An open marriage thwarts the unitive aspect of marriage in the same way that contraception blocks the procreative aspect of marriage. A person can’t say “well,I am faithful to my marriage but want to contracept” anymore then he/she can say “well, I am open to having children but want to see other people”.
ER no you are completely wrong about this. You are taking Catholic fundamentalism to the extreme. One has nothing to do with the other. There is nothing inherently wrong in not wanting or having children. The two spouses may enjoy each others company so much that they don’t feel the need for children.
Don’t feel the need for children? What exactly is “marriage” for then? Marriage is for 1) uniting the spouses as one and 2) giving physical expression to that unity in the begetting of offspring. A couple that NEVER wants children should not get married, because the definition of marriage (natural moral law definition, not the dictionary) involves an openness to procreation.
There are women if you didn’t know that it would be bad for them to get pregnant. They may be on antidepressants for example. The woman also may have other medical problems like diabetes or high blood pressure that can endanger her life if she gets pregnant.
This is neither extreme nor fundamentalist. Every Church document about marriage speaks of the two aspects - procreative and unitive. And while, in earlier times of Church history, the procreative was considered primary, the understanding now is that both are necessary for a valid marriage.
I think all of that has been covered already. In certain circumstances a couple must decide if they should refrain from sex during the fertile period so as to avoid pregnancy due to a just reason. For some, this will be temporary, for others, longer, and for some, a lifetime. Their marriage can still be ordered to unity+procreation without actually being procreaTIVE.
Is that what I said? I believe I gave a dual purpose for marriage.
Good friends can have that kind of relationship without being married. Marriage is that commitment in which they are united as one and follow God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”. Marriage is for those who want a relationship that is ordered to both unity and procreation.
Failure to consumate is grounds to have a marriage dissolved - not annulled.
I just want to say something about this because this is another argument I often see that I think is misapplied. The problem with artificial contraception isn’t that it is something beyond nature, it is something that is directly contrary to nature. Cars are not directly contrary to nature, nor is medication, computers, cell phones etc. To understand the differences between them all better will take a more in depth explanation, but to use cars and other manmade things as an argument for artificial contraception doesn’t work against the Church’s understanding of the whole matter because of the difference She sees between cars and contraception.
Apparently you want to show your superiority as a “good” Catholic. It is fundamentalist and extreme towards people who can’t for reasons I mentioned already risk a pregnancy or just don’t want to have children.Failure to consumate is grounds to have a marriage dissolved - not annulled.
I am not a legalist. However, if you claim that my position is extreme (your word, not mine), there must be a moderate Church position that is less extreme. If so, it would be easy to find documentation.
Even the books we use to teach parish Catechism classes talk about the **two **ends of marriage. And no one has called a parish catechism text “fundamentalist” or “extreme” in 20 years.
There are no men and women who want to be faithful to one another and love one another outside of a marriage? Please explain how “This is very naive way of thinking”.
You came up with the argument of people just being friends without getting married. I said that it was naive to think that a man and a woman who are attracted to another would just be content to be friends. Outside of marriage would be a sin, no?
So they don’t fall into sin marriage is necessary!It’s fundamentalist and extreme to state, as a Catholic, what the Catholic teaching is on a particular subject? What “superiority” has Corki shown, or what claim “as a good Catholic” been made. These are your own projections, not something that Corki has said. All Corki has done is give the Catholic position.
In other words, you are Catholic in so far as ‘Catholic’ agrees with your own personal religious beliefs. You are putting your own desires ahead of the Church. That might not sound like a terrible thing on the surface…until you realize that this Church was established by Christ to guide us in Truth. Then you’ll realize that in putting your own beliefs above the Church, you place them above God as well. It becomes a form of self-worship.
Two completely different situations. If a couple has a serious reason not to risk a pregnancy, there is nothing wrong with using every moral means possible to protect the health of the mother (I don’t mean to be sexist but I can’t think of a case where pregnancy would pose a risk to the father). In a perfect world, those reasons would not exist and many, if not most of those couples would love to welcome children if it were not for the risk.
So,it’s not that the position being expressed here is extreme; it’s just that it’s Catholic.
OK you are right about that. That is what the Church doctrine says. However, the Church has changed their position about certain things so I have the hope they will in time change this one because its not fair to those who can’t risk a pregnancy or to those who don’t want to have children.It’s fundamentalist and extreme to state, as a Catholic, what the Catholic teaching is on a particular subject? What “superiority” has Corki shown, or what claim “as a good Catholic” been made. These are your own projections, not something that Corki has said. All Corki has done is give the Catholic position.
In other words, you are Catholic in so far as ‘Catholic’ agrees with your own personal religious beliefs. You are putting your own desires ahead of the Church. That might not sound like a terrible thing on the surface…until you realize that this Church was established by Christ to guide us in Truth. Then you’ll realize that in putting your own beliefs above the Church, you place them above God as well. It becomes a form of self-worship.
Please quote for me the portion where we clarified that this friendship involved an attraction strong enough to lead to a necessity of marriage?You came up with the argument of people just being friends without getting married. I said that it was naive to think that a man and a woman who are attracted to another would just be content to be friends. Outside of marriage would be a sin, no?
But if they marry and contracept, they are still sinning. Having sex outside of marriage isn’t any worse than using contraception to avoid having children. The goal is not contentment - the goal is Heaven.You came up with the argument of people just being friends without getting married. I said that it was naive to think that a man and a woman who are attracted to another would just be content to be friends. Outside of marriage would be a sin, no?
What about the woman who can’t risk a pregnancy? What about those who are older like their late 40’s and no longer desire children? Can’t you see how unfair that is to these people? There is nothing wrong with not wanting children if both are in accord with that. I do see it as a problem if one does and the other doesn’t.
Well, those who don’t want children are not forced to be married. If such a person chooses to be married, they are choosing what marriage IS, by natural moral law. It’s not something that the Church can simply change. It is a natural order that God has established.