Morality of Family Planning

[Timothy_486]

If I can go back to the concept of freedom and free will:

I’ve also gotten the impression that God’s Will is, or can be, very specific, and in order to do good we must follow this “script” that God has made for our lives. If we do not follow the script, we turn our back on God and do evil. Personally, I will argue day and night against any form of destiny. We are “left in the hand of our own counsel” and our lives have not been predetermined for us. In this vein, I would argue that God has not decided that we should have three kids, or ten, or twenty, or none at all. While most people on this board would argue that having a child is a good thing, that does not directly imply that the converse, not having a child, is evil or out of line with God. Choosing to have a child is not a “good vs. evil” decision. The moral question should come from “Can I properly raise this child within my abilities and within the support I receive from my spouse, my family, my friends, and most importantly, from God?”

Very good points here

 

[LittleDeb]

The couple “renews their wedding vows”, and then God decides to create a baby. (As an aside, I’ve found the euphemisms for ‘having sex’ very entertaining.) The couple appears to have no control over pregnancy, and this is really not the case. So when people say, “You have as many children as God wants you to have”, it sounds as if it’s because God creates children, not due to an egg and sperm meeting, dividing, etc. that is the direct result of a sexual act. It somehow absolves people from having to make the decision, because it’s God’s decision and we just have to figure out what he decided.

I think I see where you are going with this, but I don’t want to read too many of my own beliefs into it. I am human, I will no matter what, but I am trying to see it for what you present not for what I believe.

First off, I don’t consider the term “having sexual intercourse” or “having sex” to be nearly descriptive enough in this day and age. In the newer NAB Bible, what Jesus says on the Cross before dying is translated as, “It is finished.” In the older Douay-Rheims version it is worded much better. He says, “It is consummated,” instead. Consummated is much better because it is not just an end, not just finished, but a beginning too. What He does is all-consuming. I don’t think “renews their wedding vows” is a euphemism. We consummate once and every time thereafter re-present that original vow. What happens in consummation can in no way be compared to what a fornicating, contracepting couple or a same sex act has. If those acts are termed, “having sex” then the term’s meaning is lost.

I do agree with you that the act of sexual intercourse is in control of the spouses, however, I still say that no conception is beyond the will of the Father. No matter how much the infertile couple wills it, they cannot join an egg and sperm by will alone. God can.

If I can go back to the concept of freedom and free will:

I’ve also gotten the impression that God’s Will is, or can be, very specific, and in order to do good we must follow this “script” that God has made for our lives. If we do not follow the script, we turn our back on God and do evil. Personally, I will argue day and night against any form of destiny. We are “left in the hand of our own counsel” and our lives have not been predetermined for us. In this vein, I would argue that God has not decided that we should have three kids, or ten, or twenty, or none at all. While most people on this board would argue that having a child is a good thing, that does not directly imply that the converse, not having a child, is evil or out of line with God. Choosing to have a child is not a “good vs. evil” decision.

God is a God of order. Order has a plan. It can’t be a script because a script is made up beforehand. God is outside of time. Nothing He does was ‘before’ or ‘after.’ Everything for God is RIGHT NOW. “In the beginning…” is only our beginning. He has no beginning and no end. I totally agree with you to argue against destiny, very Calvinistic. We are Catholics. Jesus is now. His sacrifice on the cross is NOW, because He is God.

I also agree that God hasn’t decided our number of children. That is past tense. I do believe he knows (present tense) all of my children. For that matter, he knows my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, even though in my time they don’t exist. They are not in some “pre-existence” like in Mormon theology. Yet if God is all-knowing then he knows them too.

I completely agree that it is not evil to decide not to have a child. It is an important part to all celibates lives. But, they have decided not to “have sex” (termed just for you ) as the way to that end. One of the phrases my husband says in our NFP talk is this, “Sex makes babies, no matter how many people try to tell you it doesn’t.”

The moral question should come from “Can I properly raise this child within my abilities and within the support I receive from my spouse, my family, my friends, and most importantly, from God?”

That is the question NFP couples (and also the “just wing it” Catholic couples) ask every time we engage in sex. Not just every time we think we might be fertile, but every single time. We do ask it though, with one difference. We ask the entire beginning part. We know the support from God is absolute. That is what gives us the courage to engage in sex in the first place.

 

[fix]

Maybe this is closer to the real problem? Our faith has overcome many, many problems. The issue at hand would not even rate high on that scale. Faith and Morals can be twisted into any event, but it does not have to be twisted into such. Certainly killing the unborn is an issue of faith and morals however eating meat on Fridays does not have to be an issue of morals, and is questionable if it can become an issue of faith?

It seems your issue goes much deeper. The magisterium speaks with the authority of Christ. Either Christ is the authority or He is not. Either the Church can bind and loose or She can not.

We do not get to invent what truth is, or what sin is, or what is required of us.

 

[gardenswithkids]

It seems your issue goes much deeper. …

I think all issues regarding sex go much deeper. Views of sex merely reflect one’s deeper views of theology and the world.

Little Deb offered some great insights. I think the op’s (and others) question’s stem from a misunderstanding of Who God is and how He works. In the profession of faith, we profess belief in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth. The Catechism offers some beautiful insights into the nature of God, the Creator.

CCC 302 Creation has its own goodness and proper perfection, but it did not spring forth complete from the hands of the Creator, The universe was created “in a state of journeying” (in statu vias) toward an ultimate perfection yet to be attained, to which God has destined it. We call “divine providence” the dispositions by which God guides his creation toward this perfection: By his providence God protects and governs all things which he has made, reaching mightily from one end of the earth to the other, and ordering all things well." For “all are open and laid bare to his eyes” even those things which are yet to come into existence through the free action of creatures.

The op says he would argue against any kind of destiny. God has destined things, but destiny does not trump our free will. He also created us with free will and we can choose to cooperate with God (or not). God knows all–including what we’ll choose. His Divine Providence works toward perfecting His creation even admidst the times when we freely choose sin and refuse to cooperate with Him!.

The catechism also says:
CCC 306 God is the soverneign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ cooperation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of cooperating in the accomplishment of his plan.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It seems your issue goes much deeper. The magisterium speaks with the authority of Christ. Either Christ is the authority or He is not. Either the Church can bind and loose or She can not.

We do not get to invent what truth is, or what sin is, or what is required of us.

Yes the Magisterium has the authority which Christ provided, but is not a replacement for Christ. The Pope & Magisterium have the ability to bind AND loose. It is odd you are willing to acknowledge the ability to bind but it seems the ability loose is being denied, why? In the Pope’s word on this subject he clearly talks about the authority of the Magisterium to interpret Natural Law. The Church never claimed the ability to create Natural Law nor denied the ability to loose interpretations.

I think all issues regarding sex go much deeper. Views of sex merely reflect one’s deeper views of theology and the world.

Little Deb offered some great insights. I think the op’s (and others) question’s stem from a misunderstanding

I agree completely

The catechism also says:
CCC 306 God is the soverneign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ cooperation…

The interpretation of what violates cooperation is the issue here, and as mentioned above the interpretation can be “bind or loose” by the Church’s authority. The OP asked a proper question, and Yes the condition mentioned violates the churches current “bind”[ing] status

 

[fix]

Yes the Magisterium has the authority which Christ provided, but is not a replacement for Christ. The Pope & Magisterium have the ability to bind AND loose. It is odd you are willing to acknowledge the ability to bind but it seems the ability loose is being denied, why? In the Pope’s word on this subject he clearly talks about the authority of the Magisterium to interpret Natural Law. The Church never claimed the ability to create Natural Law nor denied the ability to loose interpretations.

This is what She teaches:

**

2036

**

The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Now, how can the magisterium dispense from the natural moral law? She cannot change wrong into right.

 

[fix]

I think all issues regarding sex go much deeper. Views of sex merely reflect one’s deeper views of theology and the world.

Yes, nicely presented. I note that almost every rejection I see of Church authority is related to issues involving genital sexuality.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

First off, it does not say the couple MUST conceive, that is not a teaching of the church, furthermore to say that a marriage is invalid if there is no children is ridiculous. To use one example, a priest when offering the eucharist, if we could look in his mind and see that he no longer believes in the real presence (or even Jesus himself), we still know that the body and bread is still valid and so is that sacrament, even if the ordained priest offering it does not believe in it.

Tim, Where there is obviously much common ground, I believe that there is a key distinction between what each of us says.

A couple (assuming unity, i.e. they agree with one another) can have three possible states of their ‘intent’ to have children. 1. Intend to have children 2. Do not intend to have children. 3. Have no intentions with regard to having children.

If marriage, as taught by the Catholic Church, is properly ordered to creating children, then the state of intention #2 above places that couple into the position of attempting a marriage for disordered purposes. This is not a valid marriage. Intention #1 is obviously licit, as a couple with those intentions accepts the Church’s teachings on marriage. Intention #3 is more complex. It is possible that a couple is so totally accepting of God’s plan for them that that is their only intention, doing God’s will and accepting from Him what he wished to provide. This position is certainly a moral one, but the proof of this intention truly existing will come when actions are made.

A couple can also have generally three possible states of their ‘actions’ once married. 1. They participate in sex to have children, although at some times possibly periodically abstaining to licitly space children. 2. They participate in sex in such a way as to conform to a intent not to have children (Contraception or rigorous abstinence during perceived fertile times permanently or indefinitely). 3. Their sexual actions are not influenced by any intent, i.e. they do not contracept and their timing of intercourse is not influence by percieved fertility.

My position is one that for intent, 1 is licit, 2 is always illicit, and 3 may be licit when action 2 is not the result. Stated differently; if a couple’s intent is to not have children, they seek a disordered marriage. When a couple does not claim to have an intent not to have children, but their action is congruent to action 2 above, they have mistated their very obvious intent, that is their actions can only be interpreted to be following a true intent of 2. If their true intect was 3, they would be conforming to action 3.

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is what She teaches:
The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.

85 "The task of giving an authentic **interpretation **of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.
****Now, how can the magisterium dispense from the natural moral law? She cannot change wrong into right.

That is correct it says the Magisterium interprets Natural Law not creates Natural Law. As mentioned earlier the Magisterium (& Pope) clearly claimed scripture stated the sun revolved around the earth which was a misinterpretation. A second example is the earlier approval of Canon Law which prevents Catholics from not marrying Non-Catholics and allowing marriage at very young ages. Now the interpretation of both marriage conditions have changed.

 

[fix]

That is correct it says the Magisterium interprets Natural Law not creates Natural Law. As mentioned earlier the Magisterium (& Pope) clearly claimed scripture stated the sun revolved around the earth which was a misinterpretation.

Again, please read about the Galileo affair before you make these charges:

Although three of the ten cardinals who judged Galileo refused to sign the verdict, his works were eventually condemned. Anti-Catholics often assert that his conviction and later rehabilitation somehow disproves the doctrine of papal infallibility, but this is not the case, for the pope never tried to make an infallible ruling concerning Galileo’s views.

The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible…

catholic.com/library/galileo_controversy.asp

A second example is the earlier approval of Canon Law which prevents Catholics from not marrying Non-Catholics and allowing marriage at very young ages. Now the interpretation of both marriage conditions have changed.

The laws of the Church governing Christian marriage are fundamental and unchangeable laws; or accidental, circumstantial, and changeable laws. The natural law, Divine revealed law, and the Apostolic law of marriage are interpreted by the Church, but never repealed or dispensed from. Circumstantial laws are enacted by the Church, and may vary or be repealed. Hence disciplinary laws regulating solemnities to be observed in marriage, and laws defining qualifications of parties to marry, are not so rigid as to admit of no change, if the Church sees fit to change them, owing to difference of time and place; the change too may affect the validity or the legality of a marriage. The Church, therefore, has laid down the conditions requisite for the validity of the matrimonial consent on the part of those who marry, and has legislated on their respective rights and duties. The marriage bond is sacred; married life symbolizes the union between Christ and His Church (Ephesians 5:22 sqq.) and the Church protects both by such rules as will maintain their Christian characteristics under all circumstances…

newadvent.org/cathen/09699a.htm

 

[eponymic]

I do agree with you that the act of sexual intercourse is in control of the spouses, however, I still say that no conception is beyond the will of the Father. No matter how much the infertile couple wills it, they cannot join an egg and sperm by will alone. God can.

God is a God of order. Order has a plan. It can’t be a script because a script is made up beforehand. God is outside of time. Nothing He does was ‘before’ or ‘after.’ Everything for God is RIGHT NOW. “In the beginning…” is only our beginning. He has no beginning and no end. I totally agree with you to argue against destiny, very Calvinistic. We are Catholics. Jesus is now. His sacrifice on the cross is NOW, because He is God.

I also agree that God hasn’t decided our number of children. That is past tense. I do believe he knows (present tense) all of my children. For that matter, he knows my grandchildren and great-grandchildren, even though in my time they don’t exist. They are not in some “pre-existence” like in Mormon theology. Yet if God is all-knowing then he knows them too.

I completely agree that it is not evil to decide not to have a child. It is an important part to all celibates lives. But, they have decided not to “have sex” (termed just for you ) as the way to that end. One of the phrases my husband says in our NFP talk is this, “Sex makes babies, no matter how many people try to tell you it doesn’t.”

I hope you don’t mind my stream of conciousness rant that lies ahead.

I agree that God does not exist in time and space as we know it. God created time and space, so therefore God must exist outside of it (unless God created himself, which may be possible but beyond human comprehension). However, saying that “decided” is incorrect because it’s past tense is more of a semantic argument. I think that the difference between “decided” and “knows” lies in the direct involvement of God.

God created man to be “left in the hand of his own counsel”. I take this to mean that God does not interfere with our daily lives. He may give us signs and hints, but it is up to us to “do”. If it is up to us to do what God knows, then it essentially boils down to being a sin not to fulfill our destiny. However we can’t know what God knows, so such a task is impossible.

God knows the entirety of our lives, but we decide what that entirety is. We get to decide the details of our lives. There are many choices that we make that carry no moral implications, that are not good or bad, or that are not right or wrong. Where should I live? What do I want to do for a living? Where should I go to school? God may know the choices that we make, and some of these things are pretty life altering decisions, but there is no moral basis for it. By extension, how many children you have is also one of these amoral choices that we get to decide. The morality lies in how we deal with the choices that we make.

Every choice we make involves some level of sacrifice. We cannot take a job in New York if we decided to take the job in Los Angeles. We cannot wear a red shirt if we decided to wear a blue one instead. Obviously any parent will tell you that they sacrifice a lot for their children (almost to the point of being martyrs, which is another rant). Many couples will also sacrifice having another child and decide they have enough. Is it immoral to sacrifice having more children? The answer, I think, lies not in what you’re sacrificing, but what you’re sacrificing it for. Are you sacrificing having children for selifsh desires, like not wanting to give up your yacht and disposable income, or are you doing so to take better care of the children you already have, or to do community service, or some form of ministry? We clearly cannot do it all at once. We must make choices, and there are very few “right and wrong” choices, but “right and wrong” ways to decide and deal with the consequences of our choices.

That is the question NFP couples (and also the “just wing it” Catholic couples) ask every time we engage in sex. Not just every time we think we might be fertile, but every single time. We do ask it though, with one difference. We ask the entire beginning part. We know the support from God is absolute. That is what gives us the courage to engage in sex in the first place.

I guess I should summarize this slightly. I guess I’m trying to say that sacrificing having more children (or any children at all) is not an immoral choice for a married couple, in and of itself. The morality lies in what you are sacrificing the children for, also known as “just reasons”. Since there is no absolute list of these reasons, a given couple may choose to forgo having any more children to focus on other aspects of charity within their daily lives, independent of how many children they already have.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

There was an extra clause in my statement that you seemed to miss. I said that children appear to be a requirement, unless you’re infertile

. Children are not an absolute requirement. I agree with this. However, my point was that if a married couple is physically able* to have children, there is no moral way for them not to have children. A couple cannot have “just reasons” for the entirety of their marriage. Agreed. My confusions stems from that I find it more clear to talk about intentions, rather than outcomes. We have influence, not control, over outcomes. We have total control over our intentions.

This is almost exactly my point. A couple must “discern” what God has in store for them, and this implies a complete lack of “choice”. A married couple is not allowed to choose not to have children, but they may discern that God does not want them to have children.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Tim, Where there is obviously much common ground, I believe that there is a key distinction between what each of us says.

A couple (assuming unity, i.e. they agree with one another) can have three possible states of their ‘intent’ to have children. 1. Intend to have children 2. Do not intend to have children. 3. Have no intentions with regard to having children.

If marriage, as taught by the Catholic Church, is properly ordered to creating children, then the state of intention #2 above places that couple into the position of attempting a marriage for disordered purposes. This is not a valid marriage. Intention #1 is obviously licit, as a couple with those intentions accepts the Church’s teachings on marriage. Intention #3 is more complex. It is possible that a couple is so totally accepting of God’s plan for them that that is their only intention, doing God’s will and accepting from Him what he wished to provide. This position is certainly a moral one, but the proof of this intention truly existing will come when actions are made.

A couple can also have generally three possible states of their ‘actions’ once married. 1. They participate in sex to have children, although at some times possibly periodically abstaining to licitly space children. 2. They participate in sex in such a way as to conform to a intent not to have children (Contraception or rigorous abstinence during perceived fertile times permanently or indefinitely). 3. Their sexual actions are not influenced by any intent, i.e. they do not contracept and their timing of intercourse is not influence by percieved fertility.

My position is one that for intent, 1 is licit, 2 is always illicit, and 3 may be licit when action 2 is not the result. Stated differently; if a couple’s intent is to not have children, they seek a disordered marriage. When a couple does not claim to have an intent not to have children, but their action is congruent to action 2 above, they have mistated their very obvious intent, that is their actions can only be interpreted to be following a true intent of 2. If their true intect was 3, they would be conforming to action 3.

Dan

Dan
Many marriages contain all your conditions. They start with no real plan in regard to children, then decide to have x children then move to sterilization, contraception, or (other forms*)of pregnancy prevention*. And the Church allows such provided each accepted children would eventually come from the marriage, x was determined properly, and the prevention of further pregnancy was achieved through 1) indirect sterilization, 2) agreed celibacy, 3)Rhythm method, 4)NFP, or any other method developed in the future which the Church approves.

*the Church does not use society’s definition on this issue

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The moral question should come from “Can I properly raise this child within my abilities and within the support I receive from my spouse, my family, my friends, and most importantly, from God?”

Here is my thought; This is a specific question, with a specific answer. If we need to have an answer, why would not God, in his perfect love for us and perfect wisdom, not have the best answer? Our goal should be to determine what God wants. Sometimes its easy, other times its more difficult. To suggest that we could come up with a specific answer, and that God could not, would seem to suggest that God is something less than we believe he is.

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Again, please read about the Galileo affair before you make these charges:

I read it before it does not appear to be changing. 7 of the 10 signed, the implication these were 7 rogue Cardinals is highly problematic. The Pope was involved and expressed in clear writing his opinion. I do not need a sanitized version. Galileo was imprisoned for a heretical based charge that is the facts. Infallibility is not in play, never was.

Second in the marriage post it claims “The natural law, Divine revealed law, and the Apostolic law of marriage are ***interpreted ***by the Church-” I am sure you do not mean to imply Canon Law is arbitrary and thus may be changed.

 

[fix]

I read it before it does not appear to be changing. 7 of the 10 signed, the implication these were 7 rogue Cardinals is highly problematic. The Pope was involved and expressed in clear writing his opinion. I do not need a sanitized version. Galileo was imprisoned for a heretical based charge that is the facts. Infallibility is not in play, never was.

So, you accept the Church has never reversed Herself in any teaching on the matter of faith and morals. Good we agree.

Second in the marriage post it claims “The natural law, Divine revealed law, and the Apostolic law of marriage are ***interpreted ***by the Church-” I am sure you do not mean to imply Canon Law is arbitrary and thus may be changed.

I am saying parts of canon law can be changed, have been changed, and will be changed again. Parts of canon law that pertain to marriage have been changed and may be changed again.

As my link said:

Circumstantial laws are enacted by the Church, and may vary or be repealed. Hence disciplinary laws regulating solemnities to be observed in marriage, and laws defining qualifications of parties to marry, are not so rigid as to admit of no change, if the Church sees fit to change them, owing to difference of time and place; the change too may affect the validity or the legality of a marriage.

 

[eponymic]

Agreed. My confusions stems from that I find it more clear to talk about intentions, rather than outcomes. We have influence, not control, over outcomes. We have total control over our intentions.

Do you suggest that a couple, preparing for marriage, could justly discern that God is calling them to marry and simultaneously calling them to never have children? If we believe that God ordained marriage to be properly ordered to procreation, wouldn’t this discernment indicate God to be a hypocrit?

No, this does not mean that God is a hypocrite. This means that we do not yet fully understand God. Claiming that we do fully understand God, I believe, is blasphemy. It is not God that is changing, it is our understanding of God that is changing.

That is a good question. Believing that God wants us to accept the most grace possible from Him, (each child is a very, very valuable blessing from God and confers grace and the opportunity for abundant grace) and believing that he knows precisely what talents and resources he has granted to us and what number of children could be supported by these, I would think that he would have in mind a definite number. So I guess the answer would be no. He has a number. It is up to us to figure it out. Freedom is not the opportunity to decide for ourselves. The freedom God bestows on us is to do His will.

The issue I have with this, is that it is destiny. We have to figure out what God intends for us, and it is turning our backs on God if we do not fulfill His intentions. I will strongly argue against the notion that God gave us freedom, but will punish us if we use it. If we turn our backs on God, we become slaves to sin. However, if we do not fulfill what God intends for us to do, in all the minutia, is that not tantamount to being slaves to God? How can we be really free, if it is immoral to have no say in the matter?

That was my point, civilly you are held less culpable (attempted murder versus murder) if you did not succeed at your crime. Morally, there is no distinction. To truly attempt murder is the same to God as to attempt it and succeed. The Church teaches that morality is determine by intent, action, and circumstance. The results don’t matter.
I am not sure about the pertinence to this topic, but as one of the parties of an (after 22 years) infertile couple, I can tell you that as a man, I am not responsible for the creation of children. I believe the Church teaches that it is neither man alone, nor God, but the two working in concert, that brings about new life.

Again, wrong. See above. If not, tell me what I’ve been doing wrong.

Not soley responsible. But neither, as you suggest, is man. It is a partnership.

Thanks for the discourse, it is valuable to me.

Dan

When faced with a decision in life, God granted us the freedom to make our own choices. That is not to say that we all are faced with the same opportunities, nor are we all to make the same decisions. There are many things in life that are greater than any one of us, and it is easy to assume that we are at the mercy of those forces. It may be easy to say that God decided that you shouldn’t have biological children in your marriage, but He did not force you to get married. Think about how many little things in life could have gone differently. Where did you meet your spouse? What if you hadn’t gone there that day, or talked to her? Does the combination of all of these little factors mean that God was telling you to marry this person? This quickly falls into the trap of destiny, and it is a very tempting thought, but very erroneous. We chose, of our own free will, to do all the little things that led us to be the people we are today. While there are many things beyond our control, it is still our choice to determine how we deal with those seemingly random events in our lives. We should not wallow in the choices that evaded us, but be happy with the choices we made.

Here is my thought; This is a specific question, with a specific answer. If we need to have an answer, why would not God, in his perfect love for us and perfect wisdom, not have the best answer? Our goal should be to determine what God wants. Sometimes its easy, other times its more difficult. To suggest that we could come up with a specific answer, and that God could not, would seem to suggest that God is something less than we believe he is.

Dan

It is not that God couldn’t make the choices, but that He didn’t make the choices and He “left us in the hand of our own council”. He is not less that what we think He is, but maybe we are greater to Him that we think we are.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Dan
Many marriages contain all your conditions.

I don’t agree. If you mean civil marriages only, I would suggest that if not accepted by God, they are not true marriages.

They start with no real plan in regard to children, then decide to have x children then move to sterilization, contraception, or (other forms*)of pregnancy prevention*. And the Church allows such provided each accepted children would eventually come from the marriage, x was determined properly, and the prevention of further pregnancy was achieved through 1) indirect sterilization, 2) agreed celibacy, 3)Rhythm method, 4)NFP, or any other method developed in the future which the Church approves.

It appears that you say the Church allows sterilization and contraception. If not, what is the ‘such’ that you believe the Church allows?

Do you believe that a couple can validly marry with the intent (desire, objective) to act consistently (through contraception or periodic abstinence) in a way that will prevent them from having any children?

Dan

 

[Timothy_486]

Tim, Where there is obviously much common ground, I believe that there is a key distinction between what each of us says.

A couple (assuming unity, i.e. they agree with one another) can have three possible states of their ‘intent’ to have children. 1. Intend to have children 2. Do not intend to have children. 3. Have no intentions with regard to having children.

If marriage, as taught by the Catholic Church, is properly ordered to creating children, then the state of intention #2 above places that couple into the position of attempting a marriage for disordered purposes. This is not a valid marriage. Intention #1 is obviously licit, as a couple with those intentions accepts the Church’s teachings on marriage. Intention #3 is more complex. It is possible that a couple is so totally accepting of God’s plan for them that that is their only intention, doing God’s will and accepting from Him what he wished to provide. This position is certainly a moral one, but the proof of this intention truly existing will come when actions are made.

A couple can also have generally three possible states of their ‘actions’ once married. 1. They participate in sex to have children, although at some times possibly periodically abstaining to licitly space children. 2. They participate in sex in such a way as to conform to a intent not to have children (Contraception or rigorous abstinence during perceived fertile times permanently or indefinitely). 3. Their sexual actions are not influenced by any intent, i.e. they do not contracept and their timing of intercourse is not influence by percieved fertility.

My position is one that for intent, 1 is licit, 2 is always illicit, and 3 may be licit when action 2 is not the result. Stated differently; if a couple’s intent is to not have children, they seek a disordered marriage. When a couple does not claim to have an intent not to have children, but their action is congruent to action 2 above, they have mistated their very obvious intent, that is their actions can only be interpreted to be following a true intent of 2. If their true intect was 3, they would be conforming to action 3.

Dan

You are incorrect in saying #2 is always illicit. If that is your personal preferences, fine, but that is certainly not church teaching. Now I can admit that there can be times when #2 can be illicit, but sometimes doesn’t mean all the time.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

You are incorrect in saying #2 is always illicit. If that is your personal preferences, fine, but that is certainly not church teaching. Now I can admit that there can be times when #2 can be illicit, but sometimes doesn’t mean all the time.

If marriage is properly ordered to procreation, how can it be licit for a couple to marry not intending to be properly ordered?

Dan