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

[masha]

“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, embody 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?

Because unitive aspect of the act cannot exist within a rejection of the procreative aspect of the act, as I said, they are intrinsically linked. Full abstinence at specific times of the marriage does not lessen the embodiment of the marital covenent, unless it is done for reasons that do not agree with a true love and vunerability with the other. For example, if you are abstaining because your spouse is severly ill, that is merely a different way of expressing love and renewing the marital covenent. But if you are abstaining to punish your spouse, you have failed to live in love. If you are using sex though, as a means of objectifying your spouse, as opposed to as an expression of love, you are not embodying your marital covenent either. “Each marital act” does not mean simply “each time you have sex”. The term “marital act” in this sense implys the unitive and procreative sex of a married couple. When contraception is introduced, the “marital act” is bent out of it’s nature and becomes simply “sex”.

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

Chastity is not the same as absitnence. Chastity within marriage is different from Chastity outside of marriage. A Chaste married couple is one whose sex life is lived in God’s will for them. But Virginity pursued for God is a great good because it is the giving up of another good (marriage and family life) in response to God’s call and in pursuit of a greater good - an intense intimacy with God.

The difference between choosing a greater good: Abstinent intimacy with God, above a great good: Marriage and family life; and choosing to reject the gift of children in marriage is that you are NOT in pursuit of a greater good, you are merely pursuing your own comfort, and you are using an institution (marriage), while refusing to live up the the requirements of that institution.

---

I hope these responses help, and I hope I haven’t just repeated something that’s been said over and over, as I didn’t read the rest of the posts.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[samiam1611]

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.

Ok this is interesting…tell me if I’m getting this right. I feel that I do give myself fully bc the desire for children is absent in me, that’s why I was having trouble with that phrase. But what you are saying is, included in that phrase and the word unity is it’s not just about two spouses giving themselves physically and emotionally, it’s about bringing God into each act as well? A kind of 3 way? D)

People who will not welcome children are not allowed to marry. There is a difference between unwillingness to welcome and a lack of desire.

I certainly see the difference. Question though - if the couple says to themselves, to God, to the priest who is about to marry them, “we won’t use artificial contraception but if NFP fails, we will give any and all children that result up for adoption.” What is your take on that? Basically they are saying, we won’t abort. But that’s as far as they’ll go, welcoming-wise.

It is not at all better to give some of yourself than to give “none”

Could you tell me exactly why some is NOT better than none? Sex within a marriage promotes fidelity for instance. So isn’t giving yourself, whether it’s truly your whole self or not, better than none, if none could lead to lust or even infidelity? That’s just an example, I could probably think of more…

And you have to remember that you are not giving “none” you are simply not expressing your love sexually at that time.

That is a sentiment I’ve heard several times now. Makes sense and all…but still wondering why that makes sex with ABC so definitively illicit. It seems to me that a couple should get to decide for themselves - as opposed to the Pope or Church Fathers etc - what will result in more unity - having joyful, passionate, loving sex, or sitting on opposite sides of the room bc they know if they get close it’s going to lead to lustful thoughts and feelings.(totally exaggerating, but you know what I mean.) Maybe for some couples, restraint has a positive effect on their marriage, but there’s no way that’s true for me. We show our love in other ways all the time! If neither person wants children, sex with contraception is totally self-giving, everything else is partial. Sex is not just about the body or pleasure (at least in a marriage), that we all agree on. It seems the Church does not fully recognize the positive effect - the emotional bond - that results from sex, even when a contraceptive is used. Like, they just don’t know. You know? lol.

 

[samiam1611]

Because unitive aspect of the act cannot exist within a rejection of the procreative aspect of the act, as I said, they are intrinsically linked. Full abstinence at specific times of the marriage does not lessen the embodiment of the marital covenent, unless it is done for reasons that do not agree with a true love and vunerability with the other. For example, if you are abstaining because your spouse is severly ill, that is merely a different way of expressing love and renewing the marital covenent. But if you are abstaining to punish your spouse, you have failed to live in love. If you are using sex though, as a means of objectifying your spouse, as opposed to as an expression of love, you are not embodying your marital covenent either. “Each marital act” does not mean simply “each time you have sex”. The term “marital act” in this sense implys the unitive and procreative sex of a married couple. When contraception is introduced, the “marital act” is bent out of it’s nature and becomes simply “sex”.

Chastity is not the same as absitnence. Chastity within marriage is different from Chastity outside of marriage. A Chaste married couple is one whose sex life is lived in God’s will for them. But Virginity pursued for God is a great good because it is the giving up of another good (marriage and family life) in response to God’s call and in pursuit of a greater good - an intense intimacy with God.

The difference between choosing a greater good: Abstinent intimacy with God, above a great good: Marriage and family life; and choosing to reject the gift of children in marriage is that you are NOT in pursuit of a greater good, you are merely pursuing your own comfort, and you are using an institution (marriage), while refusing to live up the the requirements of that institution.

---

I hope these responses help, and I hope I haven’t just repeated something that’s been said over and over, as I didn’t read the rest of the posts.

Blessings,
Masha

The chastity thing was cleared up awhile, I had that all wrong lol. Thanks though, certainly wouldn’t expect you to read all 10 pages or whatever it is.
I’ll have to give some more thought to this post at a later time cuz I gotta go, but in the meantime, am definitely interested to hear your response to the adoption thing.

 

[Calliso]

In short the OP is LYING AND LIVING A LIE.

I donlt understand this. If a married couple agrees that neither of them want children and they take precautions such as condoms or the pill or sterilization or even using nfp to help insure this how is this lying? I mean I could understand if there was a disagreement between spouses on having kids and one spouse had secretly gotten sterilized in order to avoid having kids then I could understand your statement but other wise I just donlt understand.

 

[catharina]

I donlt understand this. If a married couple agrees that neither of them want children and they take precautions such as condoms or the pill or sterilization or even using nfp to help insure this how is this lying? I mean I could understand if there was a disagreement between spouses on having kids and one spouse had secretly gotten sterilized in order to avoid having kids then I could understand your statement but other wise I just donlt understand.

That’s because you don’t understand (or even know?) of the teachings
of the Catholic Church. Those teachings are being addressed here.
Marital sex is to include both the unitive and pro-creative elements.

To use any of the measures you suggest to avoid the conception and
birth of children (forever) into a marraige is therefore not allowed. If you
are a non-denominational Christian, it’s no surprise that this is news
to you. However, until the 1930s (less than 100 yrs ago) this teaching
was the same in all Christian groups. Maybe you don’t know that?

 

[Calliso]

That’s because you don’t understand (or even know?) of the teachings
of the Catholic Church. Those teachings are being addressed here.
Marital sex is to include both the unitive and pro-creative elements.

To use any of the measures you suggest to avoid the conception and
birth of children (forever) into a marraige is therefore not allowed. If you
are a non-denominational Christian, it’s no surprise that this is news
to you. However, until the 1930s (less than 100 yrs ago) this teaching
was the same in all Christian groups. Maybe you don’t know that?

I understand this I just really didn;t understand the whole lying and living a lie comment. I actually knew about the whole before 1930s thing. Though I donlt think that just because it was a teaching before in all denominations means it is a correct teaching. But is the whole lying comment basically because according to the church then one would not really be in a valid marriage?

 

[catharina]

I understand this I just really didn;t understand the whole lying and living a lie comment. I actually knew about the whole before 1930s thing. Though I donlt think that just because it was a teaching before in all denominations means it is a correct teaching. But is the whole lying comment basically because according to the church then one would not really be in a valid marriage?

At this point, it seems benedictus2 needs to respond to the question.
Also I don’t know if the OP claims any faith; perhaps others do know.

 

[samiam1611]

But is the whole lying comment basically because according to the church then one would not really be in a valid marriage?

That’s a good speculation, until he comes back to explain. It’s a rather strange way of putting it, don’t you think? Lying, to me, implies an intent to deceive. That doesn’t really apply to a situation where both people are honest with each other about their intentions to not have children.
Yes, he must mean it’s an invalid Catholic marriage.

 

[roseofshannon]

@benedictus2

In all charity to you:
You are very knowledgeable, but your tone is harsh and mocking, and the bold print feels like you are shouting. Maybe you could tone it down a bit.

If we have all knowledge but have not love, we become like clanging gongs.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[benedictus2]

@benedictus2

In all charity to you:
You are very knowledgeable, but your tone is harsh and mocking, and the bold print feels like you are shouting. Maybe you could tone it down a bit.

If we have all knowledge but have not love, we become like clanging gongs.

Thanks and God Bless!

Thank you for your advice.

I tend to address posts depending on how I perceive them.

To my estimation some posts need a harsh tone, some don’t.

Plinko was going on as if she knew everything. The manner in which the question was phrased was not so much a gentle inquiry but in a prideful tone as if she knows better than the Church. Those kind I treat accordingly.

The one major tone that grates with me is when posters come to the board and presume to know better than the Church and dictate that the Church should think like them else the Church is in error.

So while I do acknowledge that you wrote this with the best intention, I did so with mine as well. I don’t buy into fuzzy feelings and label it love.

And I bold things that need to be bolded. I don’t bold text willy nilly.

Peace!

 

[benedictus2]

I donlt understand this. If a married couple agrees that neither of them want children and they take precautions such as condoms or the pill or sterilization or even using nfp to help insure this how is this lying? I mean I could understand if there was a disagreement between spouses on having kids and one spouse had secretly gotten sterilized in order to avoid having kids then I could understand your statement but other wise I just donlt understand.

In short, you are saying I am totally yours with your body when you are actually withholding a major part of you.

Fr Tadeusz puts this much better.

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0166.htm

*As Professor Bill May puts it : A person does not put on gloves to touch a beloved one tenderly, unless one thinks that some disease may be communicated. But is pregnancy a disease? And is not the use of condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, and the like similar to putting on gloves? Do husband and wife really become ‘one flesh’ if they must arm themselves with protective gear before ‘giving’ themselves to one another genitally?
*

• The problem here is clear: marital sexuality is actually all about loving someone totally and unreservedly, giving and receiving totally, and not holding back who we are for ourselves. It is a unique language of total self-giving.*

Contraception, on the other hand, allows marital sexuality to devolve into a kind of mutual masturbation where each pursues erotic satisfaction apart from the total gift of self, and apart from any openness to life. Because of contraception, marital sexual activity slips into a subtle mode of mutual exploitation – a lifeless, self-focused, needs-centered apparatus.

 

[Calliso]

In short, you are saying I am totally yours with your body when you are actually withholding a major part of you.

Fr Tadeusz puts this much better.

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0166.htm

*As Professor Bill May puts it : A person does not put on gloves to touch a beloved one tenderly, unless one thinks that some disease may be communicated. But is pregnancy a disease? And is not the use of condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, and the like similar to putting on gloves? Do husband and wife really become ‘one flesh’ if they must arm themselves with protective gear before ‘giving’ themselves to one another genitally?
*

• The problem here is clear: marital sexuality is actually all about loving someone totally and unreservedly, giving and receiving totally, and not holding back who we are for ourselves. It is a unique language of total self-giving.*

Contraception, on the other hand, allows marital sexuality to devolve into a kind of mutual masturbation where each pursues erotic satisfaction apart from the total gift of self, and apart from any openness to life. Because of contraception, marital sexual activity slips into a subtle mode of mutual exploitation – a lifeless, self-focused, needs-centered apparatus.

I think you are painting a rather broad and unfair brush of contracepting using couples. I know for a fact when me and my husband were still having marital relations and I was on the pill our sex life did not devolve or slip into exploitation or was it self focused. Also on the defending contraception post in the noncatholics forum the thread is now closed Samien made a good post I think I will recopy here.

Note the following is not my words they are Samiam1611’s

So we all know that NFP is not 100% effective…you can misjudge when you’re ovulating, etc. … what about the couple who knows it could fail but has sex anyway but hopes hopes hopes, prays prays prays, that she will not get pregnant. They make eye contact…they consider for a fleeting second withdrawl…they look to the heavens…they plead to God, don’t let this result in conception. pplllleeeease God. He finishes, they lay there, their minds overcome with worry and apprehension.

How is that a total giving of self? If their minds are distracted by the dread of pregnancy, they’re not giving themselves fully. It’s not an unreserved expression of love, not a total self giving. (They won’t abort if she gets pregnant, so you can’t say that couple with that mindset is “not open to life.”) You are so adament about this whole “it’s a lie,” “they’re lying” thing. But the marital act as experienced by a fertile couple who does not want children at this time without the freedom* that contraception brings is inferior to the intensity and trueness of love that a contraceptive-using couple can experience.
*(by significantly reducing the likelihood of this unwanted consequence)

 

[catharina]

I think you are painting a rather broad and unfair brush of contracepting using couples. I know for a fact when me and my husband were still having marital relations and I was on the pill our sex life did not devolve or slip into exploitation or was it self focused. Also on the defending contraception post in the noncatholics forum the thread is now closed Samien made a good post I think I will recopy here.

Note the following is not my words they are Samiam1611’s

So we all know that NFP is not 100% effective…you can misjudge when you’re ovulating, etc. … what about the couple who knows it could fail but has sex anyway but hopes hopes hopes, prays prays prays, that she will not get pregnant. They make eye contact…they consider for a fleeting second withdrawl…they look to the heavens…they plead to God, don’t let this result in conception. pplllleeeease God. He finishes, they lay there, their minds overcome with worry and apprehension.

How is that a total giving of self? If their minds are distracted by the dread of pregnancy, they’re not giving themselves fully. It’s not an unreserved expression of love, not a total self giving. (They won’t abort if she gets pregnant, so you can’t say that couple with that mindset is “not open to life.”) You are so adament about this whole “it’s a lie,” “they’re lying” thing. But the marital act as experienced by a fertile couple who does not want children at this time without the freedom that contraception brings is inferior to the intensity and trueness of love* that a contraceptive-using couple can experience.
*(by significantly reducing the likelihood of this unwanted consequence0

An “intensity and trueness of love” that is achieved
by willfully blocking God’s blessings in the marital bed?

Ahhhhhhhh, NO.
Nice try though, I guess …

 

[Calliso]

An “intensity and trueness of love” that is achieved
by willfully blocking God’s blessings in the marital bed?

Ahhhhhhhh, NO.
Nice try though, I guess …

How would it be a blessing if the whole time the couple is stressed out hoping and praying they wonlt get pregnant? HOw is that unifying in anyway?

 

[SwizzleStick]

…HOw is that unifying in anyway?

They accept that there are three united in their marriage-God, husband, wife-and accept God’s will in their marriage.

 

[samiam1611]

An “intensity and trueness of love” that is achieved
by willfully blocking God’s blessings in the marital bed?

Ahhhhhhhh, NO.
Nice try though, I guess …

And don’t forget the argument, “if God wants you to get pregnant you will” or whatever it is. Birth control isn’t 100% effective so maybe those 1% of people who get pregnant are those who God decided Too bad, you’re getting this blessing whether you want it or not. Unless you get your uterus or other reproductive organs removed solely for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, the possibility of getting pregnant is still in God’s hands. (If you believe in that sort of thing)

 

[catharina]

How would it be a blessing if the whole time the couple is stressed out hoping and praying they wonlt get pregnant? How is that unifying in anyway?

That’s the truth.
Either God is in charge or
God is long-gone.

We can’t have it both ways.

 

[Calliso]

They accept that there are three united in their marriage-God, husband, wife-and accept God’s will in their marriage.

To me though that doesn;t mean that the marital acts will truly unify a couple. Oh sure they will unify physically mean while emotionally they would drift farther and farther apart. We are talking about a couple who is trying to not use any sort of contraception in their marriage but does not wish at least at the time to have children. That is different then from a couple who is fine with having children at the time. I still dontl see how one can trully fully unify with ones spouse during the marital act if during and after one is in a state of worry and stress.

 

[SwizzleStick]

To me though that doesn;t mean that the marital acts will truly unify a couple. Oh sure they will unify physically mean while emotionally they would drift farther and farther apart. We are talking about a couple who is trying to not use any sort of contraception in their marriage but does not wish at least at the time to have children. That is different then from a couple who is fine with having children at the time. I still dontl see how one can trully fully unify with ones spouse during the marital act if during and after one is in a state of worry and stress.

They let go and let God. It is pretty simple, really. They trust in the Lord and accept His will in their marriage.

 

[samiam1611]

They accept that there are three united in their marriage-God, husband, wife-and accept God’s will in their marriage.

I thought the use of the word unity meant like, it brings them closer together…to grow in love…to enhance their happiness as a couple. Intimacy. To express their love for each other. To act on their marriage vows.
Are you saying, all this time, I’ve got the definition of unitive wrong?!