The matter of "earthly pleasures" (and I think here only about those that are licit) is a crucial one. The fact that the saints unanimously seem to put into brackets (to say the least) even those pleasures that are licit, hides an extremely important teaching regarding TRUE (heavenly) pleasure(s). THIS ought to be carefully meditated - and without getting into troubles because of their skeptical attitude regarding marriage. But - and I strongly emphasize this - without a complete framework regarding the beginning of the mentioned "earthly pleasures" no right answer is possible. So, we must be very cautious!
I agree, topics such as these are difficult and delicate, and they require very careful consideration of possible consequences, especially consequences that are not intended and not easily foreseen. My goal in this article was not to make controversial statements, but I did want to suggest that there may be a sort of "mystical logic" concealed in the medieval attitudes and teachings about marriage. Around the time of the Reformation, attitudes and teachings became more positive, with regard to both marriage and marital pleasures, but this is also the time when marriage—as both a social institution and a sacramental union—began to unravel. The unravelling has continued, and now marriage is in a state of ruination while vocations to the consecrated life have dwindled catastrophically. I think that these various historical and theological relationships, though certainly complex, are worthy of our attention and analysis.
You are absolutely right. And here is the key: "there may be a sort of 'mystical logic' concealed in the medieval attitudes and teachings about marriage." I am eagerly waiting the next article. Congratulations for your excellent essays!
I found it (few minutes ago)! Here is a key fragment about the beginning of earthly pleasures from Saint Maximus the Confessor (an extraordinary Master - in my opinion, the best of the best - of the sacred art of Hermeneutics): "When God the Logos created human nature He did not make the senses susceptible either to pleasure or to pain; instead, He implanted in it a certain noetic capacity through which men could enjoy Him in an inexpressible way. By this capacity I mean the intellect's natural longing for God. (note: this is pleasure according to nature) But on his creation the first man, through an initial movement towards sensible objects, transferred this longing to his senses, and through them began to experience pleasure in a way which is contrary to nature. Whereupon God in His providential care for our salvation implanted pain in us as a kind of chastising force; and so through pain the law of death was wisely rooted in the body, thus setting limits to the intellect's manic longing, directed, in a manner contrary to nature, towards sensible objects."
This is a truly fascinating quotation, thank you for finding and sharing it! He seems to imply that the transference of desire from God to sensible objects was a sort of imperfection (rather than positive sin) and occurred 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 the definitive fall that accompanied original sin. Is that your interpretation?
I'm fascinated by the idea of the harsh words as a bitter medicine and a necessary imbalance to promote balance.
I love your closing image of the transmutation of silver to gold and the beautiful verses from the psalm about the dove's wings covered in silver and gold.
I've really enjoyed this series, but if you'll forgive me for sharing some "eclesiastically incorrect" observations which I think really tie into the topic in favor of marriage, here goes!
St. Paul specifies in context (1) that there is no commandment of God on the matter of choosing virginity over marriage, (2) that it is a counsel he personally proposes, (3) that it is according to the present necessity, and (4) that it is because of sin and scandal. These are all qualifications that present this teaching as being a matter of God's contingent (historical) will rather than God's absolute will (N.B. Session 24, Canon 10 of the Council of Trent does admit to and reconcile with this interpration). Even Christ, in Matthew 19, chastises people for forgetting that "God made them male and female" and that marriage is thus divine in its origin, pursuit, and fulfillment, while subsequently - and very strikingly when you think about it - refers to the religious life as those "who have made themselves so," which, perhaps not coincidentally, ties into his previous discourse on plucking out/cutting off members of your own body if such are a scandal to you.
I think it is also fascinating to note that the New Adam and Eve were not the only miraculously virginal, biological parent and child in history: the Old Adam and Eve were too. More to the point, (1) God put His formal stamp of approval on the beginning of human history with the marriage of a miraculous virgin and child, (2) Christ never called Mary "Mother" in the gospels, only "Woman", the title Adam gave his wife, and (3) the Book of Revelation closes with another marriage between the New Adam and the "Holy City of God/Heavenly Jerusalem", titles which could come straight out of the Litany of Our Lady.
Finally, It is fascinating to me that sexual (marital) unity itself, wherein a man and woman are no longer just flesh of eachother's flesh and bone of eachother's bone, but also blood of eachothers' blood, is the only faculty of human nature capable of activating and engaging all other faculties... and it is also the only relationship in creation wherein multiple persons are conjoined by a common essence, which itself is the very reality of the Blessed Trinity, from which in both cases, others can be generated unto the former's own image and likeness. It lends some weight to the fact that not only does St. Paul confess in Ephesian's 5 (which he wrote 5-6 years after 1 Cor.) that marriage is a great sacrament, such is actually the only time in Sacred Scripture that a sacrament is even called a sacrament!
Thank you for this insightful comment, Anthony, which gives yet more evidence of how complex this issue is, and of how careful we must be to consider the full testimony of Scripture when seeking to more fully understand marriage and sexuality.
Further thoughts on the 'inbalance' of Church teaching about marriage. I may have misunderstood the point you were making, but I see it - within a very broad compass - like this:
At the same time that pagan Rome was living as licentiously as pagan societies always do, Christ was preaching the Good News of salvation and redemption. His first recorded miracle took place at the marriage feast of Cana: a human moment of potential social disaster and Christ's lavishly prodigal response in turning the water jars into wine. That is the 'image' of marriage I try to hold on to.
Then came St Paul, bringing his own formidable perspective and temperament to bear on the subject - which is not, I have to say, very 'Cana-friendly'.
After him came Saint Augustine who, like St Paul thought more about the temptation to lust rather than the yearning to love, and St Ambrose, who preached so eloquently on the greatness of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom that, it is said, droves of young Roman maidens flocked to nunneries. Not very 'Cana-friendly' either.
Centuries passed; lay folk married and begot children; St Thomas Aquinas approved of marriage (but appears to be a lone voice among the saints of his age?); we read the magnificent rollcall of the great priestly and religious saints - and marriage goes on generally being seen as a remedy for lust rather than as a Sacrament in its own right.
Then comes the modern age: the age of material prosperity, the Pill, the slow collapse of Christianity in the West, feminism, serial monogamy, the commercialisation of surrogacy, insemination by donor, test tube babies and all the other reproductive biotechnical 'advances.' There have also been the papal encyclicals - Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio and so on: wonderful teaching on the theology of married love - but teaching that seems, after Vatican II, to have quite bypassed the ordinary Catholics in the pew, married or otherwise. John Paul II tried to explain the positive aspects of married love in his catechesis, such as the Theology of the Body (which I haven't read) and in his book Love and Responsibility (which I also haven't read.)
Meanwhile, as you infer in your essay, marriage today is a disaster zone. Catholic couples contracept and divorce like their secular counterparts. Living together before marriage is seen as normal for Catholics, as are IVF methods to conceive. Parish priests (I live in the UK) generally do not mention these things, within homilies or otherwise. We have few vocations to the priesthood and, with rare exceptions, a generation of elderly, celibate, conscientious priests, trained for an earlier age, who are fearful of raising the question of sex and all subjects relating to it.
What lay Catholics need is strong, clear and joyful catechesis about the goodness, truth and beauty of marriage as willed by God: about lifelong fidelity, about the heroism of married life, about openness to life, about the excellent reasons for chastity both before and outside marriage and about marital chastity within it. Instead we have silence within the Church on this crucial subject and complete dismissal of Christian marriage by everyone else.
This is an unhappy situation. What is to be done about it?
I seem to have strayed from the medieval view of this subject, perhaps to be characterised as Richard Rolle on the one hand and Chaucer's Wife of Bath on the other?
Again, excellent thoughts. I agree that there seems to be some degree of dissonance between the marital attitudes of the early/medieval Church and those of the Gospel narratives. I hope that this series has thrown some light on this subject in a way that can help us modern folks to do what good we can for Christian marriage, but as you demonstrated, the situation is rather dire, and furthermore, even the testimony of past ages is complex and provides no easy answers.
Your essay is stimulating as always. And again, I appear to be contentious, as in my comment on your last essay. I have very great regard for St Paul. In some ways I see him as my spiritual 'mentor'. And he is undoubtedly the Apostle to the Gentiles, etc. But I am in serious disagreement with the quotations from 1 Corinthians that you include in your essay.
I repeat - as in my long earlier comment on marriage - that God wills marriage as a holy estate for most people. Suppose He had willed religious life for most people and married life for only the few? How seriously weird would that have been! God created man and woman (as President Trump has reminded the world at a timely moment); He desired them to go forth and multiply; He invented sexual union for this purpose; and He intended the marital act to be both pleasurable and the means to holiness for most people.
St Paul - speaking for himself rather than for God - appears to think of marriage in a wholly negative way in these quotes: a remedy for lust if you lack the necessary and preferable self-control, and a serious distraction for spouses from the real purpose of life which is prayer. He seems to think of spousal life in Jane Austen mode: as about flirtation, balls, gossip and trinkets, even though it is safe to say he never read Jane Austen.
I think of The Songs of Songs, or Richard Rolle, as in your example. We are invited to see union with the divine and the union between Christ and His Church in terms of erotic human imagery in the Song of Songs. This is as it should be. How can we conceive of love except in the terms and the language that we know as humans?
And the Catholic Church regards marriage - holy matrimony - as a Sacrament: an outward sign of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, as the old Penny Catechism explains it.
Again, I think of great saints who were married couples (there are not enough of them, simply because nuns and monks had the necessary time and leisure to promote the cult of their holy founder and so on.) I think of the parents of St Therese of Lisieux, Saints Louis and Zelie Martin. They lived in loving marital continence for several months after their marriage, until advised by their confessor that God wanted them to have children. Then they had nine children, of whom five survived, and who all entered religious life. I have no doubt that this exemplary, modest, provincial French couple loved each other deeply - and loved God deeply at the same time. I do not think there would have been a tension or conflict between these two loves. To love each other was not a distraction from God and to love God was not a distraction from their marital union. St Therese herself wrote in her Autobiography that her parents were 'more suited to heaven than to earth' (or similar words.) What would St Paul have made of this couple?
I also think of a recently beatified couple: Blessed Wiktoria and Josef Ulma of Poland, murdered by the Nazis during the War, along with their seven very young children (the youngest not yet born) for the crime of hiding Jews. The penalty for this in Poland was instant death. We do not know much about their lives, except that they were a hardworking, farming couple who loved each other (there is a photo in the Catholic Truth Society booklet in which I read about them, of Wiktoria sitting affectionately on Josef's lap), welcomed and loved the children God gave them through their conjugal union, and loved their Jewish neighbours. What would St Paul have said of the Ulmas?
I would like to comment on your mention of 'inbalance' in Church teaching about this subject (as much as I can understand what you are saying!), but I think I should do this in a separate comment, as this is rather long as it is.
Thank you for taking the time to share these thoughts, which are well argued and expressed in wonderfully clear language. To respond to each point would require a bit more time than I have available at the moment, but I will mention the Song of Songs, which you rightly introduced into this discussion, which is just as much a part of the Bible as First Corinthians, and which does seem to offer a counterpoint to the more negative attitudes conveyed by St. Paul.
Thank you for this post! After article #2, I was throwing a lot of ideas around in my mind; this article - the idea of "bitter medicine" - helps me reconcile some of the conflicting ideas. To reiterate some thoughts in simpler words (more for my own sake than anyone else's), some of the prevalent mediaeval views on marriage may have been overly harsh, but that same harshness may well be the "bitter medicine" our current world needs.
The "bitter medicine" is indeed much needed. I've been in RCIA and Catholic marriage classes that very emphatically teach that it is sin to have more children than your means allows; notably, and expectedly, they are not advocating for a restraint from sexual pleasure during the times the couple has decided not to have more children, nor a more balanced approach such as NFP. Even in the case of many devout Catholic couples with large families, there seems be a comfortable acceptance of the idea that sexual pleasure and childbirth are two separate (and only loosely related) aspects of marriage that are more or less equally important. While we may avoid the extremes expressed by some of the ancient saints, perhaps it would be right to say that sexual pleasure (within marriage) is inferior to childbirth; not in a sense of "bad" vs "good", but again like "silver" vs "gold". When sexual pleasure is separated from childbirth (in a way that is morally permissible), it still is good, but is lacking its most desirable end (childbirth), and thus inferior.
Some additional thoughts; recently, I've got to know several Eastern Catholic priests, some married, some celibate. Of the ones who are married, none have touted that as a preferred state. Each one had the intention of becoming a celibate priest, but was drawn away from that at some point by desire for the specific woman that became his wife. While none disparage their wife, children, or family life, all indirectly seem to acknowledge a superiority and greater desirability of celibacy - again something like "silver" vs "gold." (This contrasts starkly to those who wish to end mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, many of whom present it as a superior option which would "fix the problems" they deem to have been caused by celibacy.)
These are excellent and well-articulated thoughts, Jacob, thank you for sharing them. You and I are very much on the same wavelength here, and what you're saying about sexual pleasure vs. childbirth fits right in with the ideas that I'm raising in this post. (I'm well acquainted with the "NFP culture," so to speak, and I also have concerns about the exaggerations that sometimes accompany it.) Your formulation of the issue—"When sexual pleasure is separated from childbirth (in a way that is morally permissible), it still is good, but is lacking its most desirable end (childbirth), and thus inferior"—represents what I consider an eminently reasonable position that does not diverge overmuch from the medieval view and that would help to restore balance in the modern view.
Does it seem reasonable to suggest that marital union during, say pregnancy, or after menopause, is somehow inferior to such union when it may produce children? Does the union produce more sacramental grace in the latter case? As noted previously, the "matter" of the sacrament of matrimony is intercourse (the "form" is found in the vows). Without the matter there is no grace ... but can you say without the prospect of the act producing children there is no grace? or less grace? I don't find either position to be logical. How else can one measure superiority in the case of a sacrament than by whether it produces or does not produce grace? And just to put a fine point on it, if both produce grace, neither is inferior.
Could you indicate your source for the idea that intercourse is the matter of the sacrament of matrimony? I haven't seen the theology expressed in quite that way. A more common explanation, as far as I know, is that the form is the exchange of vows and the matter is the spouses themselves (i.e., two people who are able to validly exchange vows and do so with the proper intention). The matter may include sexual consummation, but that is a one-time sexual act that seals and manifests the union established by the exchange of vows. And actually, the Code of Canon Law still specifies that a marriage can be valid without physical consummation (Can. 1061 §1); such a marriage can be dissolved by the pope, whereas a consummated marriage can be dissolved only by death (Can. 1141–1142). (I'm not trying to sound hostile—I'm not a theologian and have no vested interest in these theological details. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
A somewhat different view is simply that the matter and the form are the same, and both consist in the mutual consent of the spouses. For example:
"The matter and the form of the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be found elsewhere than in the mutual consent of the contracting parties. For, inasmuch as the contract and the Sacrament are identical, the essential constituent elements of the contract must form likewise the essence of the Sacrament. And what makes both the contract and the Sacrament is the lawfully manifested consent of the parties who are capable of entering marriage."
"Although several different opinions were proposed in past centuries, it is universally held by theologians today that the consent of the parties is the matter of the Sacrament.... The consent is the form of the Sacrament, insofar as for each person it expresses the acceptance of the offer made by the other" (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6139).
In any case, I do think it is reasonable to differentiate between sexual acts that are likely to produce children (according to biological processes as we know them) and those that are not likely to do so. The former seem to me more of a supernatural good, being more closely linked to the ends of matrimony as a sacrament and to the creative and redemptive work of God. The latter seem to me more of a natural good, being sources of legitimate pleasure between spouses and a means of protecting against sexual sin while strengthening the affection and friendship that are proper to the marital bond.
I cannot remember where I read that the matter of the sacrament of matrimony is the intercourse between the spouses. I looked on the web and asked Ai and found nothing to support that position (that method of research is, of course, very limited). But I know I didn't make it up, and I only read or listen to traditional commentary on these matters (which is why I subscribed to your substack). And, I will add, I think it is a good position to take, for a variety of reasons. However, it must be inadequate at least in some degree because Our Lady and St. Joseph had a valid marriage without it. So I'll leave the comment here in case I or someone else later finds some support for the position -- or the opposite.
The matter of "earthly pleasures" (and I think here only about those that are licit) is a crucial one. The fact that the saints unanimously seem to put into brackets (to say the least) even those pleasures that are licit, hides an extremely important teaching regarding TRUE (heavenly) pleasure(s). THIS ought to be carefully meditated - and without getting into troubles because of their skeptical attitude regarding marriage. But - and I strongly emphasize this - without a complete framework regarding the beginning of the mentioned "earthly pleasures" no right answer is possible. So, we must be very cautious!
I agree, topics such as these are difficult and delicate, and they require very careful consideration of possible consequences, especially consequences that are not intended and not easily foreseen. My goal in this article was not to make controversial statements, but I did want to suggest that there may be a sort of "mystical logic" concealed in the medieval attitudes and teachings about marriage. Around the time of the Reformation, attitudes and teachings became more positive, with regard to both marriage and marital pleasures, but this is also the time when marriage—as both a social institution and a sacramental union—began to unravel. The unravelling has continued, and now marriage is in a state of ruination while vocations to the consecrated life have dwindled catastrophically. I think that these various historical and theological relationships, though certainly complex, are worthy of our attention and analysis.
You are absolutely right. And here is the key: "there may be a sort of 'mystical logic' concealed in the medieval attitudes and teachings about marriage." I am eagerly waiting the next article. Congratulations for your excellent essays!
I found it (few minutes ago)! Here is a key fragment about the beginning of earthly pleasures from Saint Maximus the Confessor (an extraordinary Master - in my opinion, the best of the best - of the sacred art of Hermeneutics): "When God the Logos created human nature He did not make the senses susceptible either to pleasure or to pain; instead, He implanted in it a certain noetic capacity through which men could enjoy Him in an inexpressible way. By this capacity I mean the intellect's natural longing for God. (note: this is pleasure according to nature) But on his creation the first man, through an initial movement towards sensible objects, transferred this longing to his senses, and through them began to experience pleasure in a way which is contrary to nature. Whereupon God in His providential care for our salvation implanted pain in us as a kind of chastising force; and so through pain the law of death was wisely rooted in the body, thus setting limits to the intellect's manic longing, directed, in a manner contrary to nature, towards sensible objects."
This is a truly fascinating quotation, thank you for finding and sharing it! He seems to imply that the transference of desire from God to sensible objects was a sort of imperfection (rather than positive sin) and occurred 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 the definitive fall that accompanied original sin. Is that your interpretation?
I'm fascinated by the idea of the harsh words as a bitter medicine and a necessary imbalance to promote balance.
I love your closing image of the transmutation of silver to gold and the beautiful verses from the psalm about the dove's wings covered in silver and gold.
Thank you for taking the time to leave this lovely comment, Melanie, it brightened my day!
Some shimmering thoughts to ponder. That last image you present of the dove and her wings! Beautiful!
Thank you, Mary! I'm glad you enjoyed the article.
I've really enjoyed this series, but if you'll forgive me for sharing some "eclesiastically incorrect" observations which I think really tie into the topic in favor of marriage, here goes!
St. Paul specifies in context (1) that there is no commandment of God on the matter of choosing virginity over marriage, (2) that it is a counsel he personally proposes, (3) that it is according to the present necessity, and (4) that it is because of sin and scandal. These are all qualifications that present this teaching as being a matter of God's contingent (historical) will rather than God's absolute will (N.B. Session 24, Canon 10 of the Council of Trent does admit to and reconcile with this interpration). Even Christ, in Matthew 19, chastises people for forgetting that "God made them male and female" and that marriage is thus divine in its origin, pursuit, and fulfillment, while subsequently - and very strikingly when you think about it - refers to the religious life as those "who have made themselves so," which, perhaps not coincidentally, ties into his previous discourse on plucking out/cutting off members of your own body if such are a scandal to you.
I think it is also fascinating to note that the New Adam and Eve were not the only miraculously virginal, biological parent and child in history: the Old Adam and Eve were too. More to the point, (1) God put His formal stamp of approval on the beginning of human history with the marriage of a miraculous virgin and child, (2) Christ never called Mary "Mother" in the gospels, only "Woman", the title Adam gave his wife, and (3) the Book of Revelation closes with another marriage between the New Adam and the "Holy City of God/Heavenly Jerusalem", titles which could come straight out of the Litany of Our Lady.
Finally, It is fascinating to me that sexual (marital) unity itself, wherein a man and woman are no longer just flesh of eachother's flesh and bone of eachother's bone, but also blood of eachothers' blood, is the only faculty of human nature capable of activating and engaging all other faculties... and it is also the only relationship in creation wherein multiple persons are conjoined by a common essence, which itself is the very reality of the Blessed Trinity, from which in both cases, others can be generated unto the former's own image and likeness. It lends some weight to the fact that not only does St. Paul confess in Ephesian's 5 (which he wrote 5-6 years after 1 Cor.) that marriage is a great sacrament, such is actually the only time in Sacred Scripture that a sacrament is even called a sacrament!
...For what my two cents are worth.
Thank you for this insightful comment, Anthony, which gives yet more evidence of how complex this issue is, and of how careful we must be to consider the full testimony of Scripture when seeking to more fully understand marriage and sexuality.
Further thoughts on the 'inbalance' of Church teaching about marriage. I may have misunderstood the point you were making, but I see it - within a very broad compass - like this:
At the same time that pagan Rome was living as licentiously as pagan societies always do, Christ was preaching the Good News of salvation and redemption. His first recorded miracle took place at the marriage feast of Cana: a human moment of potential social disaster and Christ's lavishly prodigal response in turning the water jars into wine. That is the 'image' of marriage I try to hold on to.
Then came St Paul, bringing his own formidable perspective and temperament to bear on the subject - which is not, I have to say, very 'Cana-friendly'.
After him came Saint Augustine who, like St Paul thought more about the temptation to lust rather than the yearning to love, and St Ambrose, who preached so eloquently on the greatness of virginity for the sake of the Kingdom that, it is said, droves of young Roman maidens flocked to nunneries. Not very 'Cana-friendly' either.
Centuries passed; lay folk married and begot children; St Thomas Aquinas approved of marriage (but appears to be a lone voice among the saints of his age?); we read the magnificent rollcall of the great priestly and religious saints - and marriage goes on generally being seen as a remedy for lust rather than as a Sacrament in its own right.
Then comes the modern age: the age of material prosperity, the Pill, the slow collapse of Christianity in the West, feminism, serial monogamy, the commercialisation of surrogacy, insemination by donor, test tube babies and all the other reproductive biotechnical 'advances.' There have also been the papal encyclicals - Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio and so on: wonderful teaching on the theology of married love - but teaching that seems, after Vatican II, to have quite bypassed the ordinary Catholics in the pew, married or otherwise. John Paul II tried to explain the positive aspects of married love in his catechesis, such as the Theology of the Body (which I haven't read) and in his book Love and Responsibility (which I also haven't read.)
Meanwhile, as you infer in your essay, marriage today is a disaster zone. Catholic couples contracept and divorce like their secular counterparts. Living together before marriage is seen as normal for Catholics, as are IVF methods to conceive. Parish priests (I live in the UK) generally do not mention these things, within homilies or otherwise. We have few vocations to the priesthood and, with rare exceptions, a generation of elderly, celibate, conscientious priests, trained for an earlier age, who are fearful of raising the question of sex and all subjects relating to it.
What lay Catholics need is strong, clear and joyful catechesis about the goodness, truth and beauty of marriage as willed by God: about lifelong fidelity, about the heroism of married life, about openness to life, about the excellent reasons for chastity both before and outside marriage and about marital chastity within it. Instead we have silence within the Church on this crucial subject and complete dismissal of Christian marriage by everyone else.
This is an unhappy situation. What is to be done about it?
I seem to have strayed from the medieval view of this subject, perhaps to be characterised as Richard Rolle on the one hand and Chaucer's Wife of Bath on the other?
Again, excellent thoughts. I agree that there seems to be some degree of dissonance between the marital attitudes of the early/medieval Church and those of the Gospel narratives. I hope that this series has thrown some light on this subject in a way that can help us modern folks to do what good we can for Christian marriage, but as you demonstrated, the situation is rather dire, and furthermore, even the testimony of past ages is complex and provides no easy answers.
Your essay is stimulating as always. And again, I appear to be contentious, as in my comment on your last essay. I have very great regard for St Paul. In some ways I see him as my spiritual 'mentor'. And he is undoubtedly the Apostle to the Gentiles, etc. But I am in serious disagreement with the quotations from 1 Corinthians that you include in your essay.
I repeat - as in my long earlier comment on marriage - that God wills marriage as a holy estate for most people. Suppose He had willed religious life for most people and married life for only the few? How seriously weird would that have been! God created man and woman (as President Trump has reminded the world at a timely moment); He desired them to go forth and multiply; He invented sexual union for this purpose; and He intended the marital act to be both pleasurable and the means to holiness for most people.
St Paul - speaking for himself rather than for God - appears to think of marriage in a wholly negative way in these quotes: a remedy for lust if you lack the necessary and preferable self-control, and a serious distraction for spouses from the real purpose of life which is prayer. He seems to think of spousal life in Jane Austen mode: as about flirtation, balls, gossip and trinkets, even though it is safe to say he never read Jane Austen.
I think of The Songs of Songs, or Richard Rolle, as in your example. We are invited to see union with the divine and the union between Christ and His Church in terms of erotic human imagery in the Song of Songs. This is as it should be. How can we conceive of love except in the terms and the language that we know as humans?
And the Catholic Church regards marriage - holy matrimony - as a Sacrament: an outward sign of inward grace, ordained by Jesus Christ, as the old Penny Catechism explains it.
Again, I think of great saints who were married couples (there are not enough of them, simply because nuns and monks had the necessary time and leisure to promote the cult of their holy founder and so on.) I think of the parents of St Therese of Lisieux, Saints Louis and Zelie Martin. They lived in loving marital continence for several months after their marriage, until advised by their confessor that God wanted them to have children. Then they had nine children, of whom five survived, and who all entered religious life. I have no doubt that this exemplary, modest, provincial French couple loved each other deeply - and loved God deeply at the same time. I do not think there would have been a tension or conflict between these two loves. To love each other was not a distraction from God and to love God was not a distraction from their marital union. St Therese herself wrote in her Autobiography that her parents were 'more suited to heaven than to earth' (or similar words.) What would St Paul have made of this couple?
I also think of a recently beatified couple: Blessed Wiktoria and Josef Ulma of Poland, murdered by the Nazis during the War, along with their seven very young children (the youngest not yet born) for the crime of hiding Jews. The penalty for this in Poland was instant death. We do not know much about their lives, except that they were a hardworking, farming couple who loved each other (there is a photo in the Catholic Truth Society booklet in which I read about them, of Wiktoria sitting affectionately on Josef's lap), welcomed and loved the children God gave them through their conjugal union, and loved their Jewish neighbours. What would St Paul have said of the Ulmas?
I would like to comment on your mention of 'inbalance' in Church teaching about this subject (as much as I can understand what you are saying!), but I think I should do this in a separate comment, as this is rather long as it is.
Thank you for taking the time to share these thoughts, which are well argued and expressed in wonderfully clear language. To respond to each point would require a bit more time than I have available at the moment, but I will mention the Song of Songs, which you rightly introduced into this discussion, which is just as much a part of the Bible as First Corinthians, and which does seem to offer a counterpoint to the more negative attitudes conveyed by St. Paul.
Thank you for this post! After article #2, I was throwing a lot of ideas around in my mind; this article - the idea of "bitter medicine" - helps me reconcile some of the conflicting ideas. To reiterate some thoughts in simpler words (more for my own sake than anyone else's), some of the prevalent mediaeval views on marriage may have been overly harsh, but that same harshness may well be the "bitter medicine" our current world needs.
The "bitter medicine" is indeed much needed. I've been in RCIA and Catholic marriage classes that very emphatically teach that it is sin to have more children than your means allows; notably, and expectedly, they are not advocating for a restraint from sexual pleasure during the times the couple has decided not to have more children, nor a more balanced approach such as NFP. Even in the case of many devout Catholic couples with large families, there seems be a comfortable acceptance of the idea that sexual pleasure and childbirth are two separate (and only loosely related) aspects of marriage that are more or less equally important. While we may avoid the extremes expressed by some of the ancient saints, perhaps it would be right to say that sexual pleasure (within marriage) is inferior to childbirth; not in a sense of "bad" vs "good", but again like "silver" vs "gold". When sexual pleasure is separated from childbirth (in a way that is morally permissible), it still is good, but is lacking its most desirable end (childbirth), and thus inferior.
Some additional thoughts; recently, I've got to know several Eastern Catholic priests, some married, some celibate. Of the ones who are married, none have touted that as a preferred state. Each one had the intention of becoming a celibate priest, but was drawn away from that at some point by desire for the specific woman that became his wife. While none disparage their wife, children, or family life, all indirectly seem to acknowledge a superiority and greater desirability of celibacy - again something like "silver" vs "gold." (This contrasts starkly to those who wish to end mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, many of whom present it as a superior option which would "fix the problems" they deem to have been caused by celibacy.)
These are excellent and well-articulated thoughts, Jacob, thank you for sharing them. You and I are very much on the same wavelength here, and what you're saying about sexual pleasure vs. childbirth fits right in with the ideas that I'm raising in this post. (I'm well acquainted with the "NFP culture," so to speak, and I also have concerns about the exaggerations that sometimes accompany it.) Your formulation of the issue—"When sexual pleasure is separated from childbirth (in a way that is morally permissible), it still is good, but is lacking its most desirable end (childbirth), and thus inferior"—represents what I consider an eminently reasonable position that does not diverge overmuch from the medieval view and that would help to restore balance in the modern view.
Does it seem reasonable to suggest that marital union during, say pregnancy, or after menopause, is somehow inferior to such union when it may produce children? Does the union produce more sacramental grace in the latter case? As noted previously, the "matter" of the sacrament of matrimony is intercourse (the "form" is found in the vows). Without the matter there is no grace ... but can you say without the prospect of the act producing children there is no grace? or less grace? I don't find either position to be logical. How else can one measure superiority in the case of a sacrament than by whether it produces or does not produce grace? And just to put a fine point on it, if both produce grace, neither is inferior.
Could you indicate your source for the idea that intercourse is the matter of the sacrament of matrimony? I haven't seen the theology expressed in quite that way. A more common explanation, as far as I know, is that the form is the exchange of vows and the matter is the spouses themselves (i.e., two people who are able to validly exchange vows and do so with the proper intention). The matter may include sexual consummation, but that is a one-time sexual act that seals and manifests the union established by the exchange of vows. And actually, the Code of Canon Law still specifies that a marriage can be valid without physical consummation (Can. 1061 §1); such a marriage can be dissolved by the pope, whereas a consummated marriage can be dissolved only by death (Can. 1141–1142). (I'm not trying to sound hostile—I'm not a theologian and have no vested interest in these theological details. I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.)
A somewhat different view is simply that the matter and the form are the same, and both consist in the mutual consent of the spouses. For example:
"The matter and the form of the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be found elsewhere than in the mutual consent of the contracting parties. For, inasmuch as the contract and the Sacrament are identical, the essential constituent elements of the contract must form likewise the essence of the Sacrament. And what makes both the contract and the Sacrament is the lawfully manifested consent of the parties who are capable of entering marriage."
"Although several different opinions were proposed in past centuries, it is universally held by theologians today that the consent of the parties is the matter of the Sacrament.... The consent is the form of the Sacrament, insofar as for each person it expresses the acceptance of the offer made by the other" (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6139).
In any case, I do think it is reasonable to differentiate between sexual acts that are likely to produce children (according to biological processes as we know them) and those that are not likely to do so. The former seem to me more of a supernatural good, being more closely linked to the ends of matrimony as a sacrament and to the creative and redemptive work of God. The latter seem to me more of a natural good, being sources of legitimate pleasure between spouses and a means of protecting against sexual sin while strengthening the affection and friendship that are proper to the marital bond.
I cannot remember where I read that the matter of the sacrament of matrimony is the intercourse between the spouses. I looked on the web and asked Ai and found nothing to support that position (that method of research is, of course, very limited). But I know I didn't make it up, and I only read or listen to traditional commentary on these matters (which is why I subscribed to your substack). And, I will add, I think it is a good position to take, for a variety of reasons. However, it must be inadequate at least in some degree because Our Lady and St. Joseph had a valid marriage without it. So I'll leave the comment here in case I or someone else later finds some support for the position -- or the opposite.