Angelina Jolie And Openness To Pregnancy

[mark99]

Forgive me if I don’t see anything to applaud about a couple intentionally getting pregnant outside of marriage. This is not fair to the child and it’s sinful. The only message they are sending out to the world is that it’s cool and hip to live together in sin and bring as many children as you want into the mess…

I do forgive you as nobody has been asked to applaud a couple intentionally getting pregnant outside of marriage.

Her actions, ie, not getting married, like I say above are not being analysed.

Her comments do however back up a long held catholic position regarding openness to new life and how it affects an individual.

 

[1ke]

My reason for first posting this thread is that the Jolie comments serve as a good example of how being open to pregnancy affects the individual and ones ability to express and feel love and gain spiritual and emotional fulfilment.

Her comments were very good at showing why Christianity teaches what it does regarding contraception.

I disagree.

Other aspects of her life such as being unmarried were not being considered or commented on.

Certainly these aspects are. **You **don’t get to set the parameters of the discussion-- we can discuss what we want. Jolie and Pitt do not live in a vaccuum. Her comments cannot be divorced from her adultery with Brad Pitt, their cohabitation, and their very vocal committment to alternative lifestyles-- including homosexual marriage. They have made public statements that they will not marry until “all” types of couples can do so.

Jolie is acting in accordance with natural law which John Paul II also commented on many times.

In what alternate reality is adultery, fornication, cohabitation, in vitro fertilization, and solidarity with homosexuals advocating for marriage “in accordance with natural law”???

It’s good that non catholics can benefit from the churches teachings.

Jolie’s statements have nothing to do with Church teaching.

Her statements have nothing to do with rejecting contraception. In fact, after she had Shiloh she stated in TV interviews that she was “back on the Pill” and they weren’t going to have more for “a while.”

This is NOT a woman embracing the Catholic teaching regarding marriage and family, and I personally think it’s shameful to try to hold her up as any kind of example.

 

[Galnextdoor]

According to Brad Pitt’s brother, the major cause of the breakup between Jennifer Anniston and Brad Pitt was Jennifer’s refusal to have children. Hollywood, of course, stood by Jennifer who wanted to be childless saying that it was insensitive of him to try force her to have children. This was an issue before the film where Pitt and Jolie met on the set ( Mr. and Mrs. Smith). Brad Pitt said that what attracted him to Jolie was that she was a loving and giving mother. He said that she was everything he wanted for a mother of his own children. Both Pitt and Jolie have taken flack for adopting so many children and having children of their own.

Their moral standards in other areas certainly are lacking, but in a society that has become almost anti-children, it’s nice to see celebrities who welcome children.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

I’m sorry. I just find Angelina way too weird. She seems to collect children to fill some void.

 

[Carjack1]

Nobody is perfect. I do admire her openness to life. I hope she comes around. Galnextdoor, you brought up some very valid points. I have to say that she should not be any role model to any Catholic. I am glad that the kids brought up that Shrek is married, that is cute

 

[whatevergirl]

I disagree.

Certainly these aspects are. **You **don’t get to set the parameters of the discussion-- we can discuss what we want. Jolie and Pitt do not live in a vaccuum. Her comments cannot be divorced from her adultery with Brad Pitt, their cohabitation, and their very vocal committment to alternative lifestyles-- including homosexual marriage. They have made public statements that they will not marry until “all” types of couples can do so.

In what alternate reality is adultery, fornication, cohabitation, in vitro fertilization, and solidarity with homosexuals advocating for marriage “in accordance with natural law”???

Jolie’s statements have nothing to do with Church teaching.

Her statements have nothing to do with rejecting contraception. In fact, after she had Shiloh she stated in TV interviews that she was “back on the Pill” and they weren’t going to have more for “a while.”

This is NOT a woman embracing the Catholic teaching regarding marriage and family, and I personally think it’s shameful to try to hold her up as any kind of example.

agree to all you say here, 1ke.

 

[Goth_Catholic]

People, we are not Protestants. We are not the obessive, condemning, bible thumping, Jesus freaks that want everyone to conform to their religion, their views, and their God. We live in the real world, where we mind our own business when it comes to two consenting adults in the bedroom. We as Catholics know what is and isnt immoral. We teach our children what is or isnt immoral. But we do not preach it, and we certainly do not condemn those who look at things differently. We may mention things to those outside of our religion, but we dont preach. When a gay friend of yours tell you he’s been chaste for 2 months, do you praise his chasitity or condemn his sexual orientation? Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are living in sin, we know that, but that isnt the point of the thread. The OP was simpley pointing out that prehaps they are a little less sinful then the rest.

 

[Southparkmom]

I agree with the above

What I do know-AJ’s Dad played John Paul II in a movie.

I also know Brad’s Mom was very active in Parents as Teachers in Mo.

I also know the Angelina we see today is not the same Angie we saw 10 years ago…I think she is morphing. I never liked her, but lately she is beginning to look like one of us moms who hangs out at the park and goes through the drive thu.

Next thing you know she’ll be dropping Maddox of for Sunday school.

 

[capsaicin]

I’m sorry. I just find Angelina way too weird. She seems to collect children to fill some void.

Do you have kids? Because even if we don’t have/adopt them on purpose to “fill a void” our children do just that for our souls and hearts. And they are SUPPOSED to do that. People who are called to marriage truly fulfill their vocation and complete their sacrament when they have children. Catholic marriage is rendered invalid by the stated intention to remain child free. Children do fill a void… and thank God they do. I know my heart would sure ache without my babies… and read the infertility threads on this board and see how painful that is for people who cannot have children. When an infertile couple finally does have or adopt a child, will you be there to criticize them for “filling that void” with a child?

That just seems to me a comment born of ignorance. I think a person who has kids couldn’t say it, and if a person with children did say it, it would make me worry.

And let’s remember, too, that Angelina’s “void filling” saved Zahara’s life, and lifted Maddox and Pax out of abject poverty.

Brangelina aren’t perfect, but I do agree with the OP about them being a cut above other celebrities when it comes to attitude toward children. And if the marriage rumors are true… well then it seems like the Holy Spirit might just be working on them, huh? And the children shall lead us…

 

[mark99]

Originally Posted by mark99
My reason for first posting this thread is that the Jolie comments serve as a good example of how being open to pregnancy affects the individual and ones ability to express and feel love and gain spiritual and emotional fulfilment.

Her comments were very good at showing why Christianity teaches what it does regarding contraception.

I disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with 1ke?

To quote Pope John Paul’s excellent book “Love and Responsibility” he wrote “Unwillingness for parenthood in a man and a woman deprives sexual relations of the value of love”. You can if you wish disagree with him.

There is no doubt that the ability to feel love and openness to pregnancy are bound together. Therefore when one uses contraception and ends that willingness for parenthood the sexual act is deprived of the value of love.

Originally Posted by mark99
Other aspects of her life such as being unmarried were not being considered or commented on.

Certainly these aspects are. **You **don’t get to set the parameters of the discussion-- we can discuss what we want. Jolie and Pitt do not live in a vaccuum. Her comments cannot be divorced from her adultery with Brad Pitt, their cohabitation, and their very vocal committment to alternative lifestyles-- including homosexual marriage. They have made public statements that they will not marry until “all” types of couples can do so.

I made no comment on her unmarried status or her support of an end to victimisation of homosexuals. If you want to make a comment on that then that is up to you.

However when you say that her comments cannot be divorced from her cohabitation etc the fact that Jolie is a sinner is not in question. You too are a sinner. That does not however exclude you from making a comment which supports a catholic teaching. If it did then nobody on the planet would ever make a comment in support of catholic teaching. As Christ said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Additionally that fact is that Jolie experienced the bond between love and openness to pregnancy in her own life, in her own reality. She should then go on to express that love in the sexual act only inside of marriage but she has not done so and that is not to be applauded but I would not expect her to have done so as she is not a catholic.

Originally Posted by mark99
Jolie is acting in accordance with natural law which John Paul II also commented on many times.

In what alternate reality is adultery, fornication, cohabitation, in vitro fertilization, and solidarity with homosexuals advocating for marriage “in accordance with natural law”???

All human beings are subject to natural law. To again quote Pope John Paul “we must never treat a person as a means to an end. This principle has a universal validity”. So whether a person is christian, muslim, jewish or athiest they are subject to these laws. How they then act in their own lives is down to their own free will.

Additionally when you mention Jolies views on in vitro fertilization and solidarity with homosexuals these are just her opinions. An opinion is very different to actually experiencing natural law in the physical and biological sense which is what Jolies comments were about. That Jolie is subject to nature and natural processes herself is just a fact.

As Pope John Paul wrote “In the order of love a man can remain true to the person only in so far as he is true to nature”.

Jolie’s statements have nothing to do with Church teaching.

Her statements have nothing to do with rejecting contraception. In fact, after she had Shiloh she stated in TV interviews that she was “back on the Pill” and they weren’t going to have more for “a while.”

This is NOT a woman embracing the Catholic teaching regarding marriage and family, and I personally think it’s shameful to try to hold her up as any kind of example.

I say again that Jolie has experienced the bond between love and openness to pregnancy. Nobody ever claimed she is embracing catholic teaching but she is experiencing universal natural law.

John Paul wrote “Thus in the sexual relationship between man and woman two orders meet: the order of nature, which has as its object reproduction, and the personal order, which finds its expression in the love of persons and aims at the fullest realization of that love”.

Her comments have everything to do with Catholic teaching and using those comments as a starting point we should try to lead her to the correct catholic path embracing marriage, etc.

I think its shameful to denegrate her for being less than perfect.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

Do you have kids? Because even if we don’t have/adopt them on purpose to “fill a void” our children do just that for our souls and hearts. And they are SUPPOSED to do that. People who are called to marriage truly fulfill their vocation and complete their sacrament when they have children. Catholic marriage is rendered invalid by the stated intention to remain child free. Children do fill a void… and thank God they do. I know my heart would sure ache without my babies… and read the infertility threads on this board and see how painful that is for people who cannot have children. When an infertile couple finally does have or adopt a child, will you be there to criticize them for “filling that void” with a child?

That just seems to me a comment born of ignorance. I think a person who has kids couldn’t say it, and if a person with children did say it, it would make me worry.

And let’s remember, too, that Angelina’s “void filling” saved Zahara’s life, and lifted Maddox and Pax out of abject poverty.

Brangelina aren’t perfect, but I do agree with the OP about them being a cut above other celebrities when it comes to attitude toward children. And if the marriage rumors are true… well then it seems like the Holy Spirit might just be working on them, huh? And the children shall lead us…

Did you specifically make a username just to stalk me?

Angelina was not married when she adopted all her children. At the time she adopted her first child she bragged about how she would meet random guys at hotel rooms for sex. This is not a woman who was ready for family life. She adopted a few more kids and then got pregnant through an adulterous affair. This was not about being open to life but serving selfish desires. It can hardly be compaired to an infertile couple wanting to give a child a loving home and have a family.

 

[whatevergirl]

What exactly do you disagree with 1ke?

To quote Pope John Paul’s excellent book “Love and Responsibility” he wrote “Unwillingness for parenthood in a man and a woman deprives sexual relations of the value of love”. You can if you wish disagree with him.

There is no doubt that the ability to feel love and openness to pregnancy are bound together. Therefore when one uses contraception and ends that willingness for parenthood the sexual act is deprived of the value of love.

Sex was designed by God for married couples (if one believes in God, that is)…and Pope JP2 wouldn’t be advocating, nor would any Pope, what Jolie and Pitt are doing. Broke up a marriage, to be together…now they have sex outside of marriage, with no marriage on the horizon…so they can bring life into the world. It’s like someone stealing from a bank (wrong thing) to give to the poor (good thing, but the means don’t justify the end) Same things applies…it’s a beautiful thing that Jolie and Pitt seem open to life, but they are obviously not open to marriage, which outside of that–being open to life shouldn’t even be coming into play, considering they shouldn’t be having sex. That’s the thing…the end doesn’t justify the means here. That is what 1ke is saying.

I made no comment on her unmarried status or her support of an end to victimisation of homosexuals. If you want to make a comment on that then that is up to you.

However when you say that her comments cannot be divorced from her cohabitation etc the fact that Jolie is a sinner is not in question. You too are a sinner. That does not however exclude you from making a comment which supports a catholic teaching. If it did then nobody on the planet would ever make a comment in support of catholic teaching. As Christ said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Additionally that fact is that Jolie experienced the bond between love and openness to pregnancy in her own life, in her own reality. She should then go on to express that love in the sexual act only inside of marriage but she has not done so and that is not to be applauded but I would not expect her to have done so as she is not a catholic.

All human beings are subject to natural law. To again quote Pope John Paul “we must never treat a person as a means to an end. This principle has a universal validity”. So whether a person is christian, muslim, jewish or athiest they are subject to these laws. How they then act in their own lives is down to their own free will.

Additionally when you mention Jolies views on in vitro fertilization and solidarity with homosexuals these are just her opinions. An opinion is very different to actually experiencing natural law in the physical and biological sense which is what Jolies comments were about. That Jolie is subject to nature and natural processes herself is just a fact.

As Pope John Paul wrote “In the order of love a man can remain true to the person only in so far as he is true to nature”.

I say again that Jolie has experienced the bond between love and openness to pregnancy. Nobody ever claimed she is embracing catholic teaching but she is experiencing universal natural law.

She actually isn’t. We are not to have sex outside of marriage. The fact that Jolie and Pitt choose to have children, doesn’t mean that they are experiencing natural law. They are acting on their own wants and desires. They see nothing wrong with having sex outside of marriage–that is natural law, to be married before having sex.

John Paul wrote “Thus in the sexual relationship between man and woman two orders meet: the order of nature, which has as its object reproduction, and the personal order, which finds its expression in the love of persons and aims at the fullest realization of that love”.

Pope JP2 would not be speaking about couples who were not married. These statements of Pope JP2’s have nothing to do really with a couple who is not married. By quoting Pope JP2 repeatedly in this thread, you present his thinking as this is true for all couples who love one another…no, Pope JP2 when speaking in his book Love & Responsibility, is speaking of married couples, when he speaks of sexuality between two people.

Her comments have everything to do with Catholic teaching and using those comments as a starting point we should try to lead her to the correct catholic path embracing marriage, etc.

I think its shameful to denegrate her for being less than perfect.

No one is denegrating her, but at the same time, I don’t think we should be looking at Jolie and Pitt as examples of how a couple should live their lives. It is great that they are open to life, but living in an adulterous relationship so one can raise children, is far from a Christian teaching. The Catholic Church doesn’t advocate doing something morally wrong, to achieve a moral right. I liken it to the argument over embryonic stem cell research. The end result could save lives…could. But the means to getting there is morally wrong. Jolie and Pitt have good hearts, no doubt…I see that…and that is great.

We are all on different pathways to God…maybe having children will lead Jolie and Pitt to marrying, and to exploring the Catholic faith. That would be a great outcome!

 

[mark99]

Sex was designed by God for married couples (if one believes in God, that is)…and Pope JP2 wouldn’t be advocating, nor would any Pope, what Jolie and Pitt are doing. Broke up a marriage, to be together…now they have sex outside of marriage, with no marriage on the horizon…so they can bring life into the world. It’s like someone stealing from a bank (wrong thing) to give to the poor (good thing, but the means don’t justify the end) Same things applies…it’s a beautiful thing that Jolie and Pitt seem open to life, but they are obviously not open to marriage, which outside of that–being open to life shouldn’t even be coming into play, considering they shouldn’t be having sex. That’s the thing…the end doesn’t justify the means here. That is what 1ke is saying.

Nobody is saying sex should not be reserved for marriage. Jolie and Pitt have fallen in love outside of marriage as all dating couples do. It is then up to them to use their free will to get married. Their sex life though is their own business.

She actually isn’t. We are not to have sex outside of marriage. The fact that Jolie and Pitt choose to have children, doesn’t mean that they are experiencing natural law. They are acting on their own wants and desires. They see nothing wrong with having sex outside of marriage–that is natural law, to be married before having sex.!

Marriage is actually a sacrament. In the secular world it is a paper contract. It is totally different to experiencing the laws of nature in the physical and biological sense in every day life. There is no comparison between a paper contract and these biological processes.

To have sex only within marriage is a moral law. Sexual morality is deeply tied in with natural law, to quote John Paul again,“Sexual morality is deeply rooted in the laws of nature”. Sex within marriage is not in and of itself a law of nature and could not possibly be so.

Pope JP2 would not be speaking about couples who were not married. These statements of Pope JP2’s have nothing to do really with a couple who is not married. By quoting Pope JP2 repeatedly in this thread, you present his thinking as this is true for all couples who love one another…no, Pope JP2 when speaking in his book Love & Responsibility, is speaking of married couples, when he speaks of sexuality between two people.

No, I have never said John Pauls thinking is true for all couples who love each other. It applies to those who are married.

No one is denegrating her, but at the same time, I don’t think we should be looking at Jolie and Pitt as examples of how a couple should live their lives. It is great that they are open to life, but living in an adulterous relationship so one can raise children, is far from a Christian teaching. The Catholic Church doesn’t advocate doing something morally wrong, to achieve a moral right. I liken it to the argument over embryonic stem cell research. The end result could save lives…could. But the means to getting there is morally wrong. Jolie and Pitt have good hearts, no doubt…I see that…and that is great.

We are all on different pathways to God…maybe having children will lead Jolie and Pitt to marrying, and to exploring the Catholic faith. That would be a great outcome!

I am not advocating the Jolie/Pitt lifestyle for anyone. Eveyone has their own free will.

 

[shannyk]

Did I miss something?

Nothing in that interview, or others she has done on various occasions, has suggested Angelina is open to life, in the sense of procreating in the way God intended, unadulterated by artificial birth control. In fact, I recall her stating adamantly (maybe in the same interview but I’m not sure?) that she is “on the pill”.

I think her becoming, through meeting Mr Pitt, open to the idea of PREGNANCY, is what she said, meaning, she put aside her old views of getting pregnant being ‘selfish’ when there are so many orphaned children in the world.

Lets not confuse being open to getting pregnant, with being open to life. She has made it quite clear that she is pro contraception, and pro-abortion, by her own admission.

As a side note, I haven’t’ the faintest idea why anyone gives a hoot about these two clowns, pitt and jolie that is…It was unanimously decided at a party I was at the other night that they are the two most overrated actors and lookers out of hollywood. I see couples every day that make those two look like hank the janks… they are NOT all that.

 

[MakeUpArtist]

Did I miss something?

As a side note, I haven’t’ the faintest idea why anyone gives a hoot about these two clowns, pitt and jolie that is…It was unanimously decided at a party I was at the other night that they are the two most overrated actors and lookers out of hollywood. I see couples every day that make those two look like hank the janks… they are NOT all that.

I agree. I don’t understand why this country worships at the alter of these people. From a purely shallow POV I could name hundreds of men that put Brad to shame in the looks department(Henry Cavill for example).