"One of the tasks before the Council was to re-examine Church legislation
on mixed marriages and the prescribed form of marriage. Cardinal Dopfner
of Munich called for major changes. . . . The Cardinal Moderator after one
days' debate called upon the Council to renounce its right to treat the
matter any further and instead to transmit it immediately to the Pope for
appropriate action. . . . adopted. . . 1592 to 427.
The desired decree. . . did not appear until after the Council. . . . It
altered the legislation but not substantially as Cardinal Dopfner had
wished, and it was clearly a victory for the English-speaking Bishops. Had
they been as well organized throughout the Council as they were on this
issue, the Second Vatican Council might have taken an altogether different
course.
The doctrinal aspect of marriage was dealt with in the schema on the
Church in the modern world. . . . The Moderator, Cardinal Agagianian
announced on October 28, 1964 that 'some points' had been reserved for the
Pope's special commission on birth control. Those points were, in
particular, the progesterone pill. . . and in general, 'the problem of
birth control.'
On October 29, 1964. . . Cardinal Leger of Montreal said that many
theologians believed that the difficulties regarding the doctrine of
marriage had their origin in an inadequate exposition of the purposes of
marriage. He advocated that fecundity be called a duty pertaining to the
state of matrimony as a whole, rather than to an individual act.
He was pleased that the schema avoided applying the expressions 'primary
purpose' to procreation and 'secondary purpose' to conjugal love. But the
avoidance of words was of little use, he said, if afterwards the schema
did not refer to conjugal love except as related to fecundity. . . . the
marriage act was 'legitimate even when not directed toward procreation.'
Cardinal Suenens also spoke on the first day of debate. . . . That
commission, he said, would have to 'examine whether we have kept in
perfect balance the various aspects of the church's doctrine on marriage.'
Perhaps, he suggested, so much stress had been placed on the words of
Scripture, 'Be fruitful and multiply' that gradually another phrase, which
was also the word of God - 'and the two become one flesh' -had been
disregarded. Each was a central truth, said the Cardinal, and each was
contained in scripture. They should therefore clarify one another.
Pope Paul VI was so distressed by Cardinal Suenens' intervention of
October 29, that he requested the Cardinal to come to see him. Some days
later, on November 7, Cardinal Suenens interrupted the debate on the
schema on the missions to deny publicly that he had questioned authentic
Church teaching on marriage. . . . .
After the third session. . . the schema was so thoroughly revised that it
had to be debated once again. . . . Another revision was prepared. . . .
This new version could be interpreted as leaving it to the spouses to
decide whether or not to use artificial contraceptives. . . provided their
ultimate aim was the fostering of conjugal love.
On November 25, Pope Paul took action and. . . sent four special
amendments on the marriage section to the joint commission. Each
commission member was given a copy, but before hand the "periti" were
asked to leave the room. Tension immediately mounted and Cardinal Leger
sprang to his feet in angry protest. . . . 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.
The first. . . called for the insertion of two words 'artificial
contraceptives' among the 'deformations' detracting from the dignity of
conjugal love. At the same time the Pope called for a precise footnote
reference to 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.
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. . . .
The joint commission adopted this third amendment in substance, but failed
to refer to the statements of Popes Pius XI and XII. . . .
The fourth and final amendment. . . 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 temptation, it was 'altogether necessary that they
sincerely practice conjugal chastity.' This amendment was retained in
substance, but inserted in another part of the text.
