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

[benedictus2]

You have not said what your religion is if any. Based on your post I would assume that you believe in God otherwise questioning the Catholic Church’s teaching is pretty pointless.

  So since you have brought God into the equation then let us take that as a given – God with capital G; God who is Creator and Author of life and sole adjudicator as to what is and what is not permissible.  We will call this the** God Premise or GP** for short.

With that as a given then we can address the questions your raised

First of all, I feel like this second statement contradicts the first. I don’t understand why, if the procreative purpose of intercourse can be set aside during times when pregnancy is not possible (post-menopause, naturally occuring infertility), why not all the time?

Because of the GP. God is God. When the procreative is set aside in case of menopause or infertility, it was God who set it aside- the God who authored each life and so has the sole right when this may be set aside.

Why does God give us the ability to think independently and rationally to decide for ourselves if we want children (as opposed to animals, who have a pure driven instinct to procreate) but if you choose to not want them, it is wrong?

Again because of the GP.

Let me do a re-statement. Why does God give us the ablity to think independently and decide for ourselves if we want to kill or not kill those who wrong us but if you choose to kill them it is wrong?

Do you see where I am going with this? According to the GP, God determines what is and is not permissible not us. Just because we can think independently does not mean that every single product of our thought process is rational and right.

Why would God be so kind as to bring a special person into our lives, but forbid us from expressing our love in the physical way our bodies desire?

And where does it say that God is forbidding us to express love the way our bodies desire? You see it is not what your body desires but what your brain desires. Your body does not care whether a baby comes out of it or not. It is you – your will – that is offended that the Author of that body and brain of yours has decided to put limits on what may and may not be done with that body. Which brings us back to the GP again. He is God and author of your body and so has the sole right on determining what is and is not proper to that body.

He also gave us the desire to want to please each other. But He didn’t give us the desire to have children! Why does He want to deny us from unifying our love because we don’t want children?

Can you hear the whine in this of the I/Me/Myself? But since you acknowledge that God is God (who knows far better than you do what is good for yourself – He is God after all), therefore the purpose of His creation is not based on your desires but His desires.

You are making “desiring” the yardstick for what is and is not morally right.

What about those who desire to “unite’ themselves to children or those who desire to “unite” themselves to people of the same gender or those who want to “unite” themselves to several people at once and even engage in bestiality? Does the simple fact that they desire it make it moral and permissible?

What about those who desire to kill other people? Why should they be stopped from exercising that desire?

 

[benedictus2]

How could He possibly think a sexless, [and bound to be] frustrated marriage is better than a happy, contraceptive-using, childless-by-choice couple?

That is the most ridiculous and stupid conclusions so many make in threads on contraception. Where has it been said that God desires marriage to be sexless? Did you not hear the joyful command to go forth and multiply? How do you think He envisioned man complying with that? By holding hands?

Quite the contrary. He is saying that, yes, enjoy the joy of sex but enjoy the fullness of it. Give yourself totally.

So you see, your statement here is quite absurd because it is not that He does not want you to have sex but rather that you do not want the natural consequence of sex. But instead of acknowledging your defiance you blame Him for something He has not even commanded.

Are people who don’t want children not allowed to marry?

Not if they are capable of having children. A childless couple by choice is essentially a self-absorbed self-centred couple. It is about me, me, me, me.

But since you keep mentioning God in your post and therefore accepts that He is God, it is contradictory to insist on the kind of self-deification you are advocating and at the same time acknowledge God. You serve God or mammon. You can’t serve both.

“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely.”
I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself?

Here again you are making a nonsensical statement. How is abstaining from marital relations a denial of the gift of your body. You tend to equate self-gift with sexual intercourse. Self-gift is not limited to that.

Furthermore, it is not a case of giving most of yourself than none of yourself but more a case of lying with your body. When you don’t give yourself totally you are actually lying. It is a deceitful act. It is like bulimia.

It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely! What do you think?

For a very short period of time. You are writing as if one is being asked to abstain from sex always. That is an over exaggeration and so therefore a lie.

“Each marital act signifies, embodies, and renews the original and enduring marital covenant between husband and wife.”
How does completely abstaining from not only intercourse, but all sexually pleasing acts, embodies the marital covenant, but giving one’s body for the unitive act alone does not at least contribute to (even if it isn’t the embodiment of) the love that God gave us for each other?

For the simple reason that the abstaining is not done indefinitely. The NFP is not provided as contraceptive solution in the same way that couples use ABC. It is only to be used for grave reasons and after the couple has prayed about it.

Regarding the last point, it is a lie to say that engaging in sex while using ABC fosters unity. Couples who contracept lie when they say they do this for the unitive purpose. They do this for pleasure plain and simple.

All this emphasis on the unitive value of sex is just rationalization since all they want is the pleasure without the responsibility.

Why did He say chastity/abstinence is a virtue but then also say be fruitful and multiply?

And how are they supposed to be contradictory. One can be chaste in marriage and at the same time have many children.

People who are abstinent are choosing not to receive His gift, and that is not a sin, in fact it is a virtue, so why is choosing not to receive his gift, but not be abstinent a sin?

Quite wrong. People who abstain in no way choose not to receive His gift. You are overly fixated on sex that you tend to equate God’s gift is only sex. Abstaining actually brings forth other gifts such as temperance and self-mastery. God has other gifts other than sex but in your oversexed mind you think that that is the only gift God has ever given man. I am inclined that you are addicted to sex that you see this as the only good thing.

One last question. It’s completely hypothetical. Are there any circumstances where contraception (not NFP, I mean the Pill or condoms or whatever) or sterilization would be approved? Say a couple is in love. wants to unify their love. wants to get married. but want to use contraception or sterilization. (For example, if one of them has a genetic illness that would definitely be passed on to their children.)

So now you are moving to eugenics. If you go down that track you are implying that people with disabilities should be eliminated. I mean, if you think people with disabilities should not be born, it follows that people with disabilities should be killed right?

The answer to your question is no. God and God alone has the right to decide who will and will not be brought into existence.

Would a priest be willing to marry a couple in this situation - Do you think God would make an exception?

No. God does not makes exceptions. But God is merciful when you sin. But don’t think that somehow because of these conditions it is no longer a sin.

 

[benedictus2]

("Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature.) If not, (“Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children”) how about this: Would He/a priest approve of the use of contraception or sterilization (for a reason such as above) IF the couple agreed to adopt or foster a child?

No. Because the whole point of sex is pro-creation. It just so happens that it is also pleasurable.

Would that be accepting God’s gift of children, thus allowing a couple to unify their love?

Nope. That is lying. That is an attempt to twist the law. The kind of gyrations you are getting into to justify an evil action should already alert you to the fact that it is evil. The good does not need justifying.

And if not that…what if a dating or engaged couple, struggling with what to do about not wanting children but wanting to get married, came to a priest, asking for his blessing on their marriage even though they would use contraception, with a proposal, not just to adopt, but to prevent an abortion by adopting a child?

Some priests would probably do it but still that is agains Church teaching.

Like say a family member or friend was like I’m getting an abortion, I don’t want my kid being raised by strangers and the couple was like well we’ll adopt it and she said okay but ONLY if YOU are the ones adopting it. They would literally be saving a life, and really only wanted to not have children not bc they didn’t want to bring a child into the world, just bc they thought it was cruel to purposely create a life knowing it was going to die in the womb/as an infant/live a life suffering from some horrible disease.

Adopting the baby is a good act but that still does not mean it is suddenly permissible to contracept.

They are two different matters.

With regards possible offsprings, it is still not up to you decide. I hope you can see in your post how self-centred and self-absorbed it is. It is always about you, what you want, what you desire, what you think is best.

If God really matters to you then you would de-throne yourself and allow God to work in your life. Allow God to have a free reign on what He wants to do with you and through you.

And if God does not matter, then I don’t know why you are even bothering to inquire here.

All these scenarios are really just your attempts to justify something that you know is wrong.

If you were this couple’s priest, what would you counsel them to do? Would you tell them that they cannot get married in the grace of God if they don’t agree to accept a child if the woman gets pregnant bc that’s the rule? Or would you consider the wellbeing of everyone involved (including their unborn i.e. potential “children”) and decide that although it’s not perfect, God understands that the couple only want to prevent suffering by using contraception or sterilization

and therefore their reason for using it is not contrary to His design for their family?
That is pure hogwash. You are not concerned so much about the baby but yourself and how it will impact your neatly ordered life. It is all about you. It is a lie that you tell yourself so that you can justify this evil act and feel quite comfortable doing it with the added bonus of knowing that there are some who actually agree with you.

Face up to the truth.

 

[samiam1611]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond to me. It’s very much appreciated, although I would also appreciate a little less of the insulting words like stupid and absurd.
I actually am not Catholic, nor do I believe in God, so my questions are more about indulging my curiosity of the “why?” of certain aspects of Catholicism. I tried to put myself “in your shoes” so to speak, with regards to my phrasing. I am on my iPod right now, so typing is kind of a pain so forgive the brevity of my responses, I will try to expand on them later.

Where has it been said that God desires marriage to be sexless?

I believe you misunderstood me, in a way. What I meant by that was, if a couple wants badly enough to prevent pregnancy, they wouldn’t risk it by having sex, even during the infertile times of the cycle just in case. In other words… no sex.
Since I wrote that question though, I have learned that it is not permissible for a couple to enter into a marriage if they intend on only having sex during the infertile times or not at all. “entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong.” (don’t know why I never came across that line in the course of my research prior to joining this forum. )
Gtg now but thanks again for responding,I’ll check back when I get the chance.

 

[Calliso]

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.”

Ok I know this post is kinda old but I wanted to respond to part of it. The first part in general. Personally I find myself rather annoyed when people say or imply that if someone doesn;t want kids something bad must have happened to them most likely or they need therapy most likely. I think it is painting with a pretty broad brush to say that most people not wanting kids need therapy. Sure maybe some do…but lots of people had good even great childhoods and nothing really bad that happened to them and still donlt want kids.

 

[benedictus2]

First of all, thank you for taking the time to respond to me. It’s very much appreciated, although I would also appreciate a little less of the insulting words like stupid and absurd.
I actually am not Catholic, nor do I believe in God, so my questions are more about indulging my curiosity of the “why?” of certain aspects of Catholicism. I tried to put myself “in your shoes” so to speak, with regards to my phrasing. I am on my iPod right now, so typing is kind of a pain so forgive the brevity of my responses, I will try to expand on them later.

I believe you misunderstood me, in a way. What I meant by that was, if a couple wants badly enough to prevent pregnancy, they wouldn’t risk it by having sex, even during the infertile times of the cycle just in case. In other words… no sex.
Since I wrote that question though, I have learned that it is not permissible for a couple to enter into a marriage if they intend on only having sex during the infertile times or not at all. “entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong.” (don’t know why I never came across that line in the course of my research prior to joining this forum. )
Gtg now but thanks again for responding,I’ll check back when I get the chance.
In that case you will miss the whole point of our arguments.

Any understanding of morality comes from the Christian belief that there is a God and that He is the Author of life and as such the sole adjudicator of the morality of anything.

Set that aside and it is a free for all which renders your post irrelevant.

 

[samiam1611]

Thanks, I’m reading some other posts and starting to think mine might have just been repetitive

Copperblade, I’m sorry, somehow I missed all your posts until just now! Must’ve read them while I was falling asleep last night, so when I click View First Unread, it skipped them.
Don’t ya worry about sounding repetitive, sometimes one person’s words get through better than someone else’s.

Regarding the last point, it is a lie to say that engaging in sex while using ABC fosters unity. Couples who contracept lie when they say they do this for the unitive purpose. They do this for pleasure plain and simple.
Furthermore, it is not a case of giving most of yourself than none of yourself but more a case of lying with your body. When you don’t give yourself totally you are actually lying.

(Quote from me) It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely!
For a very short period of time. You are writing as if one is being asked to abstain from sex always. That is an over exaggeration and so therefore a lie.

Ooooh! I got an affirmative on the NFP is suggesting you refuse to give oneself!!! Yeah, it’s a short period of time. Just bc it’s not representative of a couple’s entire marriage doesn’t make it a lie though - if it’s true sometimes, it’s not a lie. Just pointing out that some of the lines in HV and the CCC actually conflict with the rules/morals the Church uses for NFP.
You use the words lie, lying a lot. I don’t see how that is the right word, perhaps you could explain your reasoning for that. The way I see it, it’s only a lie if someone is using contraception (i.e. the Pill) without telling their spouse. Or if they know they are infertile but don’t tell their spouse. Maybe it’s hard for you to see it my way, I’m assuming you have or want kids. The desire to procreate, to have offspring, is quite literally absent in me. Literally. I fail to see how you (expressing the view of the Church) can tell me that I’m “lying” by having sex without this desire.

 

[copperblade]

Copperblade, I’m sorry, somehow I missed all your posts until just now! Must’ve read them while I was falling asleep last night, so when I click View First Unread, it skipped them.
Don’t ya worry about sounding repetitive, sometimes one person’s words get through better than someone else’s.

Thanks. It’s ok, I just thought what I said was something you must have heard from people here already. I hope that you find the peace and joy that comes after the struggle to find the truth.

 

[copperblade]

The desire to procreate, to have offspring, is quite literally absent in me.

I find it hard to relate to this. Most religions see procreation as a positive. And if you don’t believe in God, what else you got? Anyway the fact is none of your ancestors chose to not have children (obviously). So it can’t be a genetic trait, or even a desirable one.

Do you think you’d feel differently if you didn’t have the dogs? I think it has to be more than just kids being “annoying”–a lot of people feel that other people’s kids are annoying. But when I feel that way it’s because I think the parents aren’t doing their job. I’m really annoyed at the parents.

Ironically, you’d probably be a really good parent because you really seem to care about doing the right thing. And you would have really good insight into life’s difficulties that you could pass on. This world needs more good people, not just more people who have kids without thinking about it. You sure you weren’t meant to pass something along to another generation?

 

[copperblade]

I actually am not Catholic, nor do I believe in God, so my questions are more about indulging my curiosity of the “why?” of certain aspects of Catholicism.

Ah ok. My opinion is in order to understand Catholic teachings, you must understand Aquinas. In order to understand Aquinas, you must understand Aristotle. The Aristotelian morality is based on intrinsic value or purpose.

Example: “Suppose we’re distributing flutes…” – Michael Sandel
ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html

 

[plinko]

Note to self: Never ever try to get to know Plinkos family or invite them over to dinner. Banana prices are at an all time high and I rather like to keep them for myself

This is why I’m slowly distancing myself from this site. I come here to learn, I make (what I think) are valid points, and I only wish that people would respectfully find the “fault” in them. Instead, people nitpick at tiny things, completely missing the point, and basking in the arrogant glow of self righteousness.

I wrote quite a lengthy post that includes one TINY inference to my views on evolution. Those views had nothing to do with this thread, so you could have just shaken your head in disapproval and moved on. You didn’t need to make a note to yourself and you certainly didn’t need to post that note to yourself on CAF.

Phylogenetically, humans are cousins to primates. Phylogenetically. Not spiritually or emotionally. Primates are not my literal cousins. Get off your high horse.

All this has done is further distanced me from a faith that I can no longer believe in. This forum is filled with sarcastic, angry, emotionally stunted people who would rather mock someone than correct their supposed flawed logic.

Forget this. I’m out.

 

[benedictus2]

This is why I’m slowly distancing myself from this site. I come here to learn, I make (what I think) are valid points, and I only wish that people would respectfully find the “fault” in them. Instead, people nitpick at tiny things, completely missing the point, and basking in the arrogant glow of self righteousness.

I wrote quite a lengthy post that includes one TINY inference to my views on evolution. Those views had nothing to do with this thread, so you could have just shaken your head in disapproval and moved on. You didn’t need to make a note to yourself and you certainly didn’t need to post that note to yourself on CAF.

Phylogenetically, humans are cousins to primates. Phylogenetically. Not spiritually or emotionally. Primates are not my literal cousins. Get off your high horse.

All this has done is further distanced me from a faith that I can no longer believe in. This forum is filled with sarcastic, angry, emotionally stunted people who would rather mock someone than correct their supposed flawed logic.

Forget this. I’m out.

Major apology.

I was not being sarcastic but just trying to be funny. I saw Julianne’s post and I thought that was funny (it reminded of something Alice Von Hildebrand said), hence the reason for the quip. I am sorry but that was not supposed to be sarcastic.

I will still address your post later (once I’ve read it ) even though you’ve exited.

Mea Culpa.

 

[benedictus2]

People on this thread, and elsewhere, argue that when the Church says a marriage is “procreative”, it is “ordered to the possibility of conception”. This is NOT the definition of procreative.

Who says? Have you checked the definition?

To procreate means “to make offspring”, not “open to the potential of offspring”.

To procreate yes, that is the definition but procreative? That means capable of procreation so more akin to an openness to life.

Furthermore, what are you quibbling about since the church has explained what she meant by procreative?

There is a difference that people on this thread are failing to see. So when the catechism defines a marriage as unitive AND procreative, they are insisting that couples procreate.

No they are not. All they are saying that the procreative purpose is not thwarted.

It would be a different story if they defined marriage as unitive and open to offspring, but no. The terminology is wrong.

No it isn’t. Refer above.

There’s no other way to put it. Can you at least see where I’m coming from?

I can and you misrepresent what the Church. It would be a stupid teaching if the church insists that all married couples must procreate and therefore produce offspring when in a lot of cases, this is not up to them for reasons outside their control.

Let’s say hypothetically, a couple cannot conceive. What does it matter whether they are “open to life”? If people accuse me of arguing semantics in point #2 above, how is this any different? Again, saying that I will conceive is a huge slap in the face to me, as if I’m being looked down on for my inabilities and you (general you, none of this is actually directed at you alone!) feel sorry for me.

Oh please, you are twisting things.

Can you please cite a church doctrine where it says that a couple unable to conceive due to infertility MUST conceive otherwise they will be looked down?

You are conjuring up boogeyman and frightening yourself with your own manufactured ghosts.

I don’t need to have a kid to feel self worth.

Who said you should have a kid to feel self worth?

This is the kind of argument that gets the discussion nowhere.

With that said, I am 1 billion percent sure that I will not have a child. Telling me that I might is an insult and a lie.

Never heard of miracles? I read the testimony of a woman with (I think) 2 vaginas and 2 cervix. I can’t remember what she had exactly two of but it was two parts of the procreative organs. Anyway, cut a long story short, she became Catholic and starting spending time before the Blessed Sacrament then one night experienced bleeding, was rushed off to the hospital and her doctor was stumped because this time the x-rays showed only 1.

Nothing is impossible to God. Every now and then He does make miracles according to His purpose.

Have you ever hear of one of Padre Pio’s miracles? The girl has no pupil so could not see then Padre Pio healed her. She still has no pupils but now she can see.

Then there was another guy I read of whose legs were badly broken, doctors said he should not be able to walk yet he walks when to all intents and purposes, as far as science could ascertain he should not be walking.

So who cares whether I’m open to life or not?

Don’t you think your question borders on the ridiculous?

Do you think the Church will say to you “you must be open to life” if she knows that you are infertile. But if you are infertile, what would need ABC for?

The question here is about the use of ABC and has nothing to do with infertile couples because it goes to say that infertile couples have no need of contraception.

Sure, I’m open to life. I’m also open to breathing underwater and having lunch on Pluto.

Now that’s just plain silly. This part just has no relation to anything that went before.

This “open to life” phrase is flung around so much that I’m unsure if people actually understand what it means.

Really? On what do you base that conclusion?

I’ve looked at some of the posts and I think they do know.

Now if you don’t understand what we are trying to explain just say so and we will try a different angel to ensure it gels with you.

 

[Bookcat]

If even one of the persons is excluding by a positive act of the will…that openness to life which is essential to marriage…there is NO MARRIAGE…it just does not take place.

Canon Law:

Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.

Can. 1101 §2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

 

[Bookcat]

…can a couple who don’t want to have children get married under the grace of God?

It is possible for those who exchange the right of marriage…but not exercise such…not consummate the marriage. There are some who are called to such. But such is not the ordinary vocation to marriage.

 

[benedictus2]

That is irrelevant to the point at hand. The Church gave a definition and then, as an afterthought, listed people (infertile individuals) that are, for some reason, exempt from the definition.

Did you actually bother reading Paragraphs 1652 and 1653?

SonCatcher’s citing of 1654 is VERY relevant but it’s relevance escapes you because I don’t think you bothered to read 1652 and 1653 or if you did, you are in such a huff that you did not completely understand it’s intent. I suggest you re-read the section on marriage as SonCatcher has suggested.

It’s kind of like if I said that I was having a party and only girls were invited. But Bob can come too, because he’s cool and can’t help that he’s a guy. That’s what I feel the Church is saying.

It is not in the least like that at all. She’s saying that marriage is ordered towards a certain goal - which is children. But those who through no fault of their own cannot have children is not in anyway lesser than those who do.

The very specific ruling about procreation is to make sure that people are aware that there should not be any artificial barriers to conception.

They define marriage under explicit terms and then decide that an entire subset of people is exempt from the definition for some (still mysterious to me) reason.

You really sooooo completely misunderstood par 1652 to 1654.

Can you please show how 1654 exempts people from 1652 and 1653?

Do you know the meaning of “exempt”?

What the paragraphs are saying is something like this: Those with legs should walk so that they can use all the God given faculties and thus bring all their gifts into God’s service. However it does not mean that those without legs are not serving God with whatever God has given them.

**Contrast that with what you “think” the Church is saying with your use of “exempt”.
**
**Your interpretation seems to go like this: Those with legs should walk to the end of this line but those without legs are exempt from walking.
**
Do you see how idiotic that sounds? That is not what the Church is saying at all.

Here is my point, stated for something like the fifth time. Procreation means the act of making offspring. To procreate means to conceive (gametes fusing). Nowhere in those two definitions is the mention of “openness to life”.

How about the very simple fact that not all marital acts result end in conception? Are you now saying that the Church is demanding that every single act should bring about life?

That is where the “openness to life comes from”. We cannot conceive at will. Conception is still God’s act. Therefore, when the Church says that marriage is ordered towards procreation, she can only mean that a marital act be open to the action of God, if and when He decides to allow conception to take place. That is why the “procreation” statement can really only mean an openness to life.

The definitions are the physical processes of forming a baby.

And the physical process of forming a baby cannot be willed by the couple. By insisting on a definition of procreation you are completely missing the whole point of what the teaching is about.

By those definitions, the church has contradicted itself.

No she hasn’t. You are just short on comprehension because of a blinkered view caused by this chip on your shoulder.

Infertile couples should not be allowed to marry under the church’s premise. And yet, the Church has made a special exception for one reason or another.

Wrong again. Infertile couples are allowed to marry. But couples who marry but have no intention of having children, then that is another matter altogether.

She was not making special exceptions for one reason or another. She was just using common sense.

As a woman who wants to marry, I will admit that I’m cool with the Church’s contradiction. But it is still a point that I will never understand.

There isn’t any. It was your comprehension that was wanting.

 

[benedictus2]

I find that to be… it’s hard to describe the word I’m looking for… maybe primeval? This is one example of many where the Church has shrugged at modern medicine instead of applying knowledge to teaching and even saying, “hey, we might need to take a fresh look at this”.

What is modern science’s qualification that you should conclude that it should be the determinant of morality?

It says nothing about being “open to life” or “making babies” or anything. It just says “not granted children”. Could it be that you can choose not to have children? The statement quoted does not imply that one must be open to life. I’m just seeing way too many contradictions.

Here again, it is a failure at comprehension (or a stubborn refusal to comprehend) on your part which prevents you from seeing the sense in this sentence.

Paragraph 1654 refers to infertility hence the phrase “to whom God has not granted children”.
And yes, one “could choose not to have children” and thus use contraception. That is exactly the point of 1652 to 1654. Those who, otherwise have no physical impediments to conceiving, should not make any artificial ones.

You see contradictions where there are none and it keeps going back to a failure to understand and I wonder whether this inability is deliberate.

I know I don’t have the majority’s outlook on this forum. I only bring these things up to see if I can be persuaded.

If you will exercise some careful thinking there won’t be any need to persuade you because all the perceived errors and contradictions are just an absence of understanding.

The more that I am here on this forum, though, the more convinced I am that I’m no longer a Catholic;

We could have told you that.

I don’t think my beliefs are budging.

And they are beliefs that are shored up by bogeymen and ghosts of your own making.

This, and condoms, and gay marriage, and the scandals… I don’t know if this is the place for me.

If your faith is that weak and your pride is that high then indeed you need to take time off and maybe learn a little humility.

But I digress.

Yes you did.

Thanks for your intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut and putting up with a (presumably annoying) dissenter.

Not annoying. Just ill informed with a predilection to shadow boxing.

 

[benedictus2]

Second reply to this post.

This is why I’m slowly distancing myself from this site. I come here to learn, I make (what I think) are valid points, and I only wish that people would respectfully find the “fault” in them.

Okay, 1 “people” (me) have read 3 of them and have replied.

The points are not valid and faults have been found.

 

[masha]

I have not read the entire thread, and am replying only to the original post. Sorry if that causes any confusion.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative.”
“Because of this secondary purpose, married couples have a right to engage in intercourse even when pregnancy is not a possible result.”

First of all, I feel like this second statement contradicts the first. I don’t understand why, if the procreative purpose of intercourse can be set aside during times when pregnancy is not possible (post-menopause, naturally occuring infertility), why not all the time?

The second statement does not contradict the first, if it is taken in it wholeness. The “unitive” and “procreative” aspects of sex are not so severly defined. The “unitive” aspect does not just include the uniting of two bodies physicially and the spiritual unity that results. “Unitive” is linked with the procreative biologically because the conception of a child unifies the couple in a deep, lasting, and diffferent sense than the unity of the persons. The “procreative” is not simply the act of procreation, but the creation through that act of a family - (whether children are possible or not). That is why infertile couples *are able *to be both unitive and procreative in their sex lives, by still giving fully of themselves, they allow their marriage to unify and procreate as God intends for them.

Deciding to reject children though, denies both the unitive and procreative senses, because it denies the other the full unity of selves, the acceptance of unity with the will of God, and by failing to give fully, fails completely to accept in any sense, a procreative role within the marriage.

Why does God give us the ability to think independently and rationally to decide for ourselves if we want children (as opposed to animals, who have a pure driven instinct to procreate) but if you choose to not want them, it is wrong?

God gives us the ability to think and to decide so that we might think and decide rightly. An animal cannot worship. Worship and obedience must be given freely. But simply because you are capable of deciding to reject God does not mean that it is a right decision. I would say that choosing not to want children would be wrong, and allowing a fear, or other weakness to direct you towards not wanting them would be a wrong as well, though a less premeditated wrong, a flaw to be overcome. Either is a pushing away, a rejection of the generosity of God, and both should be fully explored, perhaps with a spiritual director, and mastered.

Why would God be so kind as to bring a special person into our lives, but forbid us from expressing our love in the physical way our bodies desire? He also gave us the desire to want to please each other. But He didn’t give us the desire to have children!

God would bring such a person into your life to teach love and obedience. To encourage you to grow out of the flaw that is making Children seem such a negative outcome. Remember our marriages are meant to bring us to heaven, and there is no place in heaven for a limiting of love. He doesn’t think a sexless marriage would be better, he knows that a marriage lived out in fullness, openness, and generosity is best, and he desires to give you that desire so that you can live more fully.

People who will not welcome children are not allowed to marry. There is a difference between unwillingness to welcome and a lack of desire. In my own life, my father often said he never wanted children, it became a standing joke in the family, as he ended up loving them and having more than any of his siblings. But prior to marriage, he wanted none. He made a decision, though to be *open to * having children, and to welcome them, which is why he was able to be married in the Chruch. Having made that decision, he was better able to see his own lack of desire for children for what it was - in his case, fear of losing his intellectual freedom, and reject that fear.

“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely.”
I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself? It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely! What do you think?

In your case, with the attitude towards children you’ve expressed, there would be little difference. You would be using NFP as contraception, the only difference would be one of obedience to the surface teaching of the Church, which would hopefully create in you a desire for full obedience.

It is Not at all better to give some of yourself than to give “none”. And you have to remember that you are not giving “none” you are simply not expressing your love sexually at that time. When you are giving “some” or “most” as you said, you are in reality giving a body but not a self because you have refused to allow yourself to be vunerable. The intention (though not always the outcome) of NFP is to preserve the openness and vunerability of the couple by creating a lifestyle in which they must be spiritually intimate even if they cannot be physically intimate. Artificial contraception creates an artificial lifestyle in which the couple seems intimate, but they have wrapped themselves in barriers. We often miss the important point that everything we do with our bodies affects our souls - that is why that Church places so much emphasis on fasting, that is why we stand, sit, and kneel during the Liturgy.

I guess I’ll continue this, it’s getting a bit long…

 

[samiam1611]

I guess I’ll continue this, it’s getting a bit long…

Long yes, but my OP was pretty long too! Thanks for reading! You’ve made some good points. (One or two of the things you said I did eventually figure out/learn about/come to understand by the way so I will focus more on the things you’ve said that raised more questions or just beg further response).