E
EasterJoy
Guest
You’re good to go, then!
- Status
N
NSFrame
Guest
Just for the record, that is not what I and several others have been saying. We have been saying that delaying marriage for the specific purpose of avoiding conceiving children is a kind of permanent form of NFP, certainly not welcoming children from God as we are called to do in Catholic marriage vows.
R
Rau
Guest
Though many of us reject that proposition, as marriage is not an obligation on anyone and nor is a desire for children. If children are not desired, then deny yourself marriage during fertile years. That’s permitted. In infertile (older) years, Marry if the opportunity presents. That’s permitted too.
L
Listener
Guest
I disagree with this. If you don’t get married because you don’t want children, how would this be a permanent form of NFP? Living a celibate life is what Catholics are supposed to do when they are single. If a guy who didn’t want children became a priest, would you say that he was practicing a permanent form of NFP? This is nonsense.
On the other hand, if you feel like getting married after you can no longer have children, that is your right and privilege.
A woman who waits that long, however, will be unlikely to find a man who has never married. She will probably end up babysitting his grandchildren whether she likes it or not. I think that should count as being open to life!
M
Martin_Pastore
Guest
Thanks Easter Joy,
This was my first thought…the miracle baby…or as many have called one…the oops baby.
My second thought, (I can never shed my past occupation)…culpability and intent.
The problem I see is the original intent…a purposeful intent to marry late, in the expectation of no children…that intent creates a problem of culpability for me.(ducking sin on a technicality,what? going to pull one over on God?)
Definitely a chat with a Priest, in order,preferably with a back round in phsycology.
My two cents.
R
Rau
Guest
So, what would you have the young person who does not desire children do? Discern a marriage partner, or live a good chaste single life? And if later in life, a marriage opportunity presents, what would you have the person do? Marry or refuse marriage?
Is the right to marry late in life. Injected with ones attitude go children and/or marriage in younger years?
M
Martin_Pastore
Guest
A young person who does not want children can live a chaste single life…or choose to sin and use birth control…and live as they please…that’s free will, not my business.
I got married late in life …40 years old, as I was devoted to govt. service before-hand and did not wish to subject a spouse to that type of life. Again, free will decision.
But I was always ready for the miracle/oops baby.
You seem to ignore my point about “intent and culpability”, do you understand those concepts? Your tone also seems a bit hostile…have I offended you,or is my post offensive in some form that I am ignorant about? My sense of humour runs, does run a bit NY cynical,also seen way too much tragedy and human suffering, not everyone can dig that or comprehend it.
Peace…Martin Pastore.
R
Rau
Guest
Your post does not offend, nor is my tone hostile (imho).
I understand intent and culpability.
I am yet to understand what wrong you find in living the single life chastely, during notionally fertile years, but remaining open to marriage at a later date. There is no obligation to want or seek children. There is no bar to marrying later in life. There is no wrong I can see in envisaging, from the outset, that one’s life might develop in those stages.
The 2nd para in my previous post should have read:
Is the right to marry late in life impacted by one’s attitude to children and/or marriage in younger years?
M
Martin_Pastore
Guest
I understand selective hearing…you seem to have a problem with selective reading…I state a young single person could live a chaste life…and add, that by free will, could live a sinful life…not my business…that’s between God and the individual…
AND I stated I myself married rather late in life…What don’t you get?!
Or are you just looking to pick a fight??!!,playing contrary, or simply obtuse? You baffle me!
I don’t know if you understand NY slang …but if you’re “looking to dance” my card"s empty at the moment…and perhaps we to discuss in a more private setting.
Peace…Martin.
R
Rau
Guest
I challenged your prior post, viz:
The problem I see is the original intent…a purposeful intent to marry late, in the expectation of no children…that intent creates a problem of culpability for me.(ducking sin on a technicality,what? going to pull one over on God?)
I see no culpability . You appear unable to elaborate, only to question my ability to understand and to hear. The site is for discussion and debate.
M
Martin_Pastore
Guest
Where you see no culpability, I do…Thank you for finally coming clean…now all your posts make sense.
I understand well about discussion and debate.
I only appeared to you, to be unable to elaborate, because you were being disingenuous in your argument, by holding back your key viewpoint. And I would not falter.
I’m also trained and experienced in hammering the truth out of people, I’m happy to see I haven’t lost my touch.
As far as the culpability issue, it’s a matter of perception…We can agree to disagree…I never said I have truth by the tail, only a fool believes that…you may very well be correct.
And I missed the mark completely!!
But if you were “up front from the jump”(more NY slang), about how you felt or viewed,
perceived…I wouldn’t have had to beat the dead horse…to finally get your underlying assertion.
I appreciate having had the debate.
Peace…(really)…Martin Pastore.
R
Rau
Guest
Thanks for clarifying that you don’t really have a reason for your view, just a perception. I hope you used to require more before arresting people in your working career! And if you’d read post #226, where I first quoted you, a bit more carefully, maybe you’d not have been so slow on the uptake, and so quick to become aggressive.
M
Martin_Pastore
Guest
Well post #226 is the gibberish that started the whole mess.It amounts to your first salvo with the hidden assertion.
I get that most can’t grasp NY sarcastic humour.
I could never get catty,petty, sore losers though, they don’t fare well in NY,so i guess maybe that’s why? Agressive?..Passive/ Agressive (you)this whole exchange honey.
I ended up my last post with a pretty good olive branch.(hence the whole perception thing,I was throwing you a bone, you had to use it in a bad way, not see it for what it was, unfortunate)…and an honest Peace. You couldn’t dig it.and ended up embarasing yourself…as vonnegut says…“So it goes”.
But…you also seem like a “gotta have the last word type”…so go ahead…I promise I will not respond further.
Peace…(really)…Martin.
R
Rau
Guest
M
Martin_Pastore
Guest
Hey Rau,
Really… Peace to you.
It was a good back and forth.
Don’t tell me you didn’t have at least a teensy bit of fun, or you would not have bothered.
Have a good day, or night, as the case may be.wherever you hail from. It’s 0230hrs in Costa Rica.
All the Best…Martin.
PS…Sorry about the last word thing.
Really… Peace to you.
It was a good back and forth.
Don’t tell me you didn’t have at least a teensy bit of fun, or you would not have bothered.
Have a good day, or night, as the case may be.wherever you hail from. It’s 0230hrs in Costa Rica.
All the Best…Martin.
PS…Sorry about the last word thing.
N
NSFrame
Guest
Here is the problem: one should not intentionally separate marriage and sex from children. That is a pretty basic tenet of Catholicism - to do so is wrong. The OP was suggesting that someone might want marriage and sex but not want children (obviously this happens a lot nowadays), so to “get out of it” but still be outwardly correct in his actions, he would wait to marry until he is old enough to find a bride past fertile years. To me this is entering marriage under false pretenses, deliberately skirting God’s design.
Obviously if you just happen to meet the right spouse later in life, there is no problem with marriage as an older person. It’s the specific intent to marry while avoiding children that is the problem.
Anyway I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here…sorry…
R
Rau
Guest
I think that’s right.
I am yet to understand what wrong you find in living the single life chastely, during notionally fertile years, but remaining open to marriage at a later date. There is no obligation to want or seek children. There is no bar to marrying later in life. There is no wrong I can see in envisaging, from the outset, that one’s life might develop in those stages.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Or, one might have serious reasons for waiting through one’s fertile years–hereditary genetic problems for children, the high risk later 40s for women, health problems for mom (let’s say mom is a Type 1 diabetic or has heart problems), serious mental illness in one or both members of the couple, etc. Those are the same reasons that would justify NFP within marriage. If NFP within marriage would be acceptable, why not also just wait to marry? Either one is morally acceptable.
I think one of the problems in this discussion (as illustrated by Martin Pastore) is that people mix up the chastely waiting for marriage group with the unchastely waiting for marriage group. I think they may not really be imagining a single person chastely waiting, but a single person living a stereotypical North American single lifestyle, with all that that entails. If we amplify the image (we imagine a single person living a life of chastity, piety, sacrifice, self-denial, and service to others), it becomes difficult to see in what way that person is sinning by marrying at 50 rather than at 45 or 40.
As 1 Corinthians 7 says, “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.” Paul is certainly in no hurry to marry off single Corinthians–he sees a lot of value in waiting, as long as it’s done without danger of sexual immorality. (“If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.”)
X
Xantippe
Guest
There is a lot of space being not wanting/seeking children and using contraception–those two things are not at all the same. Think of it as a Venn diagram–there’s a set of people who don’t want to have children and aren’t trying to have children and there’s a set of people who are using contraception. There is an overlap between the two groups, but the two groups are not the same. Some of the people who don’t want children and aren’t seeking children are 80-somethings, not having sex, infertile, too young to physically be able to conceive, whatever. In fact, I almost suspect that the set of people who are using contraception is smaller than the group of people who aren’t using contraception but don’t want children–in an aging population, that will certainly be more and more the case.
- Status