Can a couple who don't want to have children get married under the grace of God?

[momor]

That is not why Jewish law prohibited relations during that time. The reason for the Jewish prohibition was ritual impurity due to the blood. (admittedly, it is interesting that by the time ritual impurity finishes, the woman is entering her fertile time)

That is what they called it (the woman was impure/guilty for not conceiving) but I think the real reason it became a proscription is what I mentioned.

 

[SonCatcher]

Your hypothetical situation where you are chosen to adopt a baby that would otherwise be aborted? You’re twisting yourself into knots. Why would you not want to have your own children, or at least be open to having God’s children, and yet be open to adopting a relative’s baby?

I agree. The attitude conveyed leads to serious doubt such a person would follow through on that promise.

 

[momor]

Fine. Another woman I personally know conceived after having procured a tubal ligation.

Well, get back to me when you hear of a woman who has a baby without a uterus or conceives without any ovaries or a man without any sperm-making organs fathering a child and we’ll talk. In the meantime, please either take my question at face value and answer it or don’t.

 

[SonCatcher]

That is what they called it (the woman was impure/guilty for not conceiving) but I think the real reason it became a proscription is what I mentioned.

It was absolutely not “guilt” for not conceiving. ANYONE who came in contact with blood by any means was deemed ritually impure for the same time.

 

[samiam1611]

I have no idea why you don’t want children, but I suggest you deal with that issue or those issues immediately via therapy. Most people who say they don’t want children have come from abusive childhoods themselves and can’t imagine how they can ever be good parents if they themselves had such horrible parents.

Your hypothetical situation where you are chosen to adopt a baby that would otherwise be aborted? You’re twisting yourself into knots. Why would you not want to have your own children, or at least be open to having God’s children, and yet be open to adopting a relative’s baby?

Being open to life is a wonderful thing. It truly is unitive, and contraception is divisive. There is just no way around it. If God had wanted us to use contraceptives, they’d have been built in. They weren’t, so…“Go forth and multiply.”

well said. without my reasoning, how I came up with that hypothetical question is confusing. I wanted to propose a a marriage scenario that at least followed along directive of “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children” even though that is not personally how I feel, I figured it’s at least half a step in the right direction.
side note: I had a perfectly fine childhood. no abuse whatsoever. my parents are happily married, we all get along fine, there is no bad blood, i’ve never had any issues like that.
That being said, here’s my reasons, although I don’t want them to be the center of discussion which is why I did not get into them in my original post:

1. kids are annoying to me
2. i love dogs. any mothering instinct i have is expressed through taking care of my dog
3. i think it’s narcisstic to want one’s own children when there are so many out there who already who need parents. (like, what, your genes are so awesome, you think you’re better than them?)
4. on the subject of genes…mine suck. my mom passed on her slow metabolism, frizzy hair, and bad skin to me. those characteristics of mine have caused me a lot of anguish. I know those problems pale in comparison to others but that doesn’t make me like them any more! anyway, why would i purposely bring a child into the world who will most likely be as miserable as me with their physical appearance?
5. i take several medications. they cannot be taken while pregnant. I have tried stopping each of these medications individually under my doctor’s direction and every single time the symptoms returned within a few days. (although i was on like 9 and now I’m only on like 6 bc 3 I was able to stop without the return of symptoms). in other words, either my baby would come out deformed or damaged, or I would spend the entire pregnancy very very sick. not to mention, the illness is genetic, and could likely be passed on to this poor kid.

I could actually go on and on but that’s enough for now.

 

[SonCatcher]

well said. without my reasoning, how I came up with that hypothetical question is confusing. I wanted to propose a a marriage scenario that at least followed along directive of “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children” even though that is not personally how I feel, I figured it’s at least half a step in the right direction.
side note: I had a perfectly fine childhood. no abuse whatsoever. my parents are happily married, we all get along fine, there is no bad blood, i’ve never had any issues like that.
That being said, here’s my reasons, although I don’t want them to be the center of discussion which is why I did not get into them in my original post:

1. kids are annoying to me
2. i love dogs. any mothering instinct i have is expressed through taking care of my dog
3. i think it’s narcisstic to want one’s own children when there are so many out there who already who need parents. (like, what, your genes are so awesome, you think you’re better than them?)
4. on the subject of genes…mine suck. my mom passed on her slow metabolism, frizzy hair, and bad skin to me. those characteristics of mine have caused me a lot of anguish. I know those problems pale in comparison to others but that doesn’t make me like them any more! anyway, why would i purposely bring a child into the world who will most likely be as miserable as me with their physical appearance?
5. i take several medications. they cannot be taken while pregnant. I have tried stopping each of these medications individually under my doctor’s direction and every single time the symptoms returned within a few days. (although i was on like 9 and now I’m only on like 6 bc 3 I was able to stop without the return of symptoms). in other words, either my baby would come out deformed or damaged, or I would spend the entire pregnancy very very sick. not to mention, the illness is genetic, and could likely be passed on to this poor kid.

I could actually go on and on but that’s enough for now.

1. grow up - I don’t think there’s a parent on this planet that thinks 2am feedings aren’t somehow “annoying.” Billions of parents the world over look beyond that.
2. dogs are nice but they don’t replace people. Plus, many dogs like kids, too.
3. it can be equally narcissistic to seek out adoption for the wrong reasons
4. your prospective spouse would be ill-served by you continuing in your body issues. I recommend a counselor for that.
5. this is a legit excuse for a serious enough problem that isn’t treatable by other means. Many conditions can be treated by other means, such as surgery. If there is no alternative to the drug, NFP is still the only permitted means of “indefinitely delaying” pregnancy. If the condition is cosmetic, however (e.g. acne), you should seriously consider whether the effect of forcing you to exclude pregnancy is worth it.

 

[momor]

It was absolutely not “guilt” for not conceiving. ANYONE who came in contact with blood by any means was deemed ritually impure for the same time.

There were many things in the OT that were considered unclean/forbidden. God made them laws to be obeyed as a sign of the Jews covenant with God. He didn’t necessarily tell them why. Many probably had sound biological reasons behind them which protected the Jews from harm. It is probably one way God protected his People without directly intervening against the Natural Law. It’s pretty obvious to us today with our knowledge of biology that the practice of abstaining from intercourse during the menses increased the fertility of God’s Chosen People so He could raise up a great nation and Abraham’s descendants could be a numerous as He promised. Since this is not a proscription for Christians, it is obvious to me that the menses are not “unclean” or unhealthy and never were. That’s just what the Jews called it because it was forbidden by God. Just my opinion. I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar or know the mind of God.

 

[catharina]

How is that a unitive marriage, a marriage made under God’s grace? If we both don’t want children, how can you say we would not be giving 100% of ourselves to each other? Again I ask myself (and you ) why would God make me not want children, make this other person not want children, and then bring us both together? I really don’t get it. I feel like maybe these “rules” were made when the mortality rate was higher than the birth rate, so to continue the human race, and for the good of everyone, procreation was necessary. But now, advances in health care and social services make it possible for adults to grow old without their adult childrens’ help. And with overpopulation and stuff…how come the rules haven’t changed with the times? Please don’t be offended if any of that seemed offensive, I swear I’m not trying to be difficult, I want to understand - understanding why things are the way they are is not coming to me naturally.

Still hoping that you will respond to Post # 17.

 

[SonCatcher]

Well, get back to me when you hear of a woman who has a baby without a uterus or conceives without any ovaries or a man without any sperm-making organs fathering a child and we’ll talk. In the meantime, please either take my question at face value and answer it or don’t.

I think I have adequately made the point that God is still in charge in the end.

 

[SonCatcher]

To make it even more plain assume that this is not a post-menopausal age couple. Why isn’t it considered a sinful witholding of a person’s fertility? It’s not like the infertile person they fell in love with is the only person on earth. If the person they loved refused to have children or refused to allow the kids to be raised Catholic the marriage would not be allowed despite being in love. Why the exception for infertility that is known prior to the marriage?

Revisiting your original question.

The cases you cite are called “acts of God” because they are completely independent of human intervention. Humans are not culpable God’s actions.

 

[SonCatcher]

There were many things in the OT that were considered unclean/forbidden. God made them laws to be obeyed as a sign of the Jews covenant with God. He didn’t necessarily tell them why. Many probably had sound biological reasons behind them which protected the Jews from harm. It is probably one way God protected his People without directly intervening against the Natural Law. It’s pretty obvious to us today with our knowledge of biology that the practice of abstaining from intercourse during the menses increased the fertility of God’s Chosen People so He could raise up a great nation and Abraham’s descendants could be a numerous as He promised. Since this is not a proscription for Christians, it is obvious to me that the menses are not “unclean” or unhealthy and never were. That’s just what the Jews called it because it was forbidden by God. Just my opinion. I don’t claim to be a Bible scholar or know the mind of God.

Many of the prohibitions were somehow related to the actions of the nations they were sent to displace. The Israelites were to be different from them in just about every way possible. The prohibition from blood applied to everyone and everyone had similar rules for purification. Did God have the secondary purpose of increased children due to the effect of this command? Perhaps. It was not the primary purpose, however.

 

[catharina]

Many of the prohibitions were somehow related to the actions of the nations they were sent to displace. The Israelites were to be different from them in just about every way possible. The prohibition from blood applied to everyone and everyone had similar rules for purification. Did God have the secondary purpose of increased children due to the effect of this command? Perhaps. It was not the primary purpose, however.

Can we state that with any authority?
We can say that the primary purpose that GOD revealed
was related to purification - but was it the primary purpose?

I don’t know.

Why was pork declared unclean?
Was it because it was primarily unclean?
Or was it to spare the Jewish people the deadly dangers of undercooked pork?

I don’t know.

In other words, I don’t think we can “speak for” Giod.
We can speak of what has been revealed - but not all has been revealed.

 

[momor]

Revisiting your original question.

The cases you cite are called “acts of God” because they are completely independent of human intervention. Humans are not culpable God’s actions.

You missed my sentence below the part of the post you copied:

Please don’t say because it’s not someone’s choice they are infertile. We don’t allow that reasoning for homosexuals to marry.
The Church also allows a man who has intentionally had a vasectomy to marry if he repents the action.

 

[SonCatcher]

Can we state that with any authority?
We can say that the primary purpose that GOD revealed
was related to purification - but was it the primary purpose?

I don’t know.

Why was pork declared unclean?
Was it because it was primarily unclean?
Or was it to spare the Jewish people the deadly dangers of undercooked pork?

I don’t know.

In other words, I don’t think we can “speak for” Giod.
We can speak of what has been revealed - but not all has been revealed.

I don’t presume to any more than momor does

 

[catharina]

I don’t presume to any more than momor does

It seems that you think you do.
Perhaps it’s attitudinal?

Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood?

 

[SonCatcher]

You missed my sentence below the part of the post you copied:

Please don’t say because it’s not someone’s choice they are infertile.

My statement is not invalid

We don’t allow that reasoning for homosexuals to marry.

Irrelevant to the thread

The Church also allows a man who has intentionally had a vasectomy to marry if he repents the action.

Repentance repairs his relationship with God but the damage is done. He is not required by the Church to undo the damage. That does not change the fact that he was in mortal sin due to his actions. However, many men in such a situation find solace in at least attempting to reverse it.

 

[SonCatcher]

It seems that you think you do.
Perhaps it’s attitudinal?

Or perhaps I’ve misunderstood?

Read the statements I was refuting. Someone else was presuming meaning to a command that we cannot infer from scripture. I countered with historical context.

 

[catharina]

Read the statements I was refuting. Someone else was presuming meaning to a command that we cannot infer from scripture. I countered with historical context.

Actually -
you countered with an absolute.

 

[GlendaTheGood]

You missed my sentence below the part of the post you copied:

Please don’t say because it’s not someone’s choice they are infertile. We don’t allow that reasoning for homosexuals to marry.
The Church also allows a man who has intentionally had a vasectomy to marry if he repents the action.

Does the Church first require a vasectomy reversal?

 

[MusherMaggie]

Bottom line–do you seek to obey God or to merely fulfill your own desires?