Yep.
What about the good of the spouses??
The Church has always taught the doctrine of procreation as the primary end and the mutual help/remedy of concupiscence (bonum coniugum) as the secondary ends of marriage.
The first voice to change this hierarchy was the 1930 Anglicans at Lambeth when they abandoned prior statements of procreation primary = contraception evil // to make way for legitimizing contraception with a new hierarchy of bonum coniugum as "co-primary." (An oxymoron)
Now that "love was in the air," Pope Pius XII issued a clarification of doctrine via the Holy Office in 1944.
Regarding making a secondary end primary, he said:
After Vatican II remained silent on the hierarchy of ends, Cardinal Staffa, then head of the Apostolic Signatura in 1971, pointed out that granting annulments based on making a secondary end an essential (and therefore primary) one, reached the same conclusion: "this wrong doctrine makes it impossible to establish whether a marriage is valid or not."
It is impossible to define the right to charity.
The 1983 code also remained silent on primary/secondary/hierarchy. Because doctrine does not change, neither can the essence of marriage nor it's hierarchy of ends. What is secondary cannot be essential.
"The primary end of anything is that principal good for which the thing exists; it is the end that first arises from the very nature of the thing and is sufficient to account for the essential perfection of the thing, apart from any other contributing ends.
The secondary end, however, is some added or accessory purpose for which the thing exists. It may proceed from the primary itself; or from the nature of the thing itself, but only for its integral, not its essential perfection. Of itself it is insufficient to account for even the essential perfection which the nature of the thing demands" [p. 32]
"Rotal jurisprudence" cannot change doctrine. An annulment based on contra bonum coniugum is illegal. All the new paradigms, Theology of the Body, Rotal decisions or doctrinal developments in the world cannot move the bonum coniugum from the secondary to the primary column.
Never in the history of Christianity has an annulment been granted on the ground of contra bonum coniugum - until Vatican II. This is because the object of consent had always been defined as the "right over the body for acts." Now it's defined as to "give and accept [the right to] each other." There is no right to the bonum coniugum because there is no right to a secondary end. The legal object of marital consent is in cement. A new and different description does not change the reality of it. Marriage did not suddenly acquire an additional right to the bonum coniugum on December 8, 1965 or on January 25, 1983. This is because the essence (and rights) of marriage are immutable.
"[Procreation] is so primary and predominant that it does not depend on any other intended ends, even ones
indicated by nature, indeed it cannot be made equivalent or confused with them." Vatican II schema
No pope or court can change the essence of marriage or it's hierarchy of ends. Since Vatican II made no binding statements regarding faith and morals, we must defer to all prior teaching regarding them.
I realize that my position runs counter to the status quo praxis. I am offering $10k to any canonist who can refute it. Tell your friends. Henry VIII could have simply used contra bonum coniugum instead of having to fabricate charges of her adultery, incest, and plotting to kill the king in order to make his marriage to Anne Boleyn go away.
Sincerely,
John Farrell
seattlesuit@gmail.com
PS, how long does it take to consummate interpersonal communion - the new Vatican II object of consent?
