Marriage, as instituted by God, serves the fundamental purpose of creating a family. While companionship and mutual support are valuable aspects of marriage, they remain secondary to its primary end: the procreation and raising of children. This perspective diverges significantly from the prevailing Western view, which prioritizes romantic companionship as the foundation of marriage. 

Crisis of Finality in the Doctrine of Marriage

The contemporary theological landscape, across both Evangelical and Catholic communities, is marked by a profound crisis concerning the nature and purpose of marriage. A novel proposition has gained significant currency: the assertion that the primary telos, or ultimate purpose, of matrimony is to serve as a living symbol of the union between Christ and the Church. This view, often presented as a deeper, more spiritual understanding of the marital bond, represents not a legitimate development of doctrine but a fundamental rupture with the historic Christian consensus.[i] It seeks to replace the objective, natural end for which marriage was instituted by God at Creation with a symbolic function that, while true and beautiful, does not define the essence of the institution itself.

This book will demonstrate that the primary end (finis primarius) of marriage, as instituted by God in the natural law and confirmed by divine revelation, is unequivocally the procreation and education of children (proles). 

The secondary ends of marriage—namely the mutual aid of the spouses (mutuum adiutorium) and the remedy for concupiscence (remedium concupiscentiae)—are legitimate and good only insofar as they are properly subordinated to this primary end. The argument will proceed in three parts. First, it will establish the positive, traditional doctrine rooted in Scripture and nature as the immutable standard. Second, it will provide a correct exegesis of the Pauline analogy in Ephesians 5, showing that it is a moral exhortation for spousal conduct, not a redefinition of marriage's telos. Third, it will trace the origins of the modern error to the rise of subjectivist philosophies that have led to a systematic inversion of the divinely established order of marital ends.

The Historic Doctrine on The Ends of Marriage

To properly assess modern deviations, one must first be grounded in the constant and unchanging doctrine of the Christian tradition regarding the purpose of matrimony. This doctrine is not a matter of theological opinion but is rooted in the very nature of the institution as established by God at creation. It posits a clear and necessary hierarchy of ends that defines what marriage is.

The Divinely Instituted Hierarchy of Ends

The primary end, the finis primarius, is the procreation and subsequent education of children. This is the defining purpose for which the institution of marriage exists. It is not merely a biological function but a profound cooperation with the Creator in bringing new souls into existence and, crucially, forming them for their ultimate purpose: to participate in the embodied Covenantal Partnership, imaging God by serving as His representatives to fulfill the ongoing creation mandate. This primacy is established by God's first command to mankind: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28). 

St. Augustine affirms this plainly, stating that the natural and fundamental reason for marriage is for the sake of generation.[ii] This understanding formed the consensus of virtually all Christian theology until the 20th century.[iii]

The secondary ends (fines secundarii) are the mutual aid of the spouses and the remedy for concupiscence (disordered sexual desire). These are true and legitimate goods of marriage, but they are ontologically subordinate to the primary end. Mutual aid refers to the lifelong partnership and support the spouses render to one another, while the remedy (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2-5) provides a licit channel for the sexual appetite, ordering it toward its proper end within the marital bond. Their goodness and licitness, however, depend on their correct ordering to the primary end.

This hierarchy is not an arbitrary ranking but an ontological statement. The primary end defines the essence of the institution, while the secondary ends describe goods that are realized within that procreative institution. To demote or invert this hierarchy is to change the very definition of marriage.

The Historic Consensus and the Logic of the Marital Act

The strength of this traditional doctrine is evidenced by its universal acceptance until the modern era. A pivotal moment arrived in 1930 when the Anglican Communion, at the Lambeth Conference, became the first Christian body to formally approve the use of contraception.[iv] This decision marked the beginning of a seismic shift away from the traditional hierarchy of ends across the Christian world.

The traditional view emphasizes that the purpose of marriage transcends the mere propagation of the human race; its ultimate goal is to raise up imagers of God who will fulfill the creation mandate—subduing, ruling, and cultivating the physical world by bringing order from disorder. The marital act is a cooperation with God to populate the earth with representatives who will direct creation toward its natural flourishing (e.g., building families, communities, businesses, and institutions), a mission that culminates when Jesus returns at the resurrection on a renewed earth.

Furthermore, the traditional doctrine stresses that the good of offspring is a single, integrated good comprising both generation and education. The blessing of offspring is not completed by mere begetting, but requires the proper education of the children. The indissoluble, covenantal bond of marriage is presented as the divinely ordained and necessary context for this long and arduous task, ensuring the stable presence and mutual help of both parents.

The second reason is stronger.  Even after the children have reached maturity and virtue, they still need the help of their parents to establish their own new families.  “Hence it is of natural law,” says St. Thomas, “that parents should lay up for their children, and that children should be their parents’ heirs.  Therefore, since the offspring is the common good of husband and wife, the dictate of the natural law requires the latter to live together for ever inseparably.”[v]

Of a family we say that it is good, when, faithful to the indissoluble union which they have vowed, husband and wife do all they can to provide their offspring with proper nourishment and education. This is the fundamental criterion, for the primary end of marriage is the child; whereas the form and principle of the family consists mainly in the union of mind and heart between husband and wife, primarily in view of the child not only as to its generation, but even more so for the sake of its education to manhood. 

For this reason, whatever is characteristic of the married person must somehow be related to the child. Even the friendship of husband and wife (of which Aristotle has spoken so well in the Ethics) is intrinsic to marriage itself and must therefore be ultimately based on their union for the sake of the child whose education is the main reason for the indissoluble character of wedlock.[vi]

From this firm foundation, the historic moral consensus against anti-procreative acts follows with inexorable logic. Any use of matrimony where the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life has traditionally been understood as an offense against the law of God and of nature.[vii]

This moral conclusion is coherent only if procreation is understood to be the primary end against which the morality of the conjugal act is objectively judged. If the primary end were a subjective "love" or "union," then an act that was subjectively "loving" but non-procreative could not be condemned as intrinsically disordered. The intrinsic problem with an anti-procreative mindset—a position held universally by all Christian denominations until 1930—is intelligible only when the act is measured against its ordination to the primary, procreative end of the institution itself.[viii]

Procreation and the Common Good of the Family

The primacy of procreation is also grounded in a sound philosophy of the family as a natural society. The family is not a mere contractual arrangement between individuals but the fundamental and indispensable pillar of all social life, a true society with its own intrinsic common good.

Children constitute the common good of the family par excellence. In the words of Aristotle—whose insights on natural teleology deeply influenced Christian thought, notably through Thomas Aquinas—children are a good "common to both" parents and are the bond that "holds them together."[ix] The birth of a child realizes the common good of the family, transforming the couple into a new social unit and providing the foundation of society. The family, as a society, has a natural desire to perpetuate itself. The procreation and education of children is the means by which this is accomplished. This provides the ultimate teleological justification for the primacy of procreation: without it, the family as a society ceases to exist beyond a single generation, failing in its fundamental social purpose.

We now examine modern views that challenge this traditional understanding.

Critiques of Modern Views (Romantic Companionship and the "Symbolic Telos")

In the West, romantic attraction and companionship, often fueled by emotional chemistry and shared interests, are considered paramount. The ideal for many is to marry their best friend. However, this approach can lead to instability. If personal changes disrupt the emotional connection or lead to diverging interests, divorce becomes a readily justifiable option. After all, if the foundation of the marriage is emotional chemistry and shared interests, seeking a new partner who better fulfills those needs becomes a logical course of action.

Another modern view posits a "symbolic telos" for marriage. Contemporary Evangelicals and Catholics take a Neoplatonic view on marriage where the main purpose of marriage is not to create a family but to instead be a “picture” or a “typological model” of Christ and the Church. One should note, that Paul using an analogy to teach husbands how to love their wives is not equivalent with establishing marriage’s ontological reality or purpose. This is another example of slipshod exegesis that has been running rampant in Christianity for a long time.

A Correct Exegesis of the Pauline Analogy in Ephesians 5

The primary scriptural text used to justify the "symbolic telos" theory is St. Paul's exhortation to husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:21-33. A careful and contextually sound exegesis, however, reveals that this passage has been fundamentally misinterpreted. St. Paul uses the relationship between Christ and the Church as a model for marital conduct, not as a definition of marriage's primary purpose.

The Analogy as a Model for Conduct, Not a Statement of Telos

The logic of St. Paul's analogy flows in only one direction: from the perfect, divine reality to the imperfect, human one. The relationship between Christ and the Church is the archetype, the model, which is used to instruct and sanctify the relationship between husband and wife. The passage does not claim that the purpose of marriage is to be a picture of Christ and the Church; rather, it commands husbands and wives to conform their behavior to the pattern set by Christ and the Church.

This is a crucial distinction between a moral paradigm and an ontological definition. To mistake the two is a fundamental category error, akin to claiming the purpose of a student's practice drawing is to be a symbol of the master's painting, rather than an exercise in learning to imitate the master's technique.

The specific exhortations are practical and moral. The husband is commanded to love his wife with a radical, self-sacrificial love, modeled on Christ who "gave himself up for" the Church. The focus is on the action of the husband—a total, sanctifying love—not on the symbolic meaning of the institution.

Likewise, the wife's submission is presented as a reverent response, analogous to the Church's submission to Christ, and is situated within the overarching command for all Christians to "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). The entire analogy serves the practical, spiritual goal of perfecting the spouses and fostering a profound "one flesh" unity, not establishing a new primary purpose for marriage itself.

The "Great Mystery" (Mysterion): The Union of Jew and Gentile in Christ

The proponents of the "symbolic telos" theory place great weight on St. Paul's statement in verse 32: "This is a great mystery (μυστήριον)." However, they often misunderstand what St. Paul means by "mystery." In Pauline theology, a mysterion is not something simply incomprehensible, but a truth of God's redemptive plan, hidden for ages but now revealed in Christ.

Throughout the Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul uses the term mysterion with a consistent and specific meaning: the unification of Jews and Gentiles into one Body, the Church, through the Cross of Christ (cf. Eph. 3:3-6). When he arrives at 5:32, there is no exegetical reason to assume he has suddenly changed its meaning. After quoting Genesis 2:24 ("the two shall become one flesh") and calling it a great mystery, he immediately clarifies his primary subject: "but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church."

He is using the familiar "one flesh" union of marriage as an illustration to help his readers grasp the depth and intimacy of the previously hidden mystery—the ecclesiological reality of Christ's union with His unified Church of Jews and Gentiles. The mystery is about the Church, not about marriage.

The modern theory commits a grave error by taking the subject of the mystery (Christ and the Church) and making it the primary purpose of the illustration (marriage). This misreading has the damaging effect of de-naturalizing marriage. The traditional doctrine grounds marriage's primary end in the order of creation, making it a good and complete institution from "the beginning" (Matt. 19:8). By making its primary telos a supernatural symbol revealed only in the New Covenant, the modern theory implicitly demotes natural marriage, creating a false dichotomy between marriage as a creation ordinance and marriage as a means of grace. Grace perfects nature; it does not abolish or replace it. The high dignity of Christian marriage elevates the natural institution but does not alter its fundamental, procreative purpose.

The Modern Inversion and Its Philosophical Roots

The shift away from the historic Christian doctrine on marriage did not occur in a vacuum. It is the direct result of a shift in theological emphasis, influenced by philosophical systems foreign to the biblical worldview.

The Shift from Hierarchy to Ambiguity

In recent decades, theological language concerning marriage has undergone a significant shift across Western Christianity. There has been a trend away from the traditional, precise terminology of "primary" and "secondary" ends that had been the hallmark of previous teaching. Instead, modern discourse speaks of the "procreative significance" and "unitive significance" of the marital act, often presenting them as equal goods.

This phrasing creates a strategic ambiguity. It allows for an interpretation that the two "meanings" or "purposes" are now on an equal plane, effectively dismantling the divinely instituted hierarchy rooted in Genesis. 

This ambiguity became the critical opening through which the inversion of the ends was accomplished, allowing theologians and pastors to emphasize the unitive and personal aspects of marriage at the expense of the procreative.[x]

The Influence of Personalist Philosophy

The root of this doctrinal inversion can be traced to a philosophy known as Personalism.[xi] This philosophy, with its radical focus on the subjective dignity of the person, experience, and love over objective nature and truth, inevitably leads to prioritizing the immediate good of the spouses (the unitive end) over the good of the offspring (the primary end).

This manifests in the novel definition of marital love as a "total reciprocal self-giving," a phrase central to the new, personalist-inflected theology of marriage.[xii] Critics argue this concept is highly problematic. It is questionable on metaphysical grounds (the person is ultimately incommunicable), physical grounds (the conjugal act naturally involves the taking of pleasure), and moral grounds (total self-giving is a love due to God alone, and conjugal relations must be marked by moderation).[xiii] This new, subjectivist definition of love becomes the vehicle for replacing the objective, primary end of procreation with the subjective experience of the spouses.

The Nature of the Personalist Error

Personalist philosophy posits the "person" as the ultimate explanatory, epistemological, ontological, and axiological principle of all reality. It emphasizes interiority, subjectivity, and relationality, turning from the "what" of a thing (its objective nature, defined by its telos) to the "who" of a subject (their unique experience).[xiv]

When this framework is applied to marriage, it acts as the engine driving the theological rupture. It inevitably shifts the focus from the objective, natural telos of the institution—procreation—to the subjective, experiential telos of the persons within it—love, communion, and mutual fulfillment. The traditional scholastic framework (utilized by both Catholics and post-Reformation Protestants), which understands marriage through the categories of nature, substance, and teleology, is replaced by a new framework of person, relation, and subjectivity.

Once these new philosophical premises are accepted, the inversion of the ends of marriage becomes a logical necessity. If the person’s subjective experience is the ultimate measure of value, then the "communion of persons" must be the highest good of marriage, and procreation—an event that results in a new person external to that initial communion—must be seen as secondary. This demonstrates that the modern error is not a mere pastoral misstep but the direct consequence of adopting a philosophical system alien to the objective realism of the Christian tradition.

A Comparative Analysis of Marital Doctrines

The systematic nature of this doctrinal shift is best illustrated by a direct comparison of the traditional teaching with the modern, personalist-influenced approach.