In this article we will demonstrate that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children and that this teaching has not changed. The secondary end, which consists of the mutual love and support of the spouses, is a divine precept and cannot be discarded or rendered optional. We will first examine the clear Church teaching from Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. Afterward, we will explore what the Second Vatican Council says and how the post-conciliar era presents the teaching. The clear statements of the pre-conciliar era will make way for the more obscure and ambiguous formulations of the post-conciliar era. Even in the face of this obscurity the teaching of the Church has not changed. Like with most deterioration in our post-conciliar life it is important to understand there are three actors in all this. The first are those trying to subvert Catholic teaching. The second are those who do not intend to subvert the teaching but employ insufficient language that unintentionally does harm. Finally, there are those who wish to maintain the explicit Catholic teaching alongside any potential developmental insights.
Establishing the Clear Catholic Teaching
Pope Pius XI in his encyclical on Christian marriage, Casti Connubii, teaches:
“Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: ‘As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,’- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law - ‘The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.’
...
For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: 'Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church,' [Ephesians 5:25] that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor...
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.”
[All emphases mine]
(Casti Connubii, 17, 23, 59: https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)
Please note that the primary end of marriage is explicitly taught without reserve: The procreation and education of children. The secondary ends are subordinate to the primary end. Both the primary and secondary ends are divine precepts (commands). Also note that the code of canon law that Pius XI cites is the 1917 Pio-Benedictine code.
Later during the teaching is reiterated during the pontificate of Pope Pius XII in his his Allocation to Midwives:
“Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.”
[Emphasis mine]
(Allocution to Midwives, 1951: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/allocution-to-midwives-8965)
The Holy Office under Pius XII also affirmed this teaching. The following is s a brief description of this from Crisis Magazine from the article Procreation: Still the Primary End of Marriage by Mr. Jim Russell:
“On April 1, 1944, he approved a Holy Office decree that answered ‘no’ to the question of whether it was permissible to assert anything other than the traditionally expressed truth that marriage had a primary end and a secondary end subordinated to it. This decree is found in the Acts of the Apostolic See (#103 in the linked file), and remains official magisterial teaching.”
(Jim Russell, Procreation: Still the Primary End of Marriage: https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/procreation-still-primary-end-marriage)
Mudding the Catholic Teaching
During the time period of Second Vatican Council there was a push to redefine or developed the Church's teaching on marriage. As the result of the debates and differing opinions on the subject, we can see the result in the document on the Church in the Modern world, Gaudium et Spes:
“For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes.(1) All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown.”
1. Cf. St. Augustine, De Bene coniugali PL 40, 375-376 and 394, St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Quaest. 49, art. 3 ad 1, Decretum pro Armenis: Denz.-Schoen. 1327; Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930, pp. 547-548; Denz.-Schoen. 3703-3714.
[Emphasis mine]
(Gaudium et Spes, 48: https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html)
The ambiguity should be apparent. The procreation and education of children are described as being the "ultimate crown" of marriage. Children being the “crown” of marriage can certainly be interpreted as the highest goal, or the greatest end (finality). But the stage has been set for the use of vague personalistic language instead of precise theological distinctions. One wonders why not simply use both the theological precision and the more pastoral personalistic language? We will see that the post-conciliar Popes will favor the personalistic tone and, intentionally or not, continue the ambiguity.
However, notice the reference I left in the quote. This footnote references St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii as quoted earlier. Essentially, the Second Vatican Council is reaffirming the traditional teaching, albeit indirectly. The innovators could not stop the reference to Pope Pius XI where he explicitly teaches the primary end of marriage is procreation and education of children. This is an important fact to keep in mind.
But why would the innovators try to obscure the teaching? Certain men wished to push contraception on the Church and deny the proper ends of marriage. This case was documented by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen in his work The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, which is now titled The Inside Story of Vatican II. Fr. Wiltgen is no “traditionalist,” he was a journalist at the Second Vatican Council, and an eyewitness to various events. Here is an expert from his book:
Another revision [of Gaudium et Spes] was prepared as soon as the debate ended, and was distributed on November 12. This new version could be interpreted as leaving it to the spouses to decide whether or not to use artificial contraceptives to limit the size of their families, provided their ultimate aim was the fostering of conjugal love.
...
On November 25, Pope Paul took action and through his Secretary of State sent four special amendments on the marriage section to the joint commission. Each commission member was given a copy, but beforehand the periti [experts who assisted the council fathers] were asked to leave the room. Tension immediately mounted and Cardinal Léger sprang to his feet in angry protest. When some doubt arose as to the binding character of the amendments, the members were the amendments, the members were informed by another letter on the following day that they were not free to reject the amendments, but only to determine their phrasing. That day the tension was somewhat relieved when the periti were once again allowed to attend the meeting.
The first of these amendments called for the insertion of the two words "artificial contraceptives" among the "deformations" detracting from the dignity of conjugal love and family life, like polygamy, divorce, and free love. At the same time, the Pope called for a precise footnote reference to the two pages in Pope Pius XI's encyclical, Casti Connubii, where the use of artificial contraceptives was condemned. The commission excused itself from introducing "artificial contraceptives," used instead illicit practices against human generation," and omitted the reference to Casti Connubii.
The second called for the deletion of the word "also" from the statement that the procreation of children was also" a purpose of marriage, because in the context this word made it appear that procreation was a secondary purpose of marriage, and conjugal love a primary purpose. This was the opposite of the Church's traditional teaching, and the Council had pledged itself to avoid this controversy. The amendment also called for the insertion of the following sentence: "Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents." The commission adopted both suggestions.
The third called for the substitution of the words "it is not lawful" for the words "should not" in the prohibition to "sons of the Church" to use methods of regulating procreation "which have been or may be found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church." A footnote was to be added here, calling attention both to Casti Connubii and to Pius XII's allocution to midwives, which reiterated the teaching of that encyclical, stating that the prescription against artificial contraceptives was derived from "natural and divine law."
The joint commission adopted this third amendment in substance, but failed to refer to the statements of Popes Pius XI and XII as the "two most outstanding documents on this subject," as Pope Paul wished. It further added a reference of its own, the allocution of Pope Paul VI to the College of Cardinals on June 23, 1964, in which he had given the cardinals a progress report on the work of his special commission on birth control. "Let us now state with all frankness," he had said at the time, "that we do not yet have a sufficient motive for considering as outdated-and therefore as not binding-the norms laid down by Pope Pius XII in this matter; therefore they must be considered as binding, at least as long as we do not feel obliged in conscience to modify them. ... And it seems opportune to recommend that no one, for the present, should take it upon himself to make any pronouncement at variance with the norm in force." By citing this allocution of Pope Paul, the joint commission--and subsequently the entire Council-implicitly confirmed the traditional teaching of the Church in this matter.
The fourth and final amendment proposed by Pope Paul referred to the temptation to married couples to use artificial contraceptives, and even abortion. It called for the insertion of a sentence to the effect that, in order that the spouses might overcome such temptations, it was "altogether necessary that they sincerely practice conjugal chastity." This amendment was retained in substance, but was inserted in another part of the text.
According to the Pope's directives, the amended text was submitted to him before being sent to the printer.
On December 3, 1965, the final revision of the schema was distributed to the Council Fathers. At once there was much agitation behind the scenes because the joint commission, contrary to Pope Paul's wish, had failed to indicate in a footnote the specific pages of Casti Connubii where artificial contraceptives were condemned. Before the voting started on December 4, a special announcement was made on instructions from the Pope. The Council Fathers were asked to note that the page references in one of the footnotes had been omitted, and that, in voting on the text, they must understand that they were voting on that footnote as well, together with the specific page references. They were also informed that the page references would be indicated in the official text which would be presented for the final and formal vote on December 7.
[All emphases mine]
(Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, pp. 270-272)
After reading this report any honest person should be able to admit that there was a desire among some council fathers and experts to subvert the teaching of the Church. They did not fully get away with their nefarious desires, but were successful in employing ambiguous formulation. Let the so-called neo-conservative take note. A council is not always a beaming light from the Holy Ghost shinning upon the heads of the bishops. There was foul work at play to undermine doctrine. Pope Paul VI came to the rescue, but the ambiguity still won the day. Generally, a council is supposed to clarify or even further develop teaching, making it clearer and easier to understand. Ambiguous formulation has consequences not only in misinterpretation by well meaning Catholics, but also by those wishing to undermine Catholics doctrine. See our previous article on circiterisms for some examples.
Even Mr. Russell from Crisis Magazine admits as much. After explaining how wonderful the philosophical school of Personalism is for the Catholic Church, and the supposed greatness of John Paul II, he explains:
“...pro-contraception thinkers readily knew that the only way to reach a change in Church teaching on contraception was to do an end-run around natural law and the primary end of marriage. Personalistic language effectively became a Trojan horse for promoting contraception as a potential ‘value’ for the human person, despite contraception being a clear violation of the ‘act’ of marital relations.”
(Procreation: Still the Primary End of Marriage)
The Post-Conciliar Aftermath
After the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI would reiterate the ambiguity in his encyclical Humanae Vitae by quoting Gaudiam et Spes 50:
“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents.”
(Humanae Vitae, 9: https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html)
Pope Paul VI also states:
"Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun..."
(Humanae Vitae, 14)
One could interpret this as procreation being the “first principle” of marriage. The Latin used here means first in rank, or highest above all. However, since Paul VI infers there are multiple principles, without clarification on exactly what these principles consist of, one could interpret the passage to mean both procreation and the mutual love of the spouses. It is not entirely clear here. The ambiguity remains.
However, Paul VI frequently footnotes Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii where we saw that the ends of marriage are explicitly laid out. Paul VI even says this in reference to Casti Connubii:
“...the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times.”
(Humanae Vitae, 4)
Therefore, we can assume Pope Paul VI agreed with his predecessor as Casti Connubii is referenced six times in Humanae Vitae. Yet, there is still a failure to accurately word the teaching. Again, simply adding the traditional teaching, which takes only a sentence or two, alongside the flavor of the age philosophical newspeak of personalism would have been sufficient.
Fast-forward to the pontificate of John Paul II and the ambiguity continued to appear, but this time we have a slightly clearer exposition of the doctrine. In his 1981 apostolic exhortation Familiaris Consortio, John Paul II taught:
"According to the plan of God, marriage is the foundation of the wider community of the family, since the very institution of marriage and conjugal love are ordained to the procreation and education of children, in whom they find their crowning.
...
Thus the fundamental [Latin: princeps] task of the family is to serve life, to actualize in history the original blessing of the Creator-that of transmitting by procreation the divine image from person to person.”
[Emphasis mine]
(Familiaris Consortio, 14, 28)
First, John Paul II alludes to Gaudium et Spes when he says children are the crown of marriage. Again, the passage in Vatican II footnotes Pius XI and his encyclical where he explicitly teaches that the primary end of marriage is procreation and education of children.
Second, the English rendering of the Latin word princeps as “fundamental” in article 28 is somewhat inaccurate. The word princeps means first in rank or order. Hence, John Paul II can be interpreted as saying procreation is first in order concerning the tasks of the family.
Therefore, if we dig deep enough, we can still see that the traditional teaching is maintained, but is covered with a certain amount of ambiguity and still requires exploration to come to the explicit teaching. Such exploration should not happen. We should not have to wade around in verbose texts, insufficient definitions, and obscure wording. The danger is that by reading these documents without sufficient knowledge one will take them at face value. Often it's face value is insufficient which thereby leads to a denial of Church teaching. But such is the life of the post-conciliar era where wading through verbosity and obfuscation in order to arrive at the truth is unfortunately all too common.
One last thing to point out in Familiaris Consortio is a passage where it appears to have John Paul II explicitly pointing out the primary end:
"The task of giving education is rooted in the primary vocation of married couples to participate in God's creative activity..."
(Familiaris Consortio, 36)
The Latin for “primary end” as found in Pius XI’s Casti Connubii and the 1917 code of canon law is finis primarius. This is not found in the Latin of article 36, not even the word “primary.” Instead, the Latin is “primigeniam coniugum vocationem,” which means the “original" or "first of its kind," as opposed to the word primarius that denotes the first rank. The Latin John Paul II uses in this instance has a more open interpretation. However, it may still be interpreted as procreation being a primary end as it is the original call, but the rendering here is still ambiguous.
A few years after John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, the New Code of canon law (1983) was issued wherein it states:
"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized."
[Emphasis mine]
(Code of Canon Law, 1055 §1: https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib4-cann998-1165_en.html#TITLE_VII.)
Here we see an even more ambiguous formulation where there is no distinction between primary or secondary. There isn’t even any wording used that can be interpreted to convey a primary end such as “fundamental.” The good of the spouses and procreation and education of offspring can be interpreted together as the primary end. Further still, listing of the good of spouses first can open the way to misinterpretation by making mutual love as primary. Such interpretations are not necessarily assured, but because of the imprecision it is an understandable result.
Fast forward to the new Catechism (1992) and it verbatim quotes Gaudim et Spes:
“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1652: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P55.HTM )
It should be reiterated that Gaudium et Spes itself references Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii wherein there is a clear definition of the Catholic doctrine concerning primary and secondary ends of marriage. The traditional and clear teaching is indirectly alluded to in the new Catechism.
Finally, in the controversial exhortation Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis also reiterates the ambiguity in several instances. For example:
"Marriage is firstly an 'intimate partnership of life and love' which is a good for the spouses themselves, while sexuality is 'ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman'. It follows that 'spouses to whom God has not granted children can have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms'. Nonetheless, the conjugal union is ordered to procreation 'by its very nature'."
[Emphasis mine]
(Amoris Laetitia, 80: https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf)
Here we see a dubious explanation of marriage being "firstly" about partnership and love (mutual love and support). One could argue that this is simply Francis talking about the first movement of marriage, or rather the first impulse that couples have towards solidifying a marriage, not necessarily the first end as in its finality. Francis also quotes the Gaudium et Spes and the new Catechism here, which by now we know alludes to the traditional doctrine.
Francis also makes another strange statement:
"Then too, we often present marriage in such a way that its unitive meaning, its call to grow in love and its ideal of mutual assistance are overshadowed by an almost exclusive insistence on the duty of procreation."
[Emphasis mine]
(Amoris Laetitia, 36)
Francis makes a claim without proof. There is no widespread issue of Catholics making procreation an almost exclusive reason for marriage. The last 60 years of Popes and the Second Vatican Council itself have rendered the teaching ambiguous as we have seen. The Theology of the Body fad has not yet died. Diocesan and parish marriage preparation courses and material along with the "neo-conservative" media outlets are also not guilty of this. The mild priests and laity in a typical Novus Ordo parish do not preach this as well. The leftist takeover of Catholic academia is certainly not going to make an "almost exclusive" insistence on procreation either.
If none of these entities, which comprise well over 90% of the Catholic world, are guilty of near procreative exclusivism, than who? Some so-called "traditionalists" who posses one or two parishes in a diocese of hundreds of thousands of Catholics? Is there any proof that it too is a widespread issue? Hardly. Francis' fear of Catholics "often" teaching a near exclusive insistence on procreation is nowhere near what happens in real life. The exact opposite in conflating the ends of marriage is the real problem.
Concluding Summary
From all the information provided, we can safely assert that the teaching on the ends of marriage has not changed. However, it is concealed with a certain amount of ambiguity which requires further exploration to arrive at the clear teaching. The code of canon law does not explicitly indicate a primary end of marriage. Gaudium et Spes, Humanae Vitae, and the new Catechism hint towards it via the wording of “crowning glory” as well as the footnotes to Casti Connubii. Pope John Paul II appears to say it in a weak fashion via Familiaris Consortio, although he not as explicit and detailed as Pope Pius XI. Pope Francis appears to be going to the cliff's edge and just barely keeping himself from falling.
Once again, much like the teaching concerning no salvation outside the Church, we see an adoption of obscure wording. This has helped lead people to misinterpret the purposes of marriage by confusing the ends. The concern during the 20th century was that by delineating a primary and secondary end in marriage people would assume the secondary end was not important. Again, like with Francis' claim above, is there any proof that this was indeed a widespread problem? And even if it was, why not take the traditional and explicit formulation and use it alongside the new personalistic wording? Furthermore, traditional teaching always included the mutual love of the spouses as a divine precept, which means it is not optional.
Mr. Russell at Crisis Magazine while admitting personalism was used to try and subvert Catholic teaching, attempts to argue that recent Popes accomplished this synthesis of traditional doctrine and personalistic philosophy:
"That was the theory, at least, and it necessitated putting every possible nail in the coffin of natural law and its associated concept of 'primary end.' But the Holy Spirit apparently had other plans, eventually guiding Pope Paul VI to reaffirm both natural law and the integrity of the ends of marriage even while introducing a thread of genuine personalistic thinking in Humanae Vitae. An authentic development of doctrine was indeed taking place. But it was not the jettisoning of natural law in favor of personalism. Rather, it was the emergence of what many now refer to as the Thomistic personalism of Pope John Paul II—a monumental 'both-and' that beautifully synthesizes the meaning of both 'person' and 'act.'
One could argue that John Paul II tried to do this in Familiaris Consortio, but that is the only place where I could find any hint at a primary end of marriage aside from indirect footnotes. The explicit doctrine may be contained in his other verbose works or mountains of speeches he gave as Pope. It certainly appeared in his book Love and Responsibility, but the precise wording of hierarchal ends of marriage does not fully appear in his Apostolic exhortation, the new Catechism, or the code of canon law. If a serious Catholic read Gaudium et Spes along with Familiaris Consortio, Humanae Vitae, and the new Catechism, there is an extremely high chance of misinterpretation. This is yet another case where the entirety of Church teaching should be utilized and another failure for the post-conciliar Church when trying to express Catholic doctrine for the so-called “modern world.”