Adoption vs Procreation

[TheWarriorMonk]

My goodness, you complained when I referred to Josephite marriages as being an option! A Josephite marriage, with the couple foregoing sexual relations entirely, is just fine.

Why? You keep hammering the “having children” point home, yet state that a marriage where they don’t intend to have children is perfectly fine?

But a non-Josephite marriage of a healthy fertile couple with a permanent intention not to have children?

You do realize that “permanent intention not to have children” is not part of the issue? Correct? You inserted that on your own accord.

FWIW, in my first marriage (which resulted in no children), the permanent intention against children was an issue. I noted that my wife went on the Pill (for medical reasons prior to marriage), and utterly refused to go off it. However, I could not have even attempted to claim that had we been practicing NFP. Why? NFP is open to life, by definition.

You’re attempting to insert the permanent intention against children argument, and proving that is the case by using a method that the Church considers open to life.

Major fail.

Why are they shunning their fertility?

Acts open to life are not evidence of shunning fertility.

Why are they getting married?

I don’t know. Ask someone in a Josephite marriage and get back to us.

 

[Rau]

Kind of like your continued and utter refusal to post any Church reference to support your personal opinions.

Hard on my phone. Davidv posted one, and I assume you agree that serious reasons are required for NFP.? You really want me to post where the Church stated that two different actions (adoption and having children) are NOT the same Probably they didn’t see a need to do that!

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Davidv posted one, and I assume you agree that serious reasons are required for NFP.?

Sure. But does “serious reasons” equal “permanent intention against children.” Of course, not; the Church teaches no such thing.

You really want me to post where the Church stated that two different actions (adoption and having children) are NOT the same Probably they didn’t see a need to do that!

Of course they don’t need to do that, for the simple reason there is no difference between the two!

The Church recognizes that adopted children of the adopted parents are their children. Period, the end. There is no reason to discuss a difference that does not exist.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Davidv posted one, and I assume you agree that serious reasons are required for NFP.?

Already discussed. It covers a specific subject. If it was general in nature, then Josephite marriages would simply not be permitted by that reference.

The Catechism, Canon Law, Bible, etc. must be understood in their entirely before the particular sections/sentences can be understood properly.

 

[Rau]

Of course they don’t need to do that, for the simple reason there is no difference between the two [adoption and procreation]!

Riiiiiighttt…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Riiiiiighttt…

Exactly. You finally got it correct.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

FWIW, my stepson swore up and down that an adopted child could never be the same as a “natural” child. Within six months of the first adoption, he apologized for his error.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’ll finish up by stating that I don’t think you understand how disturbing your position is. Fortunately, the Church in no way, shape, or form supports such as disturbing position.

 

[Rau]

I’ll finish up by stating that I don’t think you understand how disturbing your position is. Fortunately, the Church in no way, shape, or form supports such as disturbing position.

You again seek to misrepresent, by implying (and you said it directly in an earlier post) that I’ve expressed a view about the worth of natural vs adopted children. Certainly, that would be disturbing, but only you have raised that notion!

I’ve enquired why a healthy fertile couple would marry with the intention of having a sexual relationship, but rejecting their fertility. You’ve not answered.

I’ve asked why you would think procreating and adopting are the same thing. You reply that if they were not, the Church, would have said so, and my inability to point to a Church document that says they are different is evidence they must be the same!

Our views are on the table. We disagree. C’est la vie.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The Church does not teach that having adopted children “in lieu of” natural children while remaining open to life is sinful.

拜拜

 

[OraLabora]

I assume you agree that serious reasons are required for NFP.?

Has the Church ever formally defined “serious reasons”, or has she left that up to the conscience of the couple themselves?

I would expect that what some couples consider “serious” might be trivial for others and that the Church allows for different levels of ability; even Saint Benedict allowed for differences in need/ability in his Rule. If you lived in some parts of the world, “overpopulation” could be a serious reason if the local resources are strained due to various causes, making it difficult to feed the entire population. It would not be so serious in Quebec where the birth rate is below the population replacement rate, where there’s plenty of resources, and we have to “adopt” new immigrants.

I’ve enquired why a healthy fertile couple would marry with the intention of having a sexual relationship, but rejecting their fertility. You’ve not answered.

I suspect if you make that inquiry to such a couple, you’re likely to get a stern “none of your business” as an answer. Whether such a hypothetical couple exists or not is speculation, as is their reasons.

A couple that marry, but agree to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, even life-long serious reasons (such as pregnancy being high-risk for the wife or some other serious reason) are not sinning, yet they are by your definition “rejecting their fertility”. In fact by using NFP they’re rather acknowledging their fertility but avoiding conception. “Rejecting” fertility is, IMHO, getting sterilized or using contraception. I can assure you that people using NFP are fully aware of their fertility and accept it. Otherwise they would sterilize, contracept, or abstain.

 

[Rau]

Has the Church ever formally defined “serious reasons”, or has she left that up to the conscience of the couple themselves?

I would expect that what some couples consider “serious” might be trivial for others and that the Church allows for different levels of ability; even Saint Benedict allowed for differences in need/ability in his Rule. If you lived in some parts of the world, “overpopulation” could be a serious reason if the local resources are strained due to various causes, making it difficult to feed the entire population. It would not be so serious in Quebec where the birth rate is below the population replacement rate, where there’s plenty of resources, and we have to “adopt” new immigrants.
…
A couple that marry, but agree to use NFP to avoid pregnancy for serious reasons, even life-long serious reasons (such as pregnancy being high-risk for the wife or some other serious reason) are not sinning…

Ora - have you read the thread? You are missing the issue being discussed. I agree with everything you’ve written about NFP, but this was not the point under discussion.

 

[OraLabora]

Ora - have you read the thread? You are missing the issue being discussed. I agree with everything you’ve written about NFP, but this was not the point under discussion.

Yes I read the thread. My question: has the Church ever defined “serious reasons”, or has it left it up to the conscience of the couples?

Would for instance, the desire to adopt in order to make a personal to helped orphaned children, as suggested by the OP, be a “serious reason”?

I know of a former colleague. Both her sister and brother-in-law died within a short time of each other, of cancer, leaving their children parentless. Although she had children of her own, she “adopted” her sister’s children (not sure it was a formal adoption or simply assuming care and legal custody… the effect is the same I guess).

Now imagine a similar scenario: a recently married childless couple have an older sister/brother who has a large family. The parents of the large family die… car accident, illness, whatever. The new couple do the right thing, and adopt their nieces and nephews. But now suddenly they have a family that strains resources to the max; they decide to forgo having their own children using NFP.

The OP’s hypothetical situation actually covers many, many possibilities. Adopting parentless children is certainly a laudable thing to do. I don’t think the Church has formally defined “serious reasons” for putting off having children. Because it hasn’t, it sort of becomes a “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” type question. It’s something the couple has to work out for itself, hopefully with the aid of their confessor.

As far as the children themselves go, I think we can all agree that adopted or naturally-borne of a couple, they have equal value and dignity in the eyes of God and as far as the Church goes, their adoptive family is their family, with the parent child relationship being fully equal to the parent-child relationship with its natural parents. We can only hope that the couple that made this choice do their best and do a good job of raising their adopted family.