»m> sens) of ■'· ■< in-i it. purpose or end , a.ivi in <’·* r^-.- .irtr purposes tor wtucn the tuing mas ihd.i.- Ec.eei.t tell· u? that Dr. Doms docs not underthe nwa-.m-c of marriage exactly what we would -i by it> es,v;-ce. It seems to me. however, mat it is Ae the ’-.mernal constitution” or "essence” that he ■’ H’htr> ■ . eeks to deline what he calls the meaning ·’ ‘ ' ,: • -. j •: r··» » 1,e ■- M; Dr. D< rv that marriage riikewise the ;· ; -1' -’· n'··.· mmg, or inherent value, which’s present ”· "· - '< •.ί.γγ'αο -λ l’.Nn marri age is natural’v ”M... >·! .·■ £_ ÎLS- ru—oc■ nraercation. mutual help- md th·: i,lnt-'ur ;encc need not be brought into the pic. J” tf’ *■ ” wh, it the primary meaning at marriage ’h. 't . f in itieif i -eaiity of profound ’ >- 1 .met'1 in..' .1st’ wh en i' π-'t itse’f” · Π, . '■ ;■ ·· ■ PN inmc '.· -X·; rKr.n m nor toe mutua, ’π: irt|,e ■■ Tr.e'-e irt hot:’.’Omerhin^ .?ser and a'c·>v. . Ir, ’ · or marriage (and of cne .narriace act ·. .·■ -, r ' ' r ’■ m.-..’n; '.c? I* if the ’hw-'-in-oneshio” . ■■'Ù./D > ' .■:■·£ ’ Zub;vr. ;':<■·/ *, ’ ·■ .r " ’Tiea-'ng >■ -’ot, a« some hive b-.; -'ed. love: "h. . '■ r -■' ! - - R h. 'f of two persons who make t I > ·,,π>ι '■!>'■ > ,n ! .m -cth ■,'-Ι.τι hr J4 I l I ■ ' I ■· S> ■ · : -· ’ I }■ c f wna > ’ ·-■ st .tory · ■-s -er- --/r 7»· 'is’wd .·· c’ ®ed Λΐ» *ί flTiri. _ -'3t> î’iii ·.·» ogk al M'.wagi-: 1rs Mfamm. αχώ Vurposls Studjes out on. per oil, a co...n.u ii.j Gt île etncracir. ■ t··· ·' ' l. L-e·.’:... :’r->»r the sr.rntuai sphere. through tbit ot f · and into ihc bodily. , .. (p. k·/.. \iar.-uge,-Cv-ts·:-^ ; .v. -λι-ί,.Η· hip ·.< the 'p.,u,· < ' -.?·. -ri.u-j·. s,. ■ '·' ■■ h cj’eL·· at. J., cut it ' : n-t ρζ-rft-cte.i 0 · ‘'realized *r v summated’’ anti: the trarriage act takes place. Or. i3.no tf. the marrage act as the specific <<'.7’i· <£· ■;·■,·. r. t 1 1 " In this aci the partner' really Iv.'or-c ‘’re. ana ; a and actual f r ·.' e ' c- their ruir. ;ί γτ·μ·’· -nes: p > munit; ni life. 'XTiat. then, .·» the inherent meaning or va:ut o‘ the n ‘“ " act? It is th’s con-.ramati-n or r^ahz'.t Ο” <·ΐ t··’ J- ” 1 Its prim.-ry mear.in r :·. t.:e maxirc r ■"■-?.r.. partner·;’ citvn.i'n ’ f~. .1.- : :t i > th ·. -T.^a'r-g ·. ' FΛ the further ;>rcn: it:· n »vhkii t.'.e aet natural.; h· *' ‘‘ creation. Dr. Dorns also refen to this inherent mean· ’{· act as pr·. xi-nre objc. i'v. pu-mi .·. J c··-. e the r.n-··.·er ·. ■ t-. ;-r<.ere”:· π a:. ! ”· :'· ice. j ■·!.·. .r-u. 1 · -rob ci.B dn.:v -K th-.· s”O ·- ' b'' the fact tna·. «.ach n-e ι· .mmcüiarJy tot-lly t’!·· * ’ . ?he a< ?ns wcuiidns of the other. . . . Aucordir t1'. exercise of ®««Bk the li--inc of tw---;n-o -d$ '.i·· -''r'» · * Λίβ||β f ί|«88Β5Β>Β/ imman·;-1 τ.-'-ιη; n - ·» s - ·η< '<->■· '· ’ n·Τίκ- mt·.-n’r c : η·'·. ·γ· ■· * ■ ’. th. u: T ' . t- d.u t■ ·■ .·’· i’..-... ir .■■ c n -gr. ' ·’.—r-.K : r. -æ’l·.. "■ hcreu th. *"■■· er.-h re•-l· n.· · .·.■ .'-’-.iv.- ir.’iraa ’ (p. i’J6, )r. ’ton s ·;.ns not deny, >f courst, ’.’"at p ncreatrt f mutual help ire end-na-r·- ·>·.· * o- t . m.> τ trr’-ug.i] ict ha ■ n" ........................ >. ■ 1 -c t' r*·· urn co.lily timcn of the .w ;-’··ί-. -.'.'hip of tiie spuujc * in t>.. Γι . , .-u.i ίΐ-.κΐχ-!.- -a.· ?,’>.! .1 protounu ην..·” - r. The n tv-u-in-oiicuiip i--..-.---.aied natural!» t, tx . tc ir'u'. i ··> ■■ ...... ■- <-n ·. oer-oaa! κν-ri - ntner on * biological 'exci. T.ie per- ·. f.v the iulhimvnt ·. . tK .-.-as .vr ·>.Ά on the various p’i.v.id'. .·* the’.c being (muitia. •hu u'.:u"cU’ bi-logical end λ yr.· ’ (p. IO-»,·, sense in v.h’vh procrean-.n ss -,n - · .· j·..’-., ditkrent .- a from : d ..n-e u-· whicl: r-.ui.iai . ' - .1 tor ".f sv. ;c going to make the enneeyt -. : t’'.i : - .’ i; .king here, vc ist rec-’cm/. ti'at ’J er k q·...aetv-ahy. oi a ni-.uf’ z..· ’ ..·. ’<.·· 't ·. ton two d : ·., ■ ; ï t .ne another in a ’■ -.;··η or otfin .:. . K - o ’d i ) >i'- il phcri-ir.c.r. ·,. act iust a· ring uic purpose of nurrag ■ .τ u -.^ :l .we”. ... I 1ί· l a tr fru’t is -he p.i-Ti «.rent thing fr··" ’.· .-·■ -. ‘ ■·.·. < i -st :r.crs. ; de .· . η.. . Ί rec.-.sjry phen· -um” ' .' ·. IT). r marriage. But ■ uiough Dr. Don-’ rttocr’.i1 ..·.■ .·· .1 '.-.y th·. . r- · • der t m? • constituted ) >r : ■ · ·'.-'?·.: . -.I .-r. irctic n oi a run ir. u 1 .· 3i ■.ntii they become c re” 'p It 'i. K. ■.-’r-mars mi nettJ cfe-cn 'ti c ■nnd ■ • P« . 1 in .-'itte, an! o ' h:t fr.nr. the r.-.-n n. :.x re is no k· tgntar· κ i .’ 11; '■the u ·..· a - - s ·■ » . ■arrtni ·. r ; ■ s k * ‘4 ; it 1 ; u.-t pc-tec i r; CoH-lK1 1.: - . *· V. ΐ?8 Theological Studies as the principal and primary purpose, not the child but :t mutual f.-rmation and perfection of the partners in the natu.i: • ’nto!"ç:c.ii ■ ■■rder and above all in the supernatural order" ■p. ins,. The above summarj is too brief to do tuli justice Dr Durr.s. But in it one can find the principal points -·ί h/ ϋ.3Π The points I ’-.hail Liter single out for criticism are these· ■' that marriage has an inherent meaning which is ready from its purposes; (2) that procreation should not ce . the primary end of marriace; (3) that the EncychcL '· ■ Connubti supports these views. But before making the particular criticisms of the·.’ f I shall consider at length (in Part II) what I have chc-'-er ti . the traditional theory of marriage and its ends; for it is ofcï in the light of such a positive exposition of the rietr. marriage that these criticisms will be intelligible. II. Th;· Tram γιον \i. Thjory of the Ends o:· M\f.· I. The Essential Mania.?,' Bond.—A search tor ;l·; :r - meaning of marriage, or an attempt to define its < r.:t·. ■ content or immanent value, seems to me to be 1:1 attcr'·’ find its essence. Perhaps those who dislike rr.etaphv *ic« π "S * shy of abstractions would prefer not to d-scuss citrei-· I do not see how in a philosophical inquiry into ti? I'-'iire11 a thing the problem can be avoided. It you fit. r. ,! >c the meaning of a thing or tell somebod *· ’ wh ;t it · m '-.ri't · ness or value is, you must be-ain by defining the rime, i " means indicating what b c^ential in i*. Ot co-jr^- t". ing” of a thing mit be much more e.vre^m.v ruar’ tr-’ - but it must at leist include it. A thine may h.u-τ m ■■ ' meaning and an accidental mean.ng. whi.'h ·.- .mr-cr ? ’· saying that it can have, and undoubted.". in. perfections and accidental pert.cti-'Π'·. It may be. too, that the accidental perfec>:'.ns oi i th.igr perfections required for its hene else, may K so mimeroa * 3·Λ' Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes e’-.’r.cc c-t marriage 1 mean all those things and only ·- ι.ι..ι?. W’tnc-ut which marriage cannot exist.' One of u. getting at t.u t^entiai definition of marriage ' nu-tr i ; ewb:.-„ Make a list of ail the elements ' 1”·' mm·,nr. round in marriage, or are connected so 7' t·' .·. s· -..1 rai-e the suspicion chat they are essential ‘ : : inc:: re-t them ail co find which ones must be present orde” inat a marriage may exist, and which one' can be -'■’Censed with w-tkeu * de-.cn>y tr.e the mirnage. The fo’iowing 't or eicr.t -.hrwr. from Sccred Scripture, the ni. Gara>r. Law. and especial!? t.-om the *'.·» n-ii, be C1. rofcubk Wo-. H«r- . , . -ir. ’.'· ”> ; so important and so striking to the eye that they loom much orger in the consciousness than the essence of the thing itself. Certainly ordinary people do not think of marriage in terms ui ns essence and its accidents. Undoubtedly things that are accidental to marriage in the philosophical sense of the word ire often much more important and have much more reality iur them than the underlying thing which is found wherever marriage is found, and is absent wherever marriage is absent. That underlying thing is the essence of marriage. To indicate vhat it is by describing it or giving its notes is to give a defir.i'ion, an essential definition, of marriage. And whatever the lull meaning of marriage may be it would not be proper for a philosopher, in giving his view of its meaning, to describe its ' "idental perfections and call them simply "the meaning,'’ rvgiect.ng to tell us what is essential. ; 1 “.eccu iry fur me. therefore, to show what the essence of ·’ according to the more or less common mind of ■... trchogians and philosophers. But tint some prelimi- *1 ST» ? 339 340 ΤηΕΟΙι.Η,Η \i. SlLDH.5 1’- ? c u.:î < ..·., ,v riCii;K ω ;nc;u,jc ir-n:' ut .'. !.;i ; η , / pluming Jt ieast :J & ·; ,in · ■■■ λ - jL.. vv.;j ,utæ£ j.J£ £ ‘ït:K- ':·· ' ' ·· !)· · l>-··.’ -c n«t .iK-nr f,v.n ir. ■’ η.ι·. i·.·,.^.·..® Π ï\.tr..t·. arc onîy equiv.ùm. The c'.yerc.·; -yn-ihoLsm; :ke c-.nt k., cv.e-.-n.-J .·.·. ..t<7rG>»r«‘··. ur.ca T,’ '<■ ;.r. . i /t ,·, .Jt physical F ; s· — . ;o.- ;.r; ned, .’.·Γ ccncup sccnce: ferility. oit>7 r: - : ; C4. - : it ? , >: o ; ntutuaî jijp; ii’e in c<-mir.''n; -• •r J îv ;..3î; : >i. ■;.->;tation; marriage bond: iturriat:·.· .:ηιο·.; ::i n»-;; r;.· ’c r.’jjtiup. ; the ends: rhe properties (,;nir 3”J :n^,'5ci’-:b: ::y : :,:e .adical and pr ,..ima:e right: con.ugal k h one v.e:··.· i<< g throug.'. t:® iist excluding one by ne t·** tents without ume.; marriage ea;·1 >cill uxist. otic · rf;'e ir.aky ac a ρο· 't ’..hc.-·.ra.irriaa-e the th ree «’»·»■ .narzaags.. 1 ·;, e r/ier here. It is enough tor the pre-.cne t .· sa}- thtt the ntarri-a^c bone *, with its ends an^ properties, is rite oence of marnai-.’. But this point ner® furti’.r.- e.xp!anar>un, a id what toliows is meant co explain iUJv what -t r-.e.in· to say tiitt th? marritgc bond with its ends and ■- rotie-· ;s the essence of marriage, and to show incioenta'. •’.iiat tais statemen·, refiect,·, f<;r the most part, common •ogicai teaching. In the nrst pia^e, v. ith reAard to the marriage 9O ’.d ; ye nave practical unanimity'· among the th- \ >g'ar· O" following propositions or their equivalents. They s.:y. nr·-·, t* ’ the essence of marnaee is the bond ( ; ‘ -c nc '■ ·f iC • ne essence or marriage is the ma.r: tie union 'J‘ '7i' thirdly, that the essence of ’narriagv is r.-.irriacc . fi’ <■ .■’i corpus) ; ant{ fourthly, thaï the ."’nee of rtirr =g< ·> < il:-. Yu;·.! ■ ·.: Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 341 irimige relation. Not that ail the authors here cited say :xpht!t'y that the essence of marriage is all four of these things. i:;t these four points, if explained as I am about to explain then, can be said to be at least implicit in the teaching of all .'item. In other words I think my explanation reflects subtiauilly the teaching of these theologians.4 Tnese four points all amount to the same thing; they are dif•”V . v.c of Speaking about the same reakty. Tne four -t. ·■. i ther words, coir.c’de. Payen sums up the common ' *· ’π; w'en he gives this fourfold definition of marriage: "It '1! tKe exclusive and perpetual i.uzuu for the procreation of -tildien; < 2t the matrimonial bond: 13 ’■ the exclusive and 542 ÎHEOLOGICAL SïL'DlES perpetual right, considered radically, to conjugal acts; jputual and real relation.”5 And he adds: "Rightly jJ. that is, taken for the essence of marriage in hcL; .■ . four definitions come to the same thing." It is readily understood that the ideas “marriage bond "marriage union” coincide. Likewise the ideas "rm bond” and “marriage right” coincide: fur the pcrr.-.i-j principle which is the forma! clement or bond ·>* .< r. society com/sis in the rights and duties of the rr.cr Bonaventure says: “Illa autem conjunctio quie rs.ncst ' Cli;-/unccmn er o>t matrimonium essentialiter non est a& jniirtorum vel approximat io corporum sed quoddam vises quod non perimitur sive corpore sive affects jj-entur· ’ 1 his obligatory bond is the jus in corpus wfud zi-thors identity with the bond and with the union.’ And though we speak of jus hi corpus in die singular, it man worthwhile noting that the marriage bond or union co® of 3 SroliP or* rights and corresponding obligations. ΊΠώ’’ appear from what fellows. pinali}' the ideas “marnage right” and "marriage rent® /•oincide. It is not immediately evident m whit sense 03 * i,c tree! hence some further elucidation is nec-.’ssa:·,'. The familiar definition cf a right, found mo't :reqiH': ; philosophy manuals describes it as at ::v;olaKc d ' c-r moral potency of doing somethin c. cl.f.~':iî mt· ! messing somethin g. ïr i« r.-ue that a risiit s ? snrtc * f icul-y «md perhaps that detîniûun ts useful CHeugi. ve S° hacx to ths ch^'c authors who have written v.‘; -J and justice, especiaih.' DeLueo. we will fold that ~; . rhe concept of 3 right as a reiations/jip rather mac It seems to me, therefore, that the foHowinc Jeiju-tf- -■ ■ P'·. T. Γ'· ,’.;ί;.;α·«ΛβΙ (Zi-Ks-^’et, I^î-· <· =- ~'·· j.· is-.-ici K:«thc, Lkü Cs Dr Jailiii * ef Ja~t flag·:·“' 'J " ■/ Vir^hui Ksrriagf .VpiKi- rt'-rr.;”' : : ··.............. ..... .. ; .. I Marriage: Its Meaning i ;..,v ■y .. <: and Purposes 343 i nçh: (or rather, since a right is as indefinable as the notions ··»;>;# .mJ ibine, the following analytical explanation) represents . meaning of the authors, and corresponds with the ucommon sense: "A right is a moral relation of prefer«,γ by which a person prevails exclusively over a thing which .· »»: >:nitely destined to his good or utility.” Hi return to the ideas "moral” and "relation” shortly. In i ie, as the conclusion and raison d’etre of this analysis ; :. e action of a right, it should be noted that the ideas ■· ’. 't” and "marriage relation” do coincide. A;: ’e.vn ·. > .ee how they can coincide, and why theologian- have ■ ‘ · 1*3 -.‘ice of marriage both a right and a relation, once e shown that a right fun.hmentally is a relation. And ; .! ! . e · T.-m-iis of the four ideas—marriage union, ■ ha:, marriage right, and marriage relation—which ■ ' ’ ·' » .’nturies have been asserted to be the essence of mar1 i.l henceforth we can speak of the marriage bond as • < e of marriage realizing that it is a bond com;'ting of and dunes, and that it is this group of rights and - ' > i : i constitutes the relationship of man and wife, ■ ■ 1 '' ‘ iiiutes marriage itself. This is the bond which is -1 ~t > existence by the exchange of consent. This is • H - ■ uch is therefore called matrimonium in facto esse 1: ' >gians and canonists in contradistinction to matri' ‘ ' ·: ieri, or the exchange of consent (the celebration of ’ ’ : · And, of course, it is in the essence of marriagv n? ’■ Γ .'it State of marriage, that we are principally ir.t;r- 1 ’· rtted some pages back that in philosophizing about ··-«·» is necessary to keep in mind that marriage is an ; ■ moral order, not of the physical order. And now ,,f *’ v the marriage relation which is the essence of mar3 .->ral relation (because the essential marriage right rf'’aî relation). What does it mean to say that something ■' ° moral order of being and not in the physical? 3 44 ΓHEOLOCJCAL STUDIES u άίη to me that tho ο a part of ontologv wh.;' sufficiently cultivated. The phrases in ordine physic-:·, ■.■■■ » metazh'.sico, in ordine entium rationis, are explained d^roi iy em-uch, but the order of beings referred to as t’.ties. or intentional entities, or moral entities, doe * a·” ;;· much attention. Those authors who hold the op>.nu?n causality of the sacraments is in the intentional order et?: the nature of the intentional order of being when dealing? that question. Lercher, for instance, says: E·- e inter, tiu-.a’. cicitu;· -Hud cui convenit esse, ç.itenus oittE» τ;η:· ί-ο,τ.ηι·-.un mentis, i.t., vel ï.-uelk-ctionern. vel ·, iii-'tionem »rf Φ3 ^_rn.;t.e .?r.i!n.-t:on-.m inU-ilecrus practici. It.i ratii :·..' obi.;t express.’.e. rari.,nes roti prout in cas tendit vol entai.· . c ‘liga: * ju.’is..tict:une··. titu'i. JrqnitJtet. deputations ad certi m..··-:··- et il’· *>-■ ;u.ie ordinantur al· intei.ei.cu practice absque u'la .nu: it.-re f i’ ,c> ' ..'.us nt ·:\1.::.ιηο. sunt entia liitent'onaria p..:"-n> a.'if. intenrionalcir.. "I.nta intention ilia qua. fiunt pe- intellectum practivum u'ir-'É saepe entia >norjlia (juridic..) vocantur. Ens morale n<»’. .Sv.iit ■' ens reale, sed contra ens naturae vel ph.sicu>'.t. ; nt:i m'"-· 1 >’ rebus per vtns et realc. or.n.r’ones :“:el ,·. rus rrac.ic· _’a;i· habent in vira l· in'·h:j: .decent 'une e.T.a -■....! m.-da .-'.ai·. ■ ■■ ab entibu, rari-...τ .-.r..-t·.· dicris. j-jl·..·:: es>·.intellect-.: sPeca;its·.»>. ’ W ntn we say, therefore, that the essential marriage w·’ · thing that constitutes the essence of marriage, is a :’e V moraj order, the word i< rot :! r.ithom d’ !- ·· . ’h^'·-' τ' - .«·■■.- " ■·■■ Sfc-r.-·■ .· ;f S λ, .. I-;■-^Juo.. I«S6, diip. sect. 1. x • -·· r IX’ T,&r -.-‘tru, » (·■> *. ..... .. ï( > '■ Venel.s. et )«rr........................................ Ijf_ Vs-ritt.· .·<,■■,. <> · ■ a',· ■■■j x. ■ ■ ? t,- ΓΛ . ; \ . .M.; Marius de MsiJub, * Of· » ·'» ’” ' ’·*$ΜΠ . \ Λ 1. ‘ ' '■ * ·:ίη. 2, iib. ?. .. - . .- 5; l««m . ...... ·■ ' ' Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 345 * 3 r* such being, our common sense tells us that there are such dungs as jurisdiction, contracts, etc.; that they really exist as i,r.tilogical entities, and that they are neither physical beings -!cr metaphysical beings (in the sense of speculative entia raThe reality we call marriage exists, therefore, in this moral order of being. Later on 1 shall answer the question whether this moral bond, tv.sting in the juridical order, which is an essential thing in carriage, has an inherent value or meaning independently of sts ends. The answer will be in the negative. And to prepare tne way for that answer we must now consider what the reutinnship is that this essential bond has to the essential ends of marriage. T The Essential Ends of Marriage.—The traditional the■?fogy of the Church names the three ends of marriage as pro ■·■’. ; met. l urtherrr. .’-re, what is meant by procreation as • of rriage i< perfectly clear: it means the normal u'-e " .c ..i.t with retirant conception and birth of a cnild. h is not quite so clear what is meant by education of ortspring mû! e-’d ·>: marriage. It is difficult to indicate just *■ i: wno-. ni >r kind >f cart i\.>r tiie cmld is efecnt-al to t e nnce-· of ;d -.cation cmsidered a- .in end >»f B-t ■ ■ immediately pervnetrt to the prient ’.ga- >" 1 '.-J n · ■-■>re about it here. iLi-tewis. ■■■ ■ j it L, '-.cup:>v%.n-<. L-.c been vs end , or -, ie -en-.d;· __ , ■ ·« *ri-· ■■ c * - mt tnat, -'-rp4'.. of riaruags s n^e .i die st a.i. ■ r ni-.art . ■ C ,1Π·« ;:t extm^ ..tshinu -,· η5Πΐ: *· -.«xua ■ vn.ig -■ r ___ ... -*·■ . ii-? *·τ'·Λ 4 λ ··»' r. s· »· * i ■ Theological Studies 346 desire. But it means, first, that marriage is calculated i legitimate scope to sexual desire; secondly, that inasmuc imposes the obligation of marital chastity it acts as a res ing influence on the partners in their dealings with one an and forbids all indulgence outside marriage; thirdly, that directly forestalls inordination through die grace of ύχ ' ment; fourthly, that it ennobles the sexual act in the min the partners, because in it they make real for themsehe central fact of marriage, namely, that they belong to another, that they have made a self-sacrificing sumende their persons to one another, that they have given up to a 1 extent their individual lives in the interest of that ccm:n?" which is marriage. As the ritual admonition >.:ys.· "Ar« :‘ begin your married life by the voluntary and tomr-iL’ J render of your individual lives in the interest at rhat ·■-, and wider h.fc which you are to have in common. Henceto you will belong entirely to each other; you will be one in ■ ■ I parenth^ p‘irznec5^ 3 nd this is true whether fherir.t:' ΟΓ DOt· and » -·ν« the . " "θ'' The «"“* · -o-upiK·^. tM. - - ■ ■ ■ ·· «■niugal fiddit ’ .T Ay-mVh. -Y “ ’«"·' » * of de unity of °‘ "" ' ' ' Mp'"«pii "nri tO * * » “<< <>i 5!aE!·' spouses that y ^-partnership which gives u'fr ~>«mic c„XiT'· ί ™ 1’ Psychological, sexual, aade * * another. tne^p fields. meant that m ‘ ■ ■■■ H " Cut t Only ciie °PP««e sexes can compknient one another in SaV £ 3t mutual help is an end of βΐ’·· *^ as an institution^ is aimed at ®te ■reci^nai Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes ■ ε ". ;· -■ ■' 347 'ife-complecion of the sexes. Hence it includes the ideas of cohabitation, life in common, conjugal society, and conjugal svi. I believe that mutual help as an end of marriage can be Otte- ' ixplained in such wise that it turns out to be *, ery much like iMlg that cwo-in-oneship which Dr. Doms calh the meaning of Mil marriage. di ■ . \'ow, although all these ideas are included un Ju thv teini 5& mutual help, it does not follow that all of them are v"er.ti.il to H· ■t considered as an end of marriage. We saw just nov. that it difficult to indicate the essential content of ‘'education" as an end of marriage. The same difficulty occurs :n trying to define & Miat ή essential in mutual help. I have nut seen the attempt βΛΙΙ nude elsewhere, and will be satisfied mcteij by s.v. .ng that it Mill something much more than the mere sex-reiatio.’ m marriage, l||! ind that I am inclined to extend rather than to rv-tr ct c.u.· rtr ■ concept. In other words, I am inclined tu believe U'.at mutua· an ec-ertial end of marriage includes a larce arm c,nr.' ■·,<. ’ aricty of the coniugal acts that go to mak^ up the ■_·:--T.:p .-r community of lift of the -spouses. Vi:.-. ugard to these three end- of marr.ane—and ill x. atn.ό· «eerr « be agreed in enumeratinc t ’e-e three—tî'.crj aft :· ι r portant points to be noted. > ·,·. they a-c not three entirely distinct ends, aitb.u-· v--· j'e^ts h r *' stance, t-’s sane acts wii-ci'. i'rir.g aeeu; t;-< r" cr. u - ·' *rvi: !: ·η tue remedy of concupiscence. V t a .e--< ' i'· 't..-.: ··■' ■ -ri.ti.pj help is the fact that by it the partner · form i:> iJicj.it·. pr .:c:p v for tHc educati--n <’f the children Ucd r’i'· send them. Th-.- a.:? wn:c·’ :'■.·-- -ducr.:c rct i ar-. ■ ■■ -! vunul help. The sexual act. me' ■■ .’’t ’ r-'tKirtners are obliged to pertorm it. s -J’’ J~· ■· ·. - i- wih as a pr icreative act. And in ci > * Aher' 11-r. ,r . i r piiuk-de there is only a limited sense ·η *Ί· ll· 348 Tiil.OLOGK.Al. SlLDIES it can be called procreative—it is principally an act of mut» help. It is a mistake, therefore, to take the division into th® purposes too literally. The institution of marriage is ai.—-.j .. all these ends together, and they are inextricably intertwined with one another. Secondly, though marriage aims at all these ends, the actui realization of none of them is essential to any given marruoThis is obvious upon a moment's reflection. A marriage wi,.;· produces no children is still a marriage. A marriage which a never sexually consummated is a real marriage. A msrrùpH' which lust is not remedied, but reigns, is still a marniç.-. f a marriage in which there is no mutual help, no life :r. . hatred instead of love, and complete separation, both brail- aispiritually, remains a true marriage in the '.erne that the eaeit-’ of marriage is still there; that i.,. the partner-· are still fin. · and in virtue of the essential marriage bond they are <. i '■ > · ■ to one another. Nevertheless, though the actual attainment er rhe -ncs aï marriage is not essential to any marriage. thev-’gans do st,: generally that the three ends of marriage are Jil i neii/.jl -t ‘ I believe that it is common teaching to say that al· m. -· "! are essential to marriage, so that .A’ in the prex of things, marriage cannot exist without being rekitcC · 1 - *' three ends. The partner, may, of course, have any r.r." c ·'3 ends in view in making the contract. But marriage itsel-· Zii thing they consent tv, cannot exbt without * object 7*0 ordered to the three essentia; enus—precreati-'n and educn'-ί1·· of children, remedy for evneupisc«.r.cc. and mutuel help· Now, what can it mean to say that me actual realiza'Ό'1 the ends of marriage is ret esicntia! t·■» marriage, and ye * all three ends are alwav·. ev.e:i::.i' t.·· marriage.^Cappel·.,, D_, (Romae. I-»:;), V, ... P°n«. W. JI:, y,.·,. «i, n ,.. . r,. . ■ i · a. V4 , tiflJ or e.«c t iat il! three e·· · ire p - » rn.. w. . ·. S»-.-. . ·· '■ sr..,u .. ,. ,. - ✓ w »1’ * ?·$& . -■· ? fut Afc-A ,.r · * *»· ««η ihiW '' Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 349 we look at the institution of marriage in general it is not -i.'j ί-j ice how this is true. An end is a good to be produced. .iisthution we call marriage, according to the intent of sature and the intent of Almighty God, is aimed at producing » three ends, and does produce them in many cases. When in i particular marriage the ends fail to be realized, this is per tridens as far as the institution of marriage is concerned. But our difficulty is not solved merely by looking at the institution of marriage. If the three ends are essential to marthen no individual marriage can exist without being W uef‘°'A t0 these three ends. Otherwise it would not K i marriage; something essential to it would be lacking. In -wr sense, then, can we say that procreation is the essential end of a marriage in which the partners are physically incapable 01 producing children? In what sense is mutual help an essenena ot a marriage in which the partners are separated from Cotner completely and forever? Are these marriages, are - c .Turrjgc bonds, objectively ordered to ends both unat■ * and jV tact'j unattainable? ' àri'wer is that in such cases (and in all cases) the mar■λ’ν bind is ordered objectively to the ends of marriage simply λ'·“'Μ1ΐ , trnculum obligatorium-■- to use St. Bonaventure’s •i,i.«.uc. That is. it is a bond consisting of rights and duties. » ’iif a:;ι un' 'raltz-.d. In a marriage in which for one reason ■' -’cr ■ ■'.< oi the ends all of them) is unattainable, it X. .-viiutns true that the marriage is related to that end, inas■’*·- ■· tlx marr-age bond always consists in a right to the acts -· a.ven ,s attainable. The act may be impossible to or ■o.v.-i· -Aiv-j ‘he right to perform it—at least the radical • e. u-t· '.«•nunon doctrine that all three ends are essential ’Je-ir.y r.Q imply that the marriage bond -consists in the ** ta it f»’·- ' acts oi tHo persons, let us say, eighty years old. are vf d“-"‘i(> nature unfruitful. It would rake a miracle to make tr.i”‘v- · wise. It seems to me to be an unrealistic use of wn.:· ” tnat they are iterile only' per accidens, or that it’s fniv ■■ arcideis tn.it such acts du nut result in new lift. Henc.' « c— that in caws where cnncepr.on is impossible there -■ iced sense in winch the sexual act can be called ntvCfta’1’*·· is, however, procreative in the sense that it !« the tvpcu organs wsu-ae pnmnv biological purpose o pr.-c'..tn v >l an act which ;.n ether penon . * or >n these persons arud'.'i - ' is specffica.ly procreative. i Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 3il In other words, I am willing to admit that to call procreation ar essential end of an individual marriage which turns out to be sterile is to use the word procreation in a very broad sense, and unless one understands the special meaning it has, one would be misled. However, Canon Law intimates clearly that the acts io which the marriage bond is essentially related need only be knt apti ail generationem. And this merely means, according J to the interpretation given it by canonists and theologians alike, i tînt the sexual acts be normal ones, whether conception is physi■ : - ii. gobble or physically impossible. Hence the meaning that ' purs on procreation as an end of marriage can ■’\b-tdly be realized and satisfied in such a marriage. And, I X· r e. h is abundantly clear that for most individual marX for the institution of marriage itself. tlx rh-1 - ■' - ·’. ’ '-.stified. ·■.··: nd point that needs further ex posit.·.n i' stati ■’ the fundamental marria ge h· nd or marr i :e r g>t .· r.uhts to the acts by sC-icl· mun:.:’ help , .uti-ned. n why this point nu,h c'.pl.mar!·)- =·■ r "t ' '■·. .-.xcially canonists, v her t.'.ey ί'ι·.4 ■ f '· ; :■< essential object c: ;■>: rrirron-a! c •’,ιηι. -> ·■ -J . r attention to a right to the mr ria-c a ’ ■i f .· arse, also implies t.ie rer-eô i »r c<·' cap ..οχι1— ’ e ..v very little about a radie.’/ r-ght ’ ■ -ten < ■' 'm. u:i S -r-·? ;ven go so far as to ,.ty that nurua: bel.' i ·:’ h:s * ■ i i ·' : ‘cxua! act, so that the rig‘’t t< Ii’·- in ·- ” >w n ·· »!v.-i ·.. r.ould pertain only to the integ ’iti of m »r· ace ■ P ’ t > .r· . ·μ ice. f y ο- h · -b is tn errore·-us interpretation i f tl:■«>.<■ of marri,i_ me ir. -.--or - .f verv ?ri< m import. I 1 .iicie ■n’-t it is rhis ·■ ■ I ■ ’ < -. -pl a .is -, t ’e · ight -o the r - -iage Jcr- and ; ir.M.··: ; -·i. · - -r> c.e- i ·.; :r -.π I · : r . ' age, ;j ‘ ? ;t k jy . n : TlILOLOGICAL STUDIES 3Î2 that has led writers like Dr. Dorns to seek another syndie'j. believe with Dr. Dorns that a true interpretation ot Cri’d theology will give much more emphasis to the life-par:ne:· of the spouses, which he calls their two-in-oneship. Bu: i not believe that in order to make this emphasis it is net.'; to leave the traditional framework in which the doctr'r.e oi ends of marriage has for centuries been proposed. Elsewhere 1 have attempted to prove ar length that rii tial jus it; corpus of marriage includes the radical right i-■ acts by which mutual help as an essential end of carriage realized without, however, trying to determine with the exact extent of those acts.16 (But I believe them co -- e numerous and extensive.) I shall not repeat here that a'? mentation in full, but merely indicate the sources iron1 wh it is drawn. The principal argument is the one already indicated· mutual help is an essential end of marriage, there J® ’ the rights which constitute the marriage bond the radicl· ru to the acts by which this mutual help is realized, * it is meaningless to say that mutual help is an e 1 be nothing else but the rights and obligations of tr.e part ' * regard to the realization of those ends. This ss true «X in general. Let us sav. for instance, that tnc essential e- *1 certain contract <'· _ Λ...··-s -'“U·-· b ei one inot«‘>,1 ■ '■Ü.'U, love IF, ,. C V.-.1O e· $ · ■ (,t secondary importance m • ■■~ w.irc. .’cc’oen-·" » t η>; ιΛ< (b-Tolim. -bixil i "U i' ·.· I .- ■ ■· : £■;- ». i l III, Dr Sii>" . ·*■ n dtsbit. 12. n. 354 Theological Studies marnage con.i^ essentially in rhe right to sexual interat •md nothing use. .And yet those writers who hav: o1 empiUMZvG the /.·/ w[>u * have equivalently a>kcd pejp *-i accept such a statement. The common -cnse point, oi view could defene ur. ’ creditably by appealing to the Ritual which the Churr use m.i.-rj Ing the faithful. In the Xuptial Mass, whether «t to ti.L hpistie, the Gospel, or the nuptial prayer i after «wh \ '/sic;), we will find that the Church talks of m.irr:a;e.i· * ng to tile common concept of it.1" When, preparaton if· mg the consent, she makes the more or less ofiiciai ad”.·’ · which are contained in the various diocesan Rituals, t..t of marriage given to the bride and groom h rrinc:r<-' ■”· a life-long sharing of one another's lives, wit':' a v:c«. ’; to children. When she asks their consent, -he mere:’ oto accept one another as husband and wite. and rhe' ’··· justified in conceiving this relationship in the way proposed to them in the ceremonies and ae.ir.en.t. vA. While not making a strict argument, then, acf-ut f - < ‘ of marriage out of the popular concept ct .t. ‘■fi. * * ■’ ■ this universal persuasion about the importance of <>f mutual help ought at least to be taken ao a - a·' ’ r‘ ‘ T.s.. rf, /**"·« ytf j . . Pr. f, A>, R ·; ·· f .Col. .;a. _ ■ ■·· .. . ■ r ? / s· . ,^'Λ ■·”* -· ■ ■ ·■ ’1JC· O'»' ■· .·. c. · ■ r ■ '-9«•-tua u«-J - ,ι„. <■ ;;; ■ ! ■■ ' ·■ w- ' -I. '"S. >i t · ■: . . ■ -■) . . 7 ;r ' ■ -i Jiy ·■ .J,·'■»>'. ‘l· * , ”y tfw,r ™lv * ■· »-«■ -rj th;/ Γ.£Jken ,rnrr s>- ■■■»»■-'-·■■ - ·!■< -v :* / .», .;·? fcujf □* <1 th rout nut ’Jon. tt .‘. ’.i y"'1 ™·Α? W:.': fl·. ■ J L th=· :-~s R.cui.- ;p.e the-t asta y th- r.«. S<-- ' 3 '· ‘ * ' VJu V,;> ’ , Uf < , '... ,;îj '!' ’’ ’ ■■ ■ P»': -,r ,i-: r 5 ■ Λ=’ - j .../e . --e «.·«« .f „ljrri · ‘ Vf' . * 1 ’ ’ * ' ' «*.·-..·:·-. 5h 4. Ve sonrraccn;.' -rl>« mirrûge ύ a Λ - ■ · .;r r.rml - 1 ’ Marriage: Its Meaning rS ·' ,·. ·; its ■ ill Vi ; ■ and Purposes 3 55 itieness of this view. I think it reasonable to suppose that when da husband and wife, immediately after giving their consent, are asked to join hands and make the following promise (as the Catholic Ritual in English speaking countries generally requires?, they are assuming obligations that are just as essential ω their new state of life as the right to sexual intercourse. The wrds of the Ritual read ‘T, N.N., take thee, N.N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, 3 justified: the right which constitutes marriage is a radical ' ·"■ to the acts by which all three essential ends are realized. 5. Conjugal Love as an Essential of Marriage.—Besides the «sential bond and the essential ends in marriage there are also essential properties: unity and indissolubility. But since they ■ ■ dheuss, no further mention will be made of them. π. ά t’- Γ1· (>nv in marriage which is made T. < » I - .monists? That is the element -P λ, of the present inquiry is to i', and whether there is a true sense a, r lags. general definition: ,f f-xrShip '··>! * r>- . Wi-'.l :-V •h r .-.1 ··*- '’< In fact, in tne case of conjugal love it would be a m s:.:· condemn those natural instincts and that natural ■ sensitive order which play so important a parr -a ai: relations. The love oi man and wife, to be ci?rir.-t-’> include not only a rational and not only a sensit.se " inclination to one another.’' And so in restricting rs.' c to the rational appetite it is not meant to imp:y t u: st-* elements have no place in marriage. But these of thens· cannot be the essential thing in marriage for ratterb. « They are too fleeting and uncontrollable cf conrugil Iere ‘ f·.· ’.■..-r..’ ve.- : Hcc-rs .'?■'■ Tori: ’ « Aa.-;, Ι'Λ. «. :■ t;<: j ■ ir. jr.'. ■ L ■ ~c . »·-■·. i~-c to ap 2r. jJea.’ ir .npGstrbie ii Jtu ---- ·1Γ to * a· peopk. 357 Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes ’■ e of concupiscence.27 We say between man and wife because thus the subject of conjugal love is distinguished from other • Aes of friendship. Wh to communicate benefits to one another', tor all love is - tendency to union. Real union is the effect of love. But love ur On; it is an affective union.’ By the ,cn. .j,at onc ,cs,res to communicate a good thing to ani’■ .'.cipally to another, nor to one‘« seif—o w’s act - - · thu ■. person. This is the affective union U *" -h i -η speak ng. It means a tendency to be or.t v.id. '••V.· ; greau: or extent. Iience by the ph-rue "wish * ·- » · » .1 « , ■f 'Î .ΙΛ- Ί rf » ί. Πΰ ·· t* tc . v. It λ of t'iL· nature of love to the beloved. But it seems to me ficientiy d.iti.nguiMied fen * other ',...1,,;i,i -A de?!tc to com- gr i · .j by vtj'irg t λΓιΥ ivtKï * 'f i ver K ■ u., c-.m- B X . rP ■* . ......... - Î-: Ro-w. 1 1 Λ . Sa. «, TArc^. l->·. q I- ». » Λ ί u J K t , . · Λ#· . » t'_ ’ f ‘'4 «r· *· *®i·· f** "Arnrr os· -> 9 S’, ■’< .’t| «1. η ’.I» a}piri han.'S· r an x u r . * ·* ? a. \ · ’. j. 2 .? 2: Z9 a* i corp,, -o 2. ». ”p4. ‘ v axi y ι< vtJc ,:τ.-1ΟΓΪ4- . . . ■' - r- ■»»; 4,7 rr.cv t At ·η r*um iv. ··· ■·■ r ·η HΫ 4 «U * -uh ·^r ■ rmt .ϊίλ *·ittOciifn.OuJ ^- r·. ,* ur *. ii" 1 ·- * Ip J)S Theological SrcoiEs Im m-uike, c.-Kic a Christmas gilt which a wife raa^ ..us -1.^ .1 ης.<(Λ? .iriiy an .act of conjugal love, even if . a, xvùrd», conjugal iove must be dDt.;;; *ί>.π uu,c, lu·, v 71ut on!^ jn t],e persons loving anc i·. >■;■ "is"' l\> t.jv Tr.d or gooj or benefit which, tnreegr. bvc ueatc u> give urie another. The fact that a man loves h .1. «my way at all is undoubtedly a virtue, and .n an sense can be· c.ii.ed rhe virtue of conjugal love. Butlta^e jugs! love to rite in something more, it refers to an i.ntîu. of conjugal benefits. I knee 1 spoke in the definition of ’ i fits prope.·- to r-urriage." \V hat art- tnesc benefits (Johj) which conjugat ’ovu 3» tinct from every orner kind of iove, wishes to communit Tnev can oe nornnig else tiian the acts oi conjugii life; tcJ the marriage act and the acts of mutual help. Tcsse *rt benefits marriage is calculated to produce (the ;’Wi.enda) ; these are the ends tor which marriage wa.- r.ti'-’· Toe considering marriage in j -·-■-■ ' «d , eonwal benefit. η? elmim f cOvfmenlu, ot .« pertetm o the A S r,r Teni ” bon‘'· ώ« ™ » «1,1 * W«al love. But thst act of !ow i, cas. a,„ !al. re ourmd. The bond » there ,!Πί; til£v ,„n„ r take it away from one another We ar. .'s,-’·.·"-! love which is proper to the s/ek of matrin’fn·. ‘ this love can actuate itself only by- a communication ·'■ .-:a ë-vtut V.IJS : ΰ , .njvr-ïïtrh -éi çSî;' ■--L.' '■T.rats e„ *-L; CS Wt rexe- r-ere- ïbe -* .Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 3S5 rrJi-u 'de, which realize the ends for which the bond was ips. ■ - tt-ric. rhe'C are the bona producenda of marriage. 'd.a: acts can be imagined which could more perfectly d, ba . the purpose of love than these? In the marriage act there , cfej' . i >■ ·uig union of the most intimate and comprehensive kind— i «iit ’ nron of body and mind, of sense and heart. When properly * if P*-· iormcd, it is an act not only of the rational love of bene vo­ ces- ; ”.e and concupiscence, but also of sensitive and sexual love. aaÿ , - an act ot self-surrender in which two become one flesh, one W· “" ‘Kipie of generation. Love desires union with the beloved " s ccjomunication of good. Can one discover a more appro- "-ite act tor the expression and fulfilment of love than rhe & ~-3rruge act?’" -■ Revise the acts < f nutuai help .-re by rreir eery nature ’■ ‘-.d to k mi· d i-c. Id. n<-t .'‘tempt to say tu-r wrat a"'5 are or ho~s π-.-.iy t '.·· .n. but 1 am temored t·.· extend ^J’trthan n :t tk . me·.?·.. m in? w.ll pr ’".biv .i admitted cl it a r...-j > mcludes tr.e act· * ■■·? <. h.-b tar·.;:: r':c aus by w i Λ. , ' >- : vi-nerm.-p md rd-, educ; (“ rhe in d” ■; .· r. ?v.·.' mem- ,i /'.a; ~z or ■ ''iners ,ίνι- ■-< rk :? Td’J.·. the ' e/ι ir. me * οι !'înt.i| ! m a · p-.--'-,.Ar-.· i ■ ■* t-ie-e act’· ’ii, ‘i t. · . . ., j-t _.f t..T ·. > · li·.e. ” h.cii 'irs-;r.·. (iT.e.!. and desires to bene-t t.'e oelt”ic at ri..: «/' k| · " ‘ ‘ '■ .* ;· re are ic o:-ab’e ' be lefits prove '*.·■ > : sin :h- lc’s ui conjugal I’fe ar.· eminer * r ’ ■' ' ‘ i· » ns oi c >r jugal love, I conclude that tro1 < i.l ·■· wniih the virtue of conjugal love ot its * ■ :· nrij.iicatc. It is too evJe.u. pe-;?.v^ " IK V Bl .................... ί·' ' ' '■ ■> . ■>’! A: ... !! ' · ” ·”· «■ ί* τι ' *ere ■ ■■ ■ ;..l:ii··'!· " - -rt =- 7 ‘'V' '· * ,X. „ . - a. _ .u . . ' ■ indo »U!-. ■ r i ■■ ·- ’ g||^ ■ 360 Theological Studies This, then, is my attempt at a definition of the vl".conjugal love. Understanding the term thus, I am read· answer the question proposed : Is this virtue essential co r riage? The answer, of course, must be in the negative. The κ virtue of conjugal love is not essential to marriage- - t· sands of marriages we find no trace of it; yet they ate re: : riages. The actual virtue of conjugal love is no mere to marriage than the acts of conjugal life themselves· Ja there can be true marriage where the acts of conjuga- ft absent, so also there can be true marriage when tfc ' which these acts should be the expression is absent. But. ot other hand, just as there can be no true marriage without radical right and obligation to the acts of conjuga'·1;·- * the radical right and obligation to the virtue of cor..u-?'; 0 essential to marriage. _ It is enough to consider these acts ot conjugal . h selves to see that they must suppose the virtue ot c >njuS * 1 if they are to be performed in a manner worthy ot dignity. Above, when trying to give the dbtingui;hiflfc 50 conjugal love, I said that, supposing there is sue:’ a v!rW could find no more appropriate expression than H which the ends of marriage are realized. Xrw 1 tu'' 3 argue the other way and say that in the supposition *■ ’ * a right and obligation to these act’, there trust a·.· -*j and obligation to practice them lovingly. In oit»' ■ are not merely appropriate ex presto ns of :'!'ve, l'· * ‘. necessarily expressions of love. They are c' tjT ' , love that one cannot imagine an obligation t> * not presuppose that they be acts of the virtue of ■· I do not say that it is impossible for a man of *·■· form these acts without love. It is possible to - 11 marriage act and the acts of Lfe-long mutu-d Bel, terr.alls and with inner reluctance, even w1*" inn.'· ■ '•av rr.at it would net be in keeping with t'·'^ W" ■ ‘ Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes 361 id rational nature of man to say that he is obliged to these acts except as proceeding from the virtue described. The acts of married life are to be performed in a manner consonant with the nutnan dignity of the partners. They are not mere animal acts. cur They are not merely the legal fulfillment of a contractual obli* -Xi sadon. They are such an intimate fusion of two human per­ sil- . SGQaKcies and they connote such a complete surrender of person S5ii to person that they cannot be conceived as really human acts sc# unless they are conceived as acts proceeding from the love of . J.-: ! uietidship and benevolence defined above. And since marriage ■ ' ~ rh.-y. sets- ridically obligatory, so also it must make the ? f-.wh.ch they proceed radically obligatory. Hence I :■· ' r’ r the r’.dical right and obligation to the virtue of con" -" 'I·- . «..nth! tn marriage.32 ■' ' u’ :.. til a statement made by Father Zeiger in connection *'t:i marna >e in fieri'. "Matrimonial consent differs greatly ' λ· cttei l. - tra :t- by it.- object. A man and woman deliber·’ -J £r·./- ...-c themselves to one another for a complete .-V -< -'?ir whole I’fe, an intimacy both bodily and :«,· ' -«>· r. rj turever and exclusively. . . - Such a surrender, if : ·1 ■ cannot but -uppose at least a certain su r md :mp. rfect !o”e; while the free consent to that sur■ ' r - a- -un-J c-.ycsy.on of that internal love · it ss the ri 'iseli.”'’ ' ’ -"· ,j th-s orw conception to marriage in facto esse ί ' "5 :h ·χ”·;ϊ.· !y' con ■ st·, m riîht« andobhgitun’ and. para: η? the v.’ords abose, I say. The right and obligat.-m to such f it- jj, -h. >cts -f conT.gal life involve cannot but supλ ■ ► ·ιΊ : .’t c-η to jt least some virtue of conjugal .* · t ' j-j r .-".-.rri.iite ir fieri ;£ aho true ot marriage » nr ' fs ; ■Il 362 Theological Studies ht facto esse. For the acts from which the argument is are the same in both cases. One may conclude, incidentally, that there is a grain ù in the statement of the marriage reformers (as there is a e truth in every error) : Marital intercourse is immoral A has ceased. It is true in the sense that the acts of ωηι<» are not performed in a manner worthy of human J-'gr'F· they proceed from love. But it is false in the concept it has of love: for th; rd-J generally mean instinctive sexual attraction, if not princi and exclusively, at least essentially. And their wnCe r'- something that man controls. Ho falls into it ar.c Will last. J he concept of love proposed here, on the contra.".· ^'r it does not deny the importance of instinctive, pi"":;.·· the. and .sexual factors, is a love of rhe rational etc;.'. · otner factors may have been the occasion which gave >. C ‘o’, e. and they are certainly of immense help in ccasemag * strengthening >t as far as the natural order is concerned- " w-'at is essential to conjugal love is voluntary. It ■< And just as it is within our power to practice * charity toward ail. so it is possible for m.u: and c -··'■ 1 ag i ries of passion and sentiment, to practice the ewviit’' of conjugal love. There is an Italian nronrb »F >·■ /' 'I- ‘amore non si comanda.” Mevcrrhc'e-s, there u’ ■z J'hich commands it: for the love of Cod is * '«re".· , rsc commandmenand the second is Ή love cf "t" Another consideration will help m establish Γ” -·· * ldical light and obligation to acts of mutual heli? J * Jf1 marriage—thi< has already been proved. New. aithvcf ;nere may be rme doubt rf the extent of rhe concept 'W-' ’tefr'.’’ j-k...... ■ j . < .................................. . , . ■ Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes Bcdi theologians and canonists explain mutual love as a part of rautual help, or mutual help as a part of mutual love. < lappello. hr instance, says that the secondary end of marriage, essential i"h intrinsic to it, is mutual help, "not only in the cure of the 'S.’usehoid but especially in mutual love." And thus the author'· es ·■ The Casti Connu bii tells us that the outward exprew.on of ‘ove tn th·, h )n z comprises not only mutual help, but al.-o the -·’■ ·-. r:o: '.e. ’s inter.- r perfection: rid it ruts the cultiva: - u'.ia'·. ’.<=·,e a par w;th mutual help .1' a secondary Î .·.·■ ‘ I··.:· :n mati'inu-m a- «’ci: a- -r. the u-c or t u ■ ^-.jr. * ; 'eCucd-irs end··. 'UC.’i i- mutual .;1 - f mutuai :.n<. .mJ th·,· .luivtir.g it co.: •.mie.., in J J 5 t i i'c '·Lu i ■> j part sir ur am.mg ar is it everv fI a i· p :r: > : m- J,: «elf fn-.T. .;:-t : . ’r·» ot L,' . . - ■ u ' k. eas > t ak» ·..· siti, all the Kts ot conjugal life ■" !ain.■ < deposition that pervade * "hese au: ' is ke a C" ipBsipfflSB hem·. Th.· ’ >ai wh at .·.■» tt a ÆlgMMr' *■ f i ii' i ·τ·'"ned nte and holds priue : p; ·.· ...i.r. B.· :i i- smu . ’ ·.· it .·, nec. >s3 '} ■ ‘.s a, â duties of the mar age *esta be rega*' : nd 'S Is of the ,\p. sr’e. '( -r ' . tn c h. «w ‘ : .-rr^u. Χ'Ί fî»>0 n ,, „ *-»· «■> Hl- ' ,V. .1. !■iS.’M'O ?a. «:■ ’** * ·* ' ; -.J. ’ Ii ■ ■ ■ I Μ ■ ■ ■■ 364 Theological Studies husband,’ express not only a law of justice but j .τι charity.”*’ The Encyclical also deciares that this lo?e u of conjugal faith; it is demanded by conjugal faith : l-.. jugal faith, of course, is essential to marriage. Aly argument then, proceeds from the common car.i authors and the teaching of the Encyclical/ from which » I draw a conclusion that not all theologians draw explicit the acts of mutual help are essential to marriage and it pertains to these acts as an all-pervading property, then æs is essential to marriage just as the acts are; that is to say radical right to the acts essentially implies the radies: r;p< obligation to the virtue of love. And therefore I bei.e no satisfactory definition of marriage can be formed which not include conjugal love. Let the conclusion of this part of our study, then, λ t ' lowing essential definition of marriage. It must be uaerre in the light of all that has gone before. The essevre wrr> rs a moral bond between man and woman u bk'h cond c ·* perpetual, evchtsiie right to one another's fcrw ad'e ■ to the acts of conjugal life and love. HI. Criticism of Dr. Do ms’ Th&w. If I were to go back now to the passages 1 have .-fcJ y Dr. Doms in the first part of this essay, and ge rhr c.O' ι·' sentence by sentence, I hare no doubt that I could rn.' E'n‘ for comment and criticism in almost every line. Tee *·» · \ be statements with which Γ would agree, statements ’ *■-want to distinguish, statements I would consitier wmnr· * «ISiL. ρ· «<° ,!"/t.·/, pr· fi~ -1- *^' e £<»vç are j conSrznjsc.oc ni tSe ul ’üyv J'etient.-aiZv diitrenc item whrt has bean propnas riaje and c·? i’i Mr si iif ,19 Marriage: Its Meaning , · ; - Y and Purposes 365 itatements I could not understand—and the process would be endless. I shall not attempt it. The criticism of these minutiae, in view of the apparent diiierences of our philosophic backgrounds (and also because of the difficulty of doing justice to a man’s thought in translation), probably find us at cross purposes. It would be a waste u lime. And so, although I am tempted to make some remarks on what I consider to be Dr. Dorns’ misconception of the notion of end m general, and of a certain haziness, as it appears to me, :n the handling of other philosophical concepts, I shall be conto pass these matters over and restrict myself to some gen«tai points of criticism. The first of these .> the fundamental u::e of the distinction *tween meaning and purpose as applied :·-■ marriage, k ■. - not '■ iteration tc say that Dr. Durr/ whole theory or the rebi­ tito between marriage and its end. met. of course, his whole W) is based on this distinct.on. It rests upon .t s.. coni> vK. cb.n without this distinction the th.c- ry itself colbp-t·'. - is irdy to r-.ad met again the summary mad.· >t Dr. ■btos aacxng that this distinction ;> the life-bl -od or &· theory. .·■ irj opinion tiie distincti, n. as applied to marriage, will '■■ί ’ uid ap ιοί:·.: phil-.^aphic scrutiny. Perhaps it his «mu: **h»e in other mar: .r—i would take rr.c aneld to n.iu.re mtu -bit i;, fs- d, -lar.-.age is ^<·:·.αι1 :’eJ 1 belk u ::: do■r,t r tc be witho i" meaning. If tiie analyis 1 :;a·.made above <-t the nature οΐ marrsage ΐ ^tect, if marriage ex.^ts in the ont logica'; -’”der as .i m- ral » " Rational or jarid^al entity, constituai essential·v h i τ··π.ί * consists of nruru.t rights and duties; ύ these ritii-.ts and p® defies are nothing mor.- nor less thin the rights and -.iutks .>f Performing all thite c njuga! acts by whicn alone rhe tr.rc^^ttial ends of marriage are realised. t.”.en mart.age r.as mexcept in the l^ht of its ends. Ia other words: The essence of marri izc - α mora’ bend; bur 366 ; s -’ D Theological Studies what that moral bond is, what inherent value it hu> ’ meaning is, can only be discovered by looking at the thro tial ends of marriage. The ends of marriage are its ® Without them it is meaningless. Dr. Doms might object that it is taking a very can­ to identify marriage with the juridical bond that bind? ners to one another. As he says; ’'The living content. reality of marriage is not identified with the exclude·sent, nor with the usual juridical consequences of tnc π contract, but is something much more living, co it'Jr, for which the juridical guarantees serve err·’ -· -■ t:on.’’1J But it is not true chat marriage is a lis mg '·’ literal sense. The only living things in marriage i" ·■ ■ spouts and their living acts—the acts of conjuga Lut the partners are not marriage. Their acts are -i·: ■■·' Marriage is something different from both. It h t--f bond (with its ends and properties) created by t”e o the partners. That is the one thing that is found vit-e riage is found and without which marriage cannot A·’1 those acts of conjugal life and love by which thepartror- ■ community of life (two-in-oneship) . and procreatu·: *» · remedy for concupiscence, are conjugal only bec">u>v performed by persons linked together by such a Inasmuch as they are living acts in the physical ofdit M ail be performed by unmarried persons. Their speC'ttC menial character is determined by the fact that t;w? â formed by persons bound together by the bend of by persons, therefore, who have the right and obliga^11 *urm them. Or, to consider them from the opr051^ they are spec ideally conjugal because they are theor^ by which the essential end< of marriage are acniady Accordingly the marriage bord has meaning •.'•nl *' ir'i0' objectively ordered co these three end?. 1 -O. . ·. , Λ ?* <■ :ί -1. :>«cl 4 Jr · Marriage: Iis Mfaving and Purpose', ' - D -■> says: "Marriage >’ ftr->t of al;, H itself, a reality t-f ( st., .-.J n',vin-ng before burg ’/or somcth.ng else' wmch is i./ Ksd.fIf thi, means that mart age ;·. a rv.’.'.i:i basing a .'π-foundmeaning independentb, of its undo. the 'tateo-en; can->t st-ind. The ontological reality v.l ien o n'.trri tge, ’■.·,’., th · In..! bond, has meaning only when -n-c hw, v/ru t\· “.η '«c * ••’•e tor which God created it. and towards r :vC’ : ■· ,1 ‘ct.ei., --rdered. Look at the mar rage bond .nce:'-’n.Ln'd. ■■: - e>-Is. VVha’· is it? What is it w<>r Ji? ïnicrrm: >.'.· >sgrmp -‘t nn-iuaj rights and obligatu ns. It i' unis -al υ·. ■ be sec what the object of these rights and ob .ga‘i<>-> -s 11 / T»:r>.iee mean· »n·. thing. \V ben yoa dreevef that tb.^e : <- * ir’rra's n.c ache’-cd t’"c' v 'u kn> ”. t'i· '·. ·η v ς - n.a ’ ge :rc. r ·: before ■' ' '■ „■ ■■>c " ’·· " -iit-·1 i c sc a. huh r·' t r -t:t-■>·.. :\;o. net. Th. ιηό ■>: Tarrug ' ■·■- 'it', consule cd a·, y-mt tiling ■ ,ut' de of it. When w. 'a·· Λ.λ the ends of marnage ar·1 c^cnt il tr it v e mein c i ’'rv u·1 ' y -·· or it. N,. n*.irr-»ee in ■. st * .: ί υ: -.'x-”c •χ ,· < I,.... - ;\r t --crt.:’ . \.i:irii, f ' ‘‘i * P ^.Γ I* i' vS$C'i!G t > Π'ίΓΓlilt'd. ■- ;h? ends uf marriage go to make it up. ·.* is both c< rfu'-i-’c |gggii|lgft3fl|3iM ' ■ 'i : ’ η*··.·η.:· · ,·*5 ϊι· η ’ T) ’ Τ'" "ns t.ierry i* that ' f v . 'i. ... .· ;ίΛ,-_ - -e er \ : 'maze. Is there *■'' -ch u. . m at.-ept the tr-:"K£ is th.· t ‘ ■’neri eno 'nd the other s · ! j.- v\1rhc γ Γ -ns aür.-ts th:t Canon . i ;; j i _ , uii n ■’ c pr.marv end, .or is this impropriety' avoided by rhe statement r?.;t G Law is "entirely justified” in calling procreau.m the pr­ end; for that statement has little meaning com'ng at thee" a systematic treatise written to show that procreation is m' primary end in any real sense, and that it is a mistake to ? calling it that.13 But since T say that it is improper to reiect the terms prw and secondary' (as being in a sense the oificial language of Church) it is incumbent on me to show that the tradit; language of the Code and of the Encyclical is justified. In discussing the ends of marriage, I avoided as much as sible referring to procreation as rhe primary end. ana spoke of the various ends of marriage, calling them all .-"ential, .'bowing, too, that they are inextricably bound u? with another. The present inquiry is: What does ;t mean to · procreation the primary end of marriage, and o t-' * 5 wr oology justified? And our question really nam e's u =elf M comparative importance of procreation and mutual adp, ur all would agree, I believe, that the remedy for concup-sceno. of less importance than either of these, though bo-nd up * both. In the first place, to call procreation the rrimarv ·ί·tS mean that it is more essential than the other ends i Marriage: Its Meaning Purposes and 369 ir. ; I hive shown sufficienti/ that aii three ends are essential to marpar· -âge in the present order; and there cannot be degrees of essen®έ· tulness, though there can be degrees of importance. Nor does it mean that the other ends have value and meaning only in so ijf" v « rhey are subordinated strictly to the primary end, i.e., the insofar as they serve as a means of attaining the primary kv; cT It cannot be denied that this view underlay the thought ' v Augustine and other theologians who wrote in the past. But theologians nowadays (and for a long time), in their ■S! jtheoretical exposition of the ends of marriage, and especially in ' ’*» ' n.-’.cth’sl teachings on the morality of the use of marriage, · •.-•-"iplet.ciy with rhe idea that the secondary ends ■;· ’< .ttord-JMte to the primary end in the vîn«c that they can J.. ;n. ’ be iu.-.tided when they arc a means to the irtainment ot the de j primary end. The secondary end' and especially mutual help ! *?th conjugal love are universally recognized as having inde■ "nc 'nt -zalue, and the subordination to the primary end which μ* ' 'u. ?d when the sexual act is exercised for other reasons is i'*>· Λν preservation of the physical integrity of the act. If :· n. '.-n-ige ,-ct itsef is normal and natural, the supremacy of ’ ; ■ ti.iry end is sufficiently protected. ’■'· d.-m ore, "primary end” does not mean that procreation ■* '9 uppermost in the intention of the contracting parties g 'ra.’v, or that they must choose it as the most important Purpose of their marriage. They need only mcemt marna.ge 1 ’t As j,7 jj s.jj’ecci rea·./- <· ■e-tt-aty end of mat- ■ Tn» ’ 'hex ^3 ·Γ·« :înî τ: · ■ : :■ rrm'. be sub r.'mai.d t-.·· die pr:r.-.>-y c.iu h se 1 ”·. η» ‘.h», sense that no pnrirv? ntcrference w?'-a the prim v . ■ ί. . <·. . . λ. «a»: . "''gS&si, ....... JI; '·®: s '"V 'S. 'jfe îÿfes: ..v:.K®Sr WiM'· Λ·. Λ J . /ÇpB® 57® Theological Studies In what sense, then, is procreation called a prinu" î purpose? In the first place, it is properly called ;·' because, though not more essential than mutual help. - s fundamental. That is, procreation and education of ch implies and includes mutual help to a certain ext-r:· mutual help does not necessarily imply procreation. Secondly, to call procreation the primary end msar> ■ we look at marriage as a natural and divine institution, f the intention of God procreation is an end of greats ance or greater value than mutual help. Perhaps :t ·· rash to speculate on the comparative importance or per.-'t the mind of God. Dr. Dorns seems to think we have .»■ J ·* 1 to do so/ On the other hand, it is not impos»’--c -■·■ natural institution like marriage, nature herseit i’3·5 hand and given us a clue as to what is more lir.pc..^ fundamental, the personal purpose (mutual help) θΓ " pose that serves the species (procreation). Undo--— creation is of more importance to the species. I ’ί··-'β more importance to human society in general, and hen« law, both Ci', il and Canon. One can, thereror·2’ f°r v31 J sophical reasons call procreation primary ('.·£·· more more tund.iment-il) by saying that since the c.X'- ·'· ; ", is more important to nature than die good or ·η-·'·· *^ creation is a more important aim of marriage These intrinsic reasons amply justify the "primary end." It is not strange, therefore, d-·- · nsophen and theologians in rhe Scholastic * -^tradipractical unanimity called procreation the prJTiry we have this philosophical and traditional just.ncat ~ term, it b hard to find anv coed reason tor C:.a ->- ■’ _ overemphasis which has been placed on t“- F' " ”■_ ... nun; writers can be corrected without giving” that has been consecrated by usage and susu"*·-■■■ ’ false overemphasis is due to a misconception c* :ae p S Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes ... . fi3uii ■■ 5,3t ir, .... ‘.p. t ,13; Vi .. ; Ti , : <-v· .iy 371 !gk· that constitute the marriage bond and not to a misuse of rhe * ord ‘'primary.” The third general point on which I should like to offer a cnriom r-f Dr. Dorns is his use of a certain text from the Casti ■ ·..■ '■ I to support the thesis that community of life (two-inonesh p- . not procreation, is the primary thing in marriage.4’ I he Encyclical, after declaring that conjugal love should make tin partners aid one another to supernatural holiness of life, •vs: ”T ih mutual interior formation of the partners. •Jii■ - k.>n of mirriage :f only marriage is taken a ■ -..It as an :->t.tuti·-n fur the proper procreation and 1.,i - : children. Put m a bruder sense i' a sharing, a com• j·· i ar. '-n ,·ι t.'u.r whole Lrc.'” Does the Encyclical here ve .,p the traditional doctrine and terminology · - c uc.pt a new primary end or primary meaning o; carriage? T.ii ; unthinkable <_-f ctiur-e. lr Inconceit able that a J’t a : ch ‘.'.as an epitome of the teaching of the past n.eaat tn orrik suddenly from a doctrine and way of «pearûng ' ■* ’.a: ” .e.t'Kr-.ud 1”. -. many centuries ot traait.on. It isincarc'·."able that a d.oz^n year’ - r h· after tne Coce had i ..·· >r·.· .1 -urtrn. try · f that traditi in ard declared proevvnti . 'F pr:'" ..’d. the Frc’.c’.ca· -houid make in i-.fiuu uew.T in rentra lier an of the C-ode. And wx whatever < f it. tic ' is put on me pissacc. c.:ie can say a priori tiut κ _c · j ·. a hr.al. with •-’it W’.l! e»tabii»ncJ doctrine ’ * W . ”, £ : ,c paîO). 372 Theological Studies begetting of children, Jfchose who in exercising it deiiber^.· frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature... And again : "For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matri­ monial rights there are also secondary ends such as mutual ώ the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of con­ cupiscence» which husband and wife are not forbidden ω ersider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end i'·: i long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”4’ Furthermore, the passage referred to speaks in such gtufifeterms that it almost appears as if the writer wanted to sure that he would not be misunderstood, and would r-: taken to be speaking about the essential ends of marriage- · he says that there is a "certain” sense in which this interwr. ·■ mation can be called the primary cause and reason, that it is not marriage strictly so called, but marriage in broader sense of the word that has this as its primary cau * Then, too, the Encyclical is speaking of the supernatural pe * fiction of the partners, and it is not likely that this perns · would be set up as the primary purpose of marriage sooKeu an institution of nature. And when we speak ot the P··^ and secondary ends of marriage we mean ends waicn :·- •-i' ” the natural law. It seems more l■0 which marriage is objectively and es>entia’lv relates. ■ ' « tne interpretation given to it bv Father Franz Hurth. opinion perhaps has peculiar weight. And tire K·-»- O” cbisfn strengthens this view; for in the section c-f it Jt-'J ' ncyc ica we find that the ends of marriage are ir<.at.'-merely M the objective fines ορ^ of the institution, ' as the subjective motives or purposes for which the ou marry. This >s not meant to deny, h^wr:"r *' octnne of marriage so ably propc sed by rhe λ (JWJM CJ·'· '■ , p. 5 59. p. til. *<.' i/ntanMk Aowmuii (Romae. '.»61). Π, c. *' ■■ I’- Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes ' 373 -’«s emphasize mutual help as an objective end of marriage r.uch more than some of our modern manualists. And in this K my mind it gives a truer picture of marriage. k t0 me’ r^ere^ore> that though there is some doubt as -. this passage of the Encyclical is to be understood, it canbe taken as a denial of the traditional doctrine and termi•v>ogy with regard to the primary and secondary ends of s· surnage. My SmI criticism of Dr. Dorns’ theory is this. His purpose i λ theorizing at all about the relation of marriage to its ends, i aoout their relative importance, is obviously to explain and ^eguard certain values in marriage which he feels (as a theo- · n. ar. J especially as a pastor of souls actually engaged in the ■ y- - to be insufficiently protected in the traditional view. -^mention only the principal thing, be feels that the personalist •■U.S in marriage, the two-in-oneship of the partners and ail 3rc re“^ties not sufficiently accounted for or - in *h< tneory that holds procreation to be the primary it u my contention that it the traditional theory of v- ‘·Γγ. >ts ends :5 properly understood, and if it is pro-.· 1 ra-.e proposed it. there i$ ample room within its ’’·*μ-·κ· ϋ Preserve and harmonize all these personalist rhere is no need to go outside that framework. to / ){ΓΙ 3 dis^ncûon between meaning and purpose, and to desert * : rer^'‘:;'Gh\cica; proprieties in r-rdcr to make ’ ' " -'·■■'><-· values wah which Dr. Durrs is chiefly con•A- a. i >ei e-.,-v that practjca|ly 2}j g iod things he empha■‘■es. and w.pl h ne Jescrcv·. .-.o eloquently. ,uch as t'..e ,.om'■r »- ■ ’< or t-.-.e Sj-otisc·*, their lift·-partner-hip, the pertecx ut *h eir coriug.il l .ve, ar.d th;ir mutual supernatural · * ' ■-deqv.uteiv s' nthesized within the traditional "ltrs i am rr-taken m this. ■hl^i.p.-.caj -- j Anyone who trie, to make a s c.r g,-, comprehensive ind e J ' y ·’, ? . ÿ ·' 374 Theological Studies intricate a subject as marriage in relation to its ends he?:::'' announce that he has achieved success and that there in more problems. I make no such announcement. I® believe that I can solve all the problems. Sut I hope that » I have written will contribute to an understanding of rhe ruf Dr. Dorns has said: "I am well aware chat this me in for a good deal of opposition from some ····_· religion, even from theologians of certain scnoo;?. ^ - · aware, of course, that what I have written a such «Wr. - - iust 7Γ M1'; writ'n8s oi a frffcw priest. ' Γ believe tht i s ? * i U^r.“Dr-.Dr “ — chci^‘ c&rbm e-C Π, 1'2Χί from overemphasizing then;’ tiXX T8hw K do IWif· things whi-h'‘L^ZtrimS C° exp,ain ai fc® * w believe g° to mate ap ^stri^e. .-U Ooms ajîd thoi Vorld debt of rr i· on the essent’-/ Wnters Wi'° in m°dern times ■■ '■ partnership“* ’ «Position οΓοζη°ΧΡη,7 “ — ’’ ' ’ -O’ for the rMKns t fairly the common Catholic teaching, and as sai'-o'· matrimonial s alues which both Dr. Doms a:iu ? ·* preserve. But whether I have succeeded in this others to judge. 3 ,Τ. THOMAS’ THEORY OF OPERATION BERNARD LONERGAN, 5.J. Coliegî cf the Immaculate Conception ' f Aorking out St. Thomas’ thought on habitual grace ai , ;vrative and co-operative, it was possible to avoid specuh i k'.ues by appealing to parallel passages which sufncicntb .rfbined the analogies involved and the ideas employe. L ,1:-jr.ately, now that we have to deal with actual grace, ; ?:pie a procedure can no longer be iollowed. St. ,Τηοττ. », •■-d the idea of the habit ready made, but he had to think o Jt h.'nsdf the analogy of nature that corresponds t" Ά' -tf.’ics. and, if in this long labor he did not draw upon ao-olatJ·. id’he resources of rhe Ambic. I’li-misr. .....1 A‘ -mrcl 'r nvzcrlves at hi, d.'p. 'd. it ic'". 1' - :-'te’rr,r.''s h;··’ . i marked procli t-> -.xplu-t th.' " ' ;es j neglected. Acco-.'.i-c'v. A <.>'■ *, r ’-3 ·' ~·ν Γ,'ίΓ'"y' -■■iü',ht »:i arru.iî c.'iv". ■■·-; mu-t art1. ” '•"’.''■e :..m:..arity w,tn ’■«historical and speculative background; ir rnrricrhr we must fr..· re id-.·.’·., a i i p· ·-/·, ’ή ide. . n c r.itur; ct ope. it&n, premotion, ippl . it ■ n. r-.c ccrc.t -gt r yr ·' :-ience, un.. ’’«rsai instrument i'.’», ,nd the v'dcc· ·>: rrc : on: wc mu< &s> snow the dk·’ eh'n n. ·'* ; ' , t^'· : ” " tr.· i,:, '· ’’t tre·^·· the various v-.-v, ,i wh,,' * at ■ hi. v’■-·· God to move the wûl, t’- neani ’ a r ? ■ c-n’-d thecr.·’’ H transcendence and, to som.. uAtent - -tion to'U^eA’ent theories. Such questions naturally d ’ Ci. into two 'vuc ■ ‘ i'···: t! at J .· c ·, ’· :rfollow. ■aSâ'’’r,’T IS e -■ m - O,{ *x r,’>'i a ar ; f· rwation: Jls ram·; οΐ fvne-·ί ?nt.:: irrv -'rame in th , * " »a: , ■■> ■ -·■ m flf Ijsc k_1(. vi, of St. T'r.orni ■ -voçht ι»Γ· coetH*’" ,n^ c»*i;, rrr ·ι·*ΐϊ- **-<*· ii