400 years after Luther, Humanae Vitae confirmed the teaching on marriage that he vigorously upheld.Mercator.net has published an article by a Lutheran scholar, Dr Allan Carlson PhD, the founder and president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society (See: Be fruitful and multiply and have 1.7 kids ... and a dog? The article was previously published in the journal Family Policy in June 1999.)
The essay raises some fascinating questions regarding Humanae Vitae. As Dr Carlson rightly points out, one of Luther's complaints about the Catholic Church was its teaching that vowed chastity or celibacy was in principle a superior state to marriage. In response, the 24th session of the Council of Trent, in 1563, duly defined in the canons on the sacrament of matrimony (canon 10) that
If any one says, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.(Remember that this is de fide teaching which we are bound to believe with the assent of faith. If we find it surprising today, it is our job to ponder how to reconcile our thinking with the teaching of the Church, not to adjust the teaching of the Church to our thinking.)
What is especially relevant today is that Luther's reason for opposing celibacy was not simply his outrage at clerical concubinage and the scandal given, but more fundamentally his enthusiastic support for marriage and the family, and particularly for the procreation of children.
Although as Catholics we would hold that Luther's opposition to celibacy and virginity was misguided, it is interesting to note that he agreed entirely with the doctrine that the primary end of marriage is procreation - something denied by the acceptance of contraception in many protestant communities (who would take their stand on the reformation of Luther and Calvin) and indeed by many Catholics who might think it "an ecumenical matter" to deny Humanae Vitae.
In case there is any doubt, consider this quotation from Luther which is included in the article:
How great, therefore, the wickedness of [fallen] human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together… have various ends in mind, but rarely children.(I would be interested to have a source for that quotation - not because I would in any way doubt its authenticity, but because it would be useful to quote it in the future.)
When speaking in friendship to our evangelical protestant brothers and sisters, it would be worthwhile asking why they do not affirm Luther's position on contraception which was essentially the same as that taught in Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.
11 comments:
The Luther is from his commentary on Genesis, which in English can be found in volume 4 of the collected Luther's Works.
The Luther is from his commentary on Genesis, which in English can be found in the collected Luther's Works, volume 4.
The Luther quotation is from his Lectures on Genesis chapters 21-25. (I cannot discover whether the original was in German or Latin.) Details and text snippet here -
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tq5BAQAAIAAJ&q=%22tender+fetuses%22
btw1 - The procreational objective of marriage was also taught by Algazel ("procreation is the prime cause, and on its account marriage was instituted") -
http://ghazali.org/works/marriage.htm
btw2 - A convenient parallel Latin-English text of the canons on the sacrament of matrimony is to be found here -
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.v.i.i.xi.html
and the Latin is also included as exercise material in Scanlon & Scanlon's "Second Latin".
Well, er, yes, Father, but I think I would be happier if your caption referred to Luther (partly) supporting the Catholic Church's teaching on families! (rather than the other way round).
Let us not gloss over Carlson's article citing Luther as saying that 'a woman is not created to be a virgin, but to conceive and bear children." Or that wives, apparently, ought to be continually pregnant, because "that is the purpose for which they exist". Strange: when I read Genesis, it tells me that woman was created as a help to the man who evidently was not happy on his own. (Gen 2:18). I see nothing about being a permanent baby producer.
Luther discounts the value of the celibate life, despite the words of Our Lord (Mat 19:12). It is not surprising then that, although he does not deny the virginity and special sanctity of the Blessed Virgin, he does not believe in her Glorious Assumption into Heaven, body and soul.
Thus begins the drip, drip attack on the Redemption, and on our future bodily resurrection, and here is the incipient protestant failure to grasp our place in God's amazing plan for us.
Canon 10
My reading of this quote is, in layman’s terms, is that marriage is not better virginity or celibacy, and that you can’t say it is.
However the quote does not say that that virginity or celibacy is better than marriage.
Ergo, one must presume they are equal but serve different functions in God’s plan.
Why should we find that surprising? Pretty obvious I would say.
I did a bit of research to try to find the source of the quotation. I came across it (twice) in articles by Allan Carlson, the President of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society in Rockford, Illinois (www.profam.org). His books include Conjugal America: On The Public Purposes of Marriage and The Natural Family: Bulwark of Liberty. He is married and has four children and is a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He is a senior editor for Touchstone.
In one article he says:
Regarding the sin of Onan, as recorded in Genesis and involving the form of contraception now known as “withdrawal,” Luther wrote: “Onan must have been a most malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. . . . Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed.” Onan was “that worthless fellow” who “refused to exercise love.” (Unfortunately he does not give a source for this quotation.)
On this matter, Luther was again joined by Calvin. In his Commentary on Genesis, he wrote that “the voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the [human] race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=20-04-020-f
However, another article does give a source:
In 1540 Martin Luther was lecturing on the book of Genesis, and reached chapter 25 where Abraham marries again after the death of Sarah. Luther proclaimed that ‘the begetting of children is wonderfully pleasing to [God] … He is not hostile to children, as we are.’ Then he added: ‘How great, therefore, the wickedness of human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together in a respectable manner have various ends in mind, but rarely children.’ The God who declares that we are to be fruitful and multiply regards it as a great evil when human beings destroy their offspring.
http://evangelicalsforlife.com/?p=54
This article gives an even more precise source:
Martin Luther (A.D. 1483-1546), commenting on Genesis 25:1-4, wrote: "How great, therefore, the wickedness of human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent concpetion and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God. Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together in a respectable manner have various ends in mind, but rarely children" (Luther's Works).
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/church_history_and_abortion/
Many thanks to all you who took the trouble to give the source for the quotation.
Luther, the same scoundrel who was okay with polygamy? Do we all have to find ways to praise him now that the Holy Father has?
Also, if Luther was so adamant about the primacy of procreation in marriage, then perhaps Humanae Vitae would have been problematic to him, insamuch as it appears to equate the Ends of Marriage.
Looking at the anathema from the council of Trent it is interesting to note that Philip Melanchton in The Defense of the Augsburg Confession writes this in Article XXIII (XI): Of the Marriage of Priests:
"Nevertheless we do not make virginity and marriage equal. For just as one gift surpasses another, as prophecy surpasses eloquence, the science of military affairs surpasses agriculture, and eloquence surpasses architecture, so virginity is a more excellent gift than marriage."
http://bookofconcord.org/defense_22_marriage.php#para38
Re the point about celibacy, it is helpful to remember that Bl John Paul II also reiterated this teaching in Familiaris Consortio 16 with great pastoral sensitivity.
Post a Comment