Author Topic: denzinger 2232 casti connubii section meaning (Read 3177 times)

PG · « **on:** August 01, 2015, 12:44:45 AM »

Near the end of dz 2232 casti connubii says "this mutual interior formation of husband and wife, this constant zeal for bringing each other to perfection, in a very true sense, as the roman catechism teaches, can be said to be the very first reason and purpose of matrimony; if, however, matrimony be not accepted too narrowly as instituted for the proper procreation and education of children, but more broadly as the mutual participation in all life, companionship, and association."

What exactly is this saying? This is under the section speaking about the blessings of marriage. And, this is under blessing number two, which is the "blessing of faith".

Nadir · « **Reply #1 on:** August 01, 2015, 06:10:16 AM »

Quote from: + PG +

What exactly is this saying? This is under the section speaking about the blessings of marriage. And, this is under blessing number two, which is the "blessing of faith".

PG, I am not familiar with Denzinger. I have searched the Encyclical Casti Conubii http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html and have been unable to find this quote, so I presume it is commentary on the encyclical,which is arranged in 130 paragraphs with no other sections or headings.

Quote

Near the end of dz 2232 casti connubii says "this mutual interior formation of husband and wife, this constant zeal for bringing each other to perfection, in a very true sense, as the roman catechism teaches, can be said to be the very first reason and purpose of matrimony;

This part is saying that Marriage has as its first aim the sanctification of the spouses.

Quote

if, however, matrimony be not accepted too narrowly as instituted for the proper procreation and education of children, but more broadly as the mutual participation in all life, companionship, and association."

This is not a complete sentence, as one would expect after a semi-colon. Is there a typing error?

I realise now that the original would have to be in German and it must be a translation, which might account for the strange wording.

Jaynek · « **Reply #2 on:** August 01, 2015, 09:22:21 AM »

Quote from: Nadir

Quote from: + PG +
What exactly is this saying? This is under the section speaking about the blessings of marriage. And, this is under blessing number two, which is the "blessing of faith".

PG, I am not familiar with Denzinger. I have searched the Encyclical Casti Conubii http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html and have been unable to find this quote, so I presume it is commentary on the encyclical,which is arranged in 130 paragraphs with no other sections or headings.

I found it at the link you gave. It was paragraph 24:

Quote

24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

I came across this other day and I was wondering about it too. How do we reconcile it with the teaching that procreation of children is the primary end of marriage?

PG · « **Reply #3 on:** August 01, 2015, 12:15:06 PM »

Jaynek - that is why I posted this. It sounds as if it is saying that the procreating of children is not the primary end(purpose/reason, whatever word you want to use) of marriage. It proposes the correct formula very clearly in many places. But, then it also says this.

Trads emphasize what is now the reversal of those two ends on paper irregardless of what actually occurs in practice. Because, definitions matter, and we cannot be loose with words. But, this appears to me to be loose.

I could pass this off if it did not have this section - "provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child". The "proper conception and education of the child" is number one. Number two flows from it. But, this is saying that such an outlook is "restricted", as if such outlook is a defect.

Jaynek · « **Reply #4 on:** August 01, 2015, 01:22:59 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

I could pass this off if it did not have this section - "provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child". The "proper conception and education of the child" is number one. Number two flows from it. But, this is saying that such an outlook is "restricted", as if such outlook is a defect.

I do not think that the word "restricted" necessarily implies a defect. It could just mean there are two ways to look at marriage - a broader way and a narrower way. But I am still confused. :confused1:

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 01, 2015, 03:13:08 PM »

Our Lady and St. Joseph were truly married but remained chaste. What this is saying is that their marriage was no less a marriage.

You're failing to distinguish between the ends of marriage vs. the ends of the marital act.

No NFP !

Jaynek · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2015, 04:06:58 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Our Lady and St. Joseph were truly married but remained chaste. What this is saying is that their marriage was no less a marriage.

You're failing to distinguish between the ends of marriage vs. the ends of the marital act.

No NFP !

I am pretty sure that the Church teaches that procreation of children is the primary end of marriage (not simply the marriage act). Isn't that what it is saying earlier in the docuмent?

Quote

11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]

Nadir · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2015, 04:52:34 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek

Quote from: Nadir
Quote from: + PG +
What exactly is this saying? This is under the section speaking about the blessings of marriage. And, this is under blessing number two, which is the "blessing of faith".

PG, I am not familiar with Denzinger. I have searched the Encyclical Casti Conubii http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html and have been unable to find this quote, so I presume it is commentary on the encyclical,which is arranged in 130 paragraphs with no other sections or headings.

I found it at the link you gave. It was paragraph 24:
Quote
24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

I came across this other day and I was wondering about it too. How do we reconcile it with the teaching that procreation of children is the primary end of marriage?

Good find, Jayne, but not exactly what PG quoted, which was actually from Denzinger.
The quote from Casti Conubii which you have quoted is somewhat clearer, but the wording has been changed in Denzinger (for what reason I do not know).

It seems to be saying that the most important thing in this life is for spouses to work to achieve the highest good which, of course, is to get each other to Heaven.

Of course, in most cases if we follow nature and God's Law, we will bear and raise children, also for Heaven, but there are some couples who are not blessed with children. In that case, we can say that, in all cases, whether there are children or not, all Marriages are purposed for the achievement of Heaven

Jaynek · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2015, 05:55:48 PM »

Quote from: Nadir

Good find, Jayne, but not exactly what PG quoted, which was actually from Denzinger.
The quote from Casti Conubii which you have quoted is somewhat clearer, but the wording has been changed in Denzinger (for what reason I do not know).

They are probably different translations from the same Latin original

Jaynek · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2015, 06:16:21 PM »

This is the Latin:

Quote

Haec mutua coniugum interior conformatio, hoc assiduum sese invicem perficiendi studium, verissima quadam ratione, ut docet Catechismus Romanus (29), etiam primaria matrimonii causa et ratio dici potest, si tamen matrimonium non pressius ut institutum ad prolem rite procreandam educandamque, sed latius ut totius vitae communio, consuetudo, societas accipiatur.

clare · « **Reply #10 on:** August 02, 2015, 04:06:47 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek

I am pretty sure that the Church teaches that procreation of children is the primary end of marriage (not simply the marriage act).

The procreation and education of children.

PG · « **Reply #11 on:** August 02, 2015, 03:10:51 PM »

Nadir - I do agree with how you "can" understand it as such. "In light of tradition", it has to be viewed that way. But, the wording in my opinion is not certain. I think the fact that they say "proper" conception and "education" of children is a restricted sense is off. If it omitted those words, then there is no argument.

PG · « **Reply #12 on:** August 02, 2015, 03:19:42 PM »

Ladislaus - I don't think that is a good argument. Despite the fact that I loved reading the lives of early saints who were married yet lived like brother and sister, the church has since taught that marriages are invalid when intent not to have children is present. Correct me if I am wrong. But, that is what I recall. I perceive a contradiction here, being that there were many married virgins and spouses who relations were chaste like brother and sister. But, the popes have spoken and taught this, and therefore such perception is incorrect.

Nadir · « **Reply #13 on:** August 02, 2015, 05:12:08 PM »

Quote from: + PG +

Nadir - I do agree with how you "can" understand it as such. "In light of tradition", it has to be viewed that way. But, the wording in my opinion is not certain. I think the fact that they say "proper" conception and "education" of children is a restricted sense is off. If it omitted those words, then there is no argument.

I wonder too about the use here of the word "proper". The word does not seem to add or subtract any meaning from the word "conception".

What would be improper? Well, nowadays there are ways of conceiving which are downright IMproper, but this was written back in the 1930's. AI perhaps?

But what possible reserve can you have against the word "education"?

SouthpawLink · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2015, 11:08:45 PM »

We had a discussion on this paragraph over five years ago at FishEaters:

http://www.fisheaters.com/forums/index.php?topic=3429332.0;nowap

Perhaps our observations there can be of some help to the current discussion here.