E
excubitor
Guest
Does this mean that nobody in the third world should get married and have children?
- Status
S
spunjalebi
Guest
I don’t think that’s what he was saying, but considering the fact that we live in a country where we have a lot more resources than the people in underdeveloped countries, it would be the responsible thing to delay marriage, rather than to delay intercourse. At least with delaying marriage, you aren’t tempting yourself with the possibility of sexual sin or by using contraceptives. In the U.S. for instance, we are able to delay marriage and get jobs to become more financially stable. When you’re in an underdeveloped country, that isn’t always an option, so your better pick would be to get married since it could be more economically beneficial.
E
excubitor
Guest
I know exacly what he is saying. He judges the standard for “financial stability” by the standards of this monumentally greedy, materialist and affluent society.
This is materialism. We all live like kings in this society. Friends of mine have grandparents who married in Poland at a young age and then came on the boat to Australia. They had nothing but their love, they struggled and built their house by hand buying bricks for the house with whatever was left over from the scanty weekly paycheck. After 50 years of marriage they had 6 children and 25 grandchildren. According to this aberrant reasoning, this young couple in love should not have married because they were not financially stable. In fact it shows a lack of trust in God that he will provide for our needs whether we are married or not.
Also I believe that delaying marriage for economic reasons does absolutely nothing to avoid the temptation of sexual sin or the use of contraceptives. If anything it increases the risk as compared to marrying. The apostle Paul says in reference to the sex drive. “It is better to marry than burn” . Notice that he does not append this advice with “provided you are financially stable”.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
Well I guess that’s where we have to stop conjecturing and see if the OP has communicated some of these things to his friends, and what they have to say.
V
Vico
Guest
One reason is to stay alive (such as a high risk pregnancy) or to be more pious. The parents of St. Therese of Lisieux were married but were not having children, both had attempted a religious vocation and were refused. However a priest convinced them to have children, and they had nine daughters, and the five that survived all became nuns. The parents were Louis Martin, a watchmaker of Alencon, France, and Azelie-Marie Guerin, a lacemaker of the same town.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Louis_Martin_1.jpg/180px-Louis_Martin_1.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Zélie_Martin_1.jpg/180px-Zélie_Martin_1.jpg
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
What about that is supposed to make one more pious? Seems like a bizarre assumption.
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
I’m sort of with Spunjalebi here. My gut reaction is that an unconsummated marriage is annulment material at best. “Fraudulent” is probably too strong a word, but it certainly doesn’t strike one as legitimate. Whatever the historical precedents, it fails every “smell test” I know how to apply. I’m no authority, but postponing the marriage seems like a more seemly course.
P
PatriceA
Guest
I’m curious as well. I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the thought that they are financially stable enough to consider marriage, but not financially stable enough for children. Because being financially stable enough for a family can mean so many different things to people. Are they in a very bad situation financially now, or do they think they need gobs of money to raise a family? I’ve seen couples that think they need to keep up with the Jones before they can consider having a baby.
V
Vico
Guest
The example of Louis and Zelie Martin is about motivation, not theology: both of the parents wanted a religious vocation. Then originally intended in 1858, when married, to decided to live as brother and sister in a perpetual continence.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
What is the point of getting married if you can’t live the vocation entirely, and I’m not talking about people who have health issues, or get into accidents, or anything like that which may impede physical intimacy. I’m talking about people who don’t have these to contend with, yet want to get married but don’t want to be intimate. What is the point, honestly?
And doesn’t the Bible make it explicitly clear that marriage is the only place where physical intimacy is allowed, and encouraged?
My husband and I weren’t financially stable when we were single, and getting married helped that. If it weren’t for my health issues, we’d probably be trying for a kid right now. Our finances are still very tight, but if it came down to it, we’d seek the necessary resources to make sure we could afford a child. And really, if you do the research and look int it, the main expenses with a child are mostly due to medical, such as shots, check-ups, etc. Other than that the other things are easily overcome.
I honestly just have a hard time understanding why you’d get married but want to live the vocation of religious life:shrug: Makes no sense to me.
And doesn’t the Bible make it explicitly clear that marriage is the only place where physical intimacy is allowed, and encouraged?
My husband and I weren’t financially stable when we were single, and getting married helped that. If it weren’t for my health issues, we’d probably be trying for a kid right now. Our finances are still very tight, but if it came down to it, we’d seek the necessary resources to make sure we could afford a child. And really, if you do the research and look int it, the main expenses with a child are mostly due to medical, such as shots, check-ups, etc. Other than that the other things are easily overcome.
I honestly just have a hard time understanding why you’d get married but want to live the vocation of religious life:shrug: Makes no sense to me.
V
Vico
Guest
Marriage is for the spiritual good of the spouses, as stated in Genesis 2:18: “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” (Douay)
We are taught to be obedient to God’s laws, and in keeping with that, marriage is the only place where physical intimacy is allowed, and encouraged, but the obligation to replenish mankind only comes with the use of the reproductive function at the request of one of the spouses. The obligation of bonum prolis, the good of offspring, comes with the use of the reproductive function, according to Pope Pius XII:
“The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.”
Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951
CIC cannon 1068 § 2 states that: “Sterility neither invalidates nor prohibits marriage” which shows that it is not necesary to be fertile to validly marry. The proper consent must be there, as one can see in canon law, and on the prenuptial agreement form which asks:
Do you intend a life-long marriage, totally faithful to your spouse?
Do you intend to give each other the normal marital rights necessary to have children?
So giving proper consent, if neither spouse requests to “use the faculty proper to such a state” it may justly remain unexercised.
S
spunjalebi
Guest
I don’t mean to be blunt or graphic by any means, but after having waited for the amount of years to get married, there was no way I was going to remain a virgin, and there was no way my husband would let me either! It didn’t matter how broke we were!
C
clmowry
Guest
Well that was kind of my thought.
You are really going to remain celibate but live together as man and wife for the next 5 years?
I’d bet my whole retirement on the under vs. 5 years.
5 weeks maybe, probably more like 5 hours.
Chuck
- Status