Morality of Family Planning

[Timothy_486]

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

Dan

So what if a man and woman marry at an extreme old age where children is out of the question? According to you it is invalid.

And even for others, even if the marriage does not end in children it is still considered sacramental and fruitful, whether you like it or not. We still can have a couple that loves one another, helps each other out, is there for each other, and can through their work, careers, charity, etc. help those around them and society at large. These marriages are just as important as those with fathers and mothers, and we must all understand that each individual, group, couple, and family all have different roles in this life, and it is not right for us to demand others to conform to our personal style and tastes.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I don’t agree.

I was stating the Church’s position

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

Again the Church accepts many methods of marriage depending the number of baptized Catholics involved

It appears that you say the Church allows sterilization

It does if the sterilization occurs naturally, accidentally, or as a result of a greater medical good

and contraception.

in the civil definition yes, the Church definition “responsible parenting, or postponed (even indefinitly) pregnancy” or other similar terms

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

Well there are certain conditions when this could be allowed (as different Rh types, sorry I am not a medical person) or post menopausal woman, etc. The standard is “serious reason” today but used to be “grave reason”. Meeting the standard is the same but reverse question as the OP posted

Hope that helps

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

So what if a man and woman marry at an extreme old age where children is out of the question? According to you it is invalid.

And even for others, even if the marriage does not end in children it is still considered sacramental and fruitful, whether you like it or not. We still can have a couple that loves one another, helps each other out, is there for each other, and can through their work, careers, charity, etc. help those around them and society at large. These marriages are just as important as those with fathers and mothers, and we must all understand that each individual, group, couple, and family all have different roles in this life, and it is not right for us to demand others to conform to our personal style and tastes.

If I am confused by what you say, I am sorry, I am doing my best to understand.

Do you disagree that the Church teaches that God has ordered marriage to the procreation of children, by its very nature? If you suggest the Church is in error, I will have to respond in a way defending Church teaching.

If you agree that the Church teaches this, is it that you believe a couple can still be validly married and not accept that this is the proper ordering of marriage? In this case, I will respond with the reasoning why the intent to enter into something that is not a true marriage as God defines, means that someone is not validly married.

If you are confusing intent and results (which your example above indicates), then I will spend more time explaining how a couple can intend to properly order their marriage as God intends, but not see the results. The results do not demonstrate the intent. Some get results they did not intend, and some don’t get results when they did intend. In neither case do the results show exactly what the intent was.

For the marriage that you describe above. You left out the crux of our argument. If they do all these good things, but enter into marriage without intending to be parents, then the good that they do remains, but so does the sin of an invalid marriage.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Posted by Dan: I don’t agree.

I was stating the Church’s position

No you weren’t. I specifically included a ‘condition’ that is grounds for a decree of nullity. That means that the marraige never existed (maybe civilly, but not in reality). If you still disagree, demonstrate where the Church teaches that couples intending to have no children are validly married.

Dan’s Quote: If you mean civil marriages only, I would suggest that if not accepted by God, they are not true marriages.

Again the Church accepts many methods of marriage depending the number of baptized Catholics involved

I am not sure what you are getting at. I say that many civil marriage do not exist in reality. You say that many do. I don’t think you have identified a point of disagreement, you just say the same thing in a converse way.

Quote from Dan: It appears that you say the Church allows sterilization

It does if the sterilization occurs naturally, accidentally, or as a result of a greater medical good

Natural sterilization? No such thing. Natural infertility, yes. Fertility or infertility is a state. Sterilization is an action. Accidental sterilization? Now that would be an extreme case. Never heard of it happening. If the action of sterilization happened, it is almost always intended by someone. As a result of a greater medical good? Agreed, as long as you accept that the only greater ‘medical good’ that trumps new life, is life itself. Sterilization is licit to prevent a person from reasonable expectation of death.

Quote from Dan: It appears that you say the Church allows contraception

in the civil definition yes, the Church definition “responsible parenting, or postponed (even indefinitly) pregnancy” or other similar terms

I interpret this as direct evidence of your attempt to cloud issues and be evasive. There is evidence of this elsewhere, but not so compelling as here.
The catechism explicitly states that ‘contraception’ is illicit (not allowed). So, in an apparent attempt to be evasive, you use a ‘civil definition’ of contraception? What good is a civil definition when we speak of what the Church teaches. Why switch from the Church’s definition to a secular definition, except to confuse? When we talk about whether the Church allows contracption, may we stick with the Church’s definition?

Dan’s Quote: 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?

Well there are certain conditions when this could be allowed (as different Rh types, sorry I am not a medical person or post menopausal woman, etc. The standard is “serious reason” today but used to be “grave reason”. Meeting the standard is the same but reverse question as the OP posted

.

I believe that you are making this up. I am from Missouri, you have to show me. Nowhere does the Church approve of entering into a marriage when the couple intends to have no children. If the marriage was entered into validly (with intent to have children) and later ‘serious’ ‘grave’ reasons come up to use licit (not contraception) methods to avoid pregnancy, that is what the Church allows. Please do not confuse the two very different cases.

Dan

 

[gardenswithkids]

…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 nrot fulfill His intentions. I will strongly argue against the notion that God gave us freedom, but will punish us if we use it.

We can’t make informed choices if we don’t understand what is evil verses good/better/best for us. I quote heavily from St. Paul in First Corinthians chapter 7 in this post. Celibacy and single is best—this allows one to devote oneself fully to spreading the gospel. “I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.” But, marriage is a good choice too—“so then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better”.

Children are usually the fruit of marriage; therefore, the Church expects openness to the possibility of children when a couple exchanges marriage vows. (The Bible shows both Sarah and Elizabeth conceived in their old age, so even exclude the elderly have that possibility.) Once a couple is married, they can prayerfully discern their family plans. Yet we don’t have ultimate say in our family planning—couple who find themselves unintentional infertile demonstrates that well.

Infertility can cause heartbreak in some marriage, yet others intentionally seek infertility. If we fail to understand that contraception and intentional sterilization mutilate the body and the marriage act, then we don’t know fully understand our choices. I don’t remember who (Chesterton or Lewis maybe?) who wrote birth control is a misnomer because it is about neither birth nor control. Rather than being a life giving union, contraception tries to render the act sterile and lifeless, giving lust a strong foothold. Unlike sterilization or contraception, NFP as a method of birth control involves a significant level of self-control and discipline, postponing the marriage act rather than altering it. The Church allows NFP for regulating births, but asks couples to discern prayerfully its use. St. Paul also wrote, “Do not to deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time to be free for prayer.”

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?

As to the question of being a slave to God, perhaps that is so. St. Paul writes: “For the slave called in the Lord is a freed person in the Lord, just as the free person who has been called is a slave of Christ. You have been purchased at a price. Do not become slaves to human beings.” Yes, in a way just as God takes us out of our slavery to sin we later give up our freedom to become slaves to God.

Slaves usually serve their master, yet God asks us to serve Him by serving others. The op writes about not having children as a way to serve the community better. Infertile couples and single people can devote themselves to serving God by serving the larger community. Married couples with dependent children serve God mostly by serving each other and their children. We choose to serve others–or serve self, (which is usually involves some form of sin, hence a slavery to sin.) If we choose to serve others, we can not serve them very well if we also fear being slaves to God.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… 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. …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.
I love pondering on how all the little things in my life fell together–and it inspires my awe of God. I certainly haven’t always consult Him or trust His will for my life, but even when I ignored Him, He didn’t ignore me. He knew what I would do and He calculated that into His Master plan.

It seems to me that the original poster isn’t quite sure about prayerfully discerning God’s plan for his marriage and life, yet I also see that posting the question here on Catholic Answers is part of that discernment process. God is not yet done with His creation, and He gives us each an important role. He lets us choose our part to a great degree, but He is far greater than we think, and His plans for us are far better than we imagined. God works with us, with our free choices. And when we freely choose to give back to God the life that He first gave to us, He pulls together all those little details.

He knows the numbers of hair on our heads; He knows when a bird falls to the ground, and He dresses the lilies of the field. He created the entire universe and the atom. He is a God of details. His gift of our free will is just one more little factor that He incorporates into His master plan. Yes, I agree that our Heavenly Father probably thinks His children are greater than we think they are. When making your own plans for your marriage and life, remember little children maybe far greater to God than you think.

 

[Timothy_486]

For the marriage that you describe above. You left out the crux of our argument. If they do all these good things, but enter into marriage without intending to be parents, then the good that they do remains, but so does the sin of an invalid marriage.Dan

One does need to “intend” to have children before marriage, one should however be open to the possibility at all times.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

One does need to “intend” to have children before marriage, one should however be open to the possibility at all times.

I agree with your statement. However, is that what you meant to say?

Dan

 

[Timothy_486]

I agree with your statement. However, is that what you meant to say?

Dan

Indeed. To use my own personal situation, when me and my girlfriend were discussing our future marriage, we realize that when we marry it may be as much as 5-10 years before we can properly have a child, and even though we both agreed that at this time we have no desire for children at this time, we both also conceded that we may change our minds very quickly after marriage, I therefore am saying that I believe that some couples may not intend to have children at first, but for those particular couples they should always stay open to changing their minds, as me and her most likely will in the future.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No you weren’t. I specifically included a ‘condition’ that is grounds for a decree of nullity…
Dan

Well Dan, I sense you are frustrated at me, however why is a little bit of a question. I do not mind answering the questions you ask, however I will attach a web site for you to ask the same questions to scholars or you can search the same question from others.

I am not parsing words with you or for you, as others have also mentioned the simplified version of the churches teaching does not work. The complexity of the teaching is in and of it self a problem. As mentioned by other two eighty year olds at the home can get married in the Church with out having children, or promising to have children or trying to have children. Same is true for people incapable of having children actually regardless of reason to include people who had their self sterilized. The Church does recognize many such marriages, these can be valid and licit. The lack of children to these marriages does not qualify them as illicit, invalid, or worth of an annulment. The standard is the reason was “serious or grave”

Second contraception, the Church uses a different definition than society and this to causes a problem. The Church used the premise of an un-natural action. While society uses any action to define it. The difference is huge.

Third civil marriage: the Church recognizes many if not most civil marriages the basics are (1) if neither are baptized Catholics and it is a first marriage for both, (2) if one is a baptized Catholic with dispensation, and it is a first marriage for both, (3) Condition 1 or 2 and the first civil marriage was annulled in the Catholic Church, (4) 1 & 2 and one or both are widows from all previous marriages, (5) other and I am sure there are others

Fourth Sterilization: Maybe you like to say a person is infertile but not sterile? It is not surprising people do not advertise their medical problems. Yet medical problems are common accidents, medical conditions, medical treatment, psychological issues , etc, etc create conditions in which people can not or should not bear children. Surely you have heard of hysterectomies, testicular cancer, high blood pressure, etc… When these conditions exist, they do not prevent sacramental marriage. Just because a person is infertile does not mean the Church denies them the sacrament.

Fifth children: The post says " Nowhere does the Church approve of entering into a marriage when the couple intends to have no children" This again casts a net too broad it is not correct the standard is “serious reasons” or “grave reasons” if the standard is met the couple, Priest, and Church can all celebrate a fully sacramental marriage which all know can not(infertility) should not(health reasons) or will not bare children(impotence?)

It is fine if you do not believe me, however you may want to ask the scholars

Search past questions
ewtn.com/vexperts/search.asp
Ask a scholar
ewtn.com/vexperts/conference.htm

 

[eponymic]

We can’t make informed choices if we don’t understand what is evil verses good/better/best for us. I quote heavily from St. Paul in First Corinthians chapter 7 in this post. Celibacy and single is best—this allows one to devote oneself fully to spreading the gospel. “I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.” But, marriage is a good choice too—“so then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better”.

This is probably a question that deserves its own thread, but how does 1 Cor 7 stand in harmony with the traditional wedding reading, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Tobit 8:6)? Similarly, if the Church follows the teachings of Corinthians, shouldn’t marriages be more difficult to obtain, or at least wouldn’t the Church try to warn against marriages as being inferior to chastity and unmarried life? I have seen several examples on this board, and elsewhere, where people proclaim motherhood to be woman’s highest calling or most noble goal. Clearly, this is in the context of marriage, but if marriage isn’t the best lifestyle choice, is that really true?

…]As to the question of being a slave to God, perhaps that is so. St. Paul writes: “For the slave called in the Lord is a freed person in the Lord, just as the free person who has been called is a slave of Christ. You have been purchased at a price. Do not become slaves to human beings.”

If we don’t have ultimate control over family planning, then why does the Church state that we are allowed to exert control? If it is up to God, then we should leave it to God. If it is up to us, then we should take control and responsibility. However, the answer I seem to be getting is a weird combination: It is up to us to leave it up to God. I can see how that is consistent with the concepts of human freedom. We must seek out God of our own accord, and in seeking out God we relinquish our freedom to Him. At the same time, the statement itself is a logical paradox. We must take a positive action in order to be passive participants in our own lives. How can we be passive to God’s will, if it requires us to utilize our own freedom?

I love pondering on how all the little things in my life fell together–and it inspires my awe of God. I certainly haven’t always consult Him or trust His will for my life, but even when I ignored Him, He didn’t ignore me. He knew what I would do and He calculated that into His Master plan.

…]

He knows the numbers of hair on our heads; He knows when a bird falls to the ground, and He dresses the lilies of the field. He created the entire universe and the atom. He is a God of details. His gift of our free will is just one more little factor that He incorporates into His master plan. Yes, I agree that our Heavenly Father probably thinks His children are greater than we think they are. When making your own plans for your marriage and life, remember little children maybe far greater to God than you think.

I had a whole response typed out, and then was strangely inspired.

Imagine, for a minute, a book of all the world’s events from creation to eternity. Obviously, this is an infinitely large book, but God has a bookshelf big enough for it. If you read this book detailing the lives of every person who was, who is and who still is to be, you are free to skip a few pages to read the end of the story first. However, when the book was being written, the characters had the freedom to make the ending of their particular chapter whatever they wished. Since the book does not exist in this universe, we cannot see it, nor does it exist in the concept of time as we know it. If something unexpected happens in our lives and it alters what we think our lives should have been, that event does not change the book. The book simply is what it is, which is nothing to us and yet everything to God.

God did not write the book. God gave us freedom, which means God let us write the book. He told us to make it a good story, with hope and inspiration. He wanted positive role models of charity and love. He told us to be brave and strong, to stand up for what is right in the face of evil. Then He did what any self respecting Hollywood director would never do: He left the plot up to His actors. When our characters end, and our credits roll, we meet the Great Director and He pays us for our work according to how well we followed his simple direction.

 

[gardenswithkids]

This is probably a question that deserves its own thread, but how does 1 Cor 7 stand in harmony with the traditional wedding reading, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Tobit 8:6)? Similarly, if the Church follows the teachings of Corinthians, shouldn’t marriages be more difficult to obtain, or at least wouldn’t the Church try to warn against marriages as being inferior to chastity and unmarried life? I have seen several examples on this board, and elsewhere, where people proclaim motherhood to be woman’s highest calling or most noble goal. Clearly, this is in the context of marriage, but if marriage isn’t the best lifestyle choice, is that really true?

Since we’re on page 5, yes that might be a question for another thread. But to address it briefly, St. Paul wasn’t advising Christian men to be “alone” in I Cor 7 because they were already part of a larger Christian community. In that sense they were not alone, whereas when God first said “it is not good for man to be alone” it was back in Genesis when it was just Adam and no Eve or anyone else. And while the Church holds consecrated virginity as the highest and best, few people are aware of that. Motherhood is indeed a noble calling for a woman, and in the context of consecrated virginity women experience “spiritual motherhood” which can surpass biological motherhood to give life to the soul through their prayers and dedicated full time service to Jesus and the mission of His Church.

If we don’t have ultimate control over family planning, then why does the Church state that we are allowed to exert control?

Having some control doesn’t mean we have ultimate control. We have control over many things in our life, but we have ultimate control over nothing. (We only think we do. )

…I can see how that is consistent with the concepts of human freedom. We must seek out God of our own accord, and in seeking out God we relinquish our freedom to Him. At the same time, the statement itself is a logical paradox. We must take a positive action in order to be passive participants in our own lives. How can we be passive to God’s will, if it requires us to utilize our own freedom?

The Gospel message is full of paradoxes. “If you want to be the greatest, then you must become the least.” The cross might be the ulitimate paradox–He died to give life. Think about it.

Imagine, for a minute, a book of all the world’s events from creation to eternity. Obviously, this is an infinitely large book, but God has a bookshelf big enough for it. …God did not write the book. God gave us freedom, which means God let us write the book. He told us to make it a good story, with hope and inspiration. He wanted positive role models of charity and love. He told us to be brave and strong, to stand up for what is right in the face of evil.

One of my favorite title for God is “Author of Life.”

Yes, He lets us write words too, but ultimately its all His Book and His Word. And the Word became flesh to dwell amoung us. When we make babies, words of love spoken between husband and wife also take on flesh and dwell among them.

!I had something else writen about your plot twist and the Great Director, but I deleted it and decided to think about that more.)

 

[gardenswithkids]

…The complexity of the teaching is in and of it self a problem. As mentioned by other two eighty year olds at the home can get married in the Church with out having children, or promising to have children or trying to have children. Same is true for people incapable of having children actually regardless of reason …

The Church teachings are really quite simple. Marriage makes a family; sex makes children. Sex and marriage go together, and children often–but don’t always–result from the sexual/marital union. If a one is not willing to accept the children that may result from marriage, then one should not marry,

If a couple marries but does not consumate the marriage, (have intercourse) the Church recognizes the marriage, but if one of them wished to file for an annulment, the Church would likely grant it. If a couple is unable to have sex, (i.e. one is totally impotent and reveals the information) the couple can not get married in the Church.

Eighty year olds can marry as long as they aren’t impotent. Again, read the stories in the Bible such as Abraham and Sarah who concieved Isaac in their old age when she was thought barren (Genesis), Zechariah and Elizabeth who concieved John the Baptist in their old age when she was thought barren (Luke 1).

Married couples don’t have to actively “try” to have children. But unless there is serious/grave/just reasons they should not try to NOT have children. The Church leaves it to the individual couples to discern if they have such reasons together with God in prayer.

I think the normal, healthy state of marriage should be free from the constant state of worry between achieving or postponing pregnancy. (Eighty-something year olds probably do that a lot better than most twenty and thirty somethings.) While it may be “moral” to try to plan one’s family carefully using licit means to regulate birth, I think the widespread expectation of “family planning” in our culture takes a lot of the spontaneity and fun away from sex and marriage. I think God wants us to worry less and trust Him more.

 

[eponymic]

Having some control doesn’t mean we have ultimate control. We have control over many things in our life, but we have ultimate control over nothing. (We only think we do. )

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

How much courage can we ask for?

The Gospel message is full of paradoxes. “If you want to be the greatest, then you must become the least.” The cross might be the ulitimate paradox–He died to give life. Think about it. One of my favorite title for God is “Author of Life.”

Most of those paradoxes are literary devices though. The greatest recieve their reward on Earth, where the meek recieve their reward in Heaven, and the reward on Earth is nothing compared to the reward in Heaven. Jesus died to give us life, because life is greater than any of us know. In His death, he shows us that we still continue to live. That seems like a paradox, but it’s just a misunderstanding of what life is.

Yes, He lets us write words too, but ultimately its all His Book and His Word. And the Word became flesh to dwell amoung us. When we make babies, words of love spoken between husband and wife also take on flesh and dwell among them.

!I had something else writen about your plot twist and the Great Director, but I deleted it and decided to think about that more.)

Being free to seek out God of our own accord does not mean that we must become slaves to the minutia of daily life that he has prepared for us. There are many people in the world who are good people who are not necessarily Catholic, or Christian, or pray to discern God’s plan for them at all. You can live a moral life, without thinking that life has been planned beyond your control. Would you argue that people who act morally, in charity, for the benefit of others but do so because they want to, not because they feel that God has told them to do so, are acting out of concert with God’s plan?

Some people need more courage, some people need more serenity, but everybody struggles with the wisdom throughout their lives because not everybody has the same answers.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Indeed. To use my own personal situation, when me and my girlfriend were discussing our future marriage, we realize that when we marry it may be as much as 5-10 years before we can properly have a child, and even though we both agreed that at this time we have no desire for children at this time, we both also conceded that we may change our minds very quickly after marriage, I therefore am saying that I believe that some couples may not intend to have children at first, but for those particular couples they should always stay open to changing their minds, as me and her most likely will in the future.

I apologize for remaining confused, please bear with my questions. In your previous post you said that “One does need to “intend” to have children before marriage.” (There is/was no “not” in your statement) I am only able to interpret that statement to mean that to be validly married, one must intend, at the time they get married, to have children, at some time during their marriage.

However, much of what you say before and after seem to contradict my understanding of that post.

When you say that you “agreed that at this time we have no desire for children at this time”, do you mean that when you were considering marriage, you had no desire for children at any time of your marriage? Or that you had desires for children, but that such desires would have to wait to be fulfilled until a later time in your marriage.

Simarly, when you say that you “believe that some couples may not intend to have children at first”, does that mean that at the time they attempt to enter into marriage, that they do not intend to have any children ever? Or, that they intend to have children eventually, but that their intention at time of marriage is, to avoid them during the first part of their marriage?

When I take all of your comments together, (except for the seemingly contradictory post of 5:13 pm yesterday) it appears that you are saying that “couples can enter into marriage (get married) while at the same time, have the intent to never have children.”

I accept responsiblity for this confusion, and I ask for this clarification. Thank you.

Dan

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The Church teachings are really quite simple. Marriage makes a family; sex makes children. Sex and marriage go together, and children often–but don’t always–result from the sexual/marital union. If a one is not willing to accept the children that may result from marriage, then one should not marry,

If a couple marries but does not consumate the marriage, (have intercourse) the Church recognizes the marriage, but if one of them wished to file for an annulment, the Church would likely grant it. If a couple is unable to have sex, (i.e. one is totally impotent and reveals the information) the couple can not get married in the Church.

Eighty year olds can marry as long as they aren’t impotent. Again, read the stories in the Bible such as Abraham and Sarah who concieved Isaac in their old age when she was thought barren (Genesis), Zechariah and Elizabeth who concieved John the Baptist in their old age when she was thought barren (Luke 1).

Married couples don’t have to actively “try” to have children. But unless there is serious/grave/just reasons they should not try to NOT have children. The Church leaves it to the individual couples to discern if they have such reasons together with God in prayer.

I think the normal, healthy state of marriage should be free from the constant state of worry between achieving or postponing pregnancy. (Eighty-something year olds probably do that a lot better than most twenty and thirty somethings.) While it may be “moral” to try to plan one’s family carefully using licit means to regulate birth, I think the widespread expectation of “family planning” in our culture takes a lot of the spontaneity and fun away from sex and marriage. I think God wants us to worry less and trust Him more.

Thank you that was excellent. I stand corrected the marriage must be consummated so there must be at least one natural act

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Well Dan, I sense you are frustrated at me, however why is a little bit of a question. I do not mind answering the questions you ask, however I will attach a web site for you to ask the same questions to scholars or you can search the same question from others.

Any frustration I have is very minimal, and likely a result of my inadequacies, not yours or you.

Here is Dan’s view of the dialog. I see something that is not correct. I question it, and the answers you provide address a different question than that one that I asked. Although I suspected that you apparently providing answers to questions I did not ask was indication of evasivness, it may very well be my problem of not being able to phrase the question precisely, or in not yet understanding your answers.

I do appreciate any patience that you show me.

I read carefully what you wrote, and it still appears that you are answering questions that I do not pose. For example, I certainly understand that two 80 year olds can validly marry, not produce any children, and still be validly married. No argument there. But this is not the point of disagreement. I do not suggest that the ‘result’ of the procreative union of the couple is a determining factor of the validity of the marriage. If I suggested that the ‘result’ was a determining factor, then your response would be helpful to me. All of my concerns on this topic are ‘intents’. In order for points to be relevant to my question, they must deal with the topic of ‘intent’. And specifically, intent at time of the wedding, at the time the marriage covenant was attempted to be created.

I also tried the resources you listed, but could not find relevant material. I was going to ask the question using the resources available there, but the radio buttons for the relevant topics were not available. I guess there are more questions than people to answer them.

Doing my part to clarify my meaning:

Beginning at the most fundamental level of my assertion, I understand that the Catholic Church teaches that one who does not understand, or does not accept, what marriage fundamentally is, is not able to enter into one. Slight misunderstandings might not interfere with the creation of a marriage covenant, but fundamental misunderstandings of, or attempts to significantly change what the convenant is, are impediments to a valid marriage.

I understand that this is universal, i.e. it does not matter what faiths the parties are, whether Catholic or not, whether baptized or not, or whatever intentions that they may have. It is not specifically age related, although there is acknowledgement that mental capacity correlated with age (i.e. in either the young or the very old) could stand in the way of someone validly entering into the covenant, because there is insufficient capability to understand it, or insufficient capability to actually make the covenant.

Stated in another way. The Church teaches that marriage is something that God has defined. If someone defines for themselves a ‘marriage’ that is fundamentally different than what God has ordained, then no matter what they attempt to do, this relationship is not truly a marriage. An example. The state allows a couple to use any marriage vows they want. I saw reference to a couple that ‘commited’ to remain ‘married’ until either one of them decided that they did not want to ‘remain married’ any more. The Catholic Church would teach that this was no marriage. That the intent of the couple, at time of marriage, to remain as husband and wife until death, was not there. Therefore, the couple’s misunderstanding (and/or not accepting) one of these fundamental requirements for marriage, prevents a valid marriage. The understanding, and acceptance, that marriage requires a commitment to remain married for life, is required to be truly married.

The concise summary. To be validly married, we must understand, and accept, what God has ordained marriage to be.

Was I able to communication more effectively? Is what I state in this post true?

Very sincerely,

Dan

 

[jonesa25]

I think it is a sin to plan every child. When a couple uses NFP they are not sining in the act of sex itself as they would be if they used contraception. However, this says nothing about whether they are fulfilling their vocation to father and motherhood to which sex is ordered. NFP must aid in fullfilling this vocation otherwise it is a sin. This means any selfish or unfamily-centered reasons to use NFP makes it sinful. Oh, and justifying your selfishness by saying that a happy parent makes for a happy child, and so its ok to plan you children to allow you to make enough money to buy things, doesn’t cut it, as any parent who truly searches his soul knows.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.

How much courage can we ask for?..
Some people need more courage, some people need more serenity, but everybody struggles with the wisdom throughout their lives because not everybody has the same answers.

Such a beautiful prayer. We can ask for as much courage as we want or need.

Most of those paradoxes are literary devices though. …That seems like a paradox, but it’s just a misunderstanding of what life is.

Are they? While the Bible certainly uses literary devices, I think Christianity contains many paradoxes, such as the servant-leader. Not just the “meek shall inherit the earth” stuff, but that truly great people serve others. While the Church honors saints such as Francis of Assissi who took on poverty like Jesus, many other saints were kings, queens or other highly influential leaders who used their position of authority to serve the poor and others less fortunate. Jesus saves us through His suffering on the cross. He said (Mark 8), ““If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who would save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News will save it.” That’s not simply a literary device–it’s the paradox of Christianity.

Being free to seek out God of our own accord does not mean that we must become slaves to the minutia of daily life that he has prepared for us. … You can live a moral life, without thinking that life has been planned beyond your control.

“Slaves to the minutia of daily life”. You keep coming back to this “slavery” issue, with comments about life being “planned beyond your control.” **It really seems to come down to a couple very basic theological questions: Is God good? Do you think He seeks your ultimate happiness, or do you think He’s out to make you a miserable wretch, burdening you down with minutia? **

Would you argue that people who act morally, in charity, for the benefit of others but do so because they want to, not because they feel that God has told them to do so, are acting out of concert with God’s plan?

Can someone *really *live a moral life without seeking God and His will? Theoretically maybe if God gave them an extraordinary amount of grace so that their will and His will are the same. But I think it would be exceedingly rare and difficult, particularly in this day and age. Part of the problem is that fallen human nature distorts our view of charity and love. Jesus came to redeem us fallen humans and show us how to love–and real love is willing to sacrifice self for the sake of the beloved.

Ideally, marriage should reflect the self-sacrificing love Jesus has for His Bride, the Church. The Church reminds her children of the nature of sex and marriage, encouraging us to go beyond ourselves and become selfless. Children typically help us do that. My own children do their best to find every shred of selfishness left inside me and crush it. Frankly, it is a painful process, but I know I’ll be happier when I finally get over myself. Our Redeemer can redeem the minutia, and He *redeem us *through the minutia. Ultimately I believe, God want me happy, but He knows my selfishness suffocates my chance for happiness and joy.

 

[eponymic]

“Slaves to the minutia of daily life”. You keep coming back to this “slavery” issue, with comments about life being “planned beyond your control.” It really seems to come down to a couple very basic theological questions: Is God good? Do you think He seeks your ultimate happiness, or do you think He’s out to make you a miserable wretch, burdening you down with minutia?

I guess my hangup comes from hearing people say that God is in total control of your life. They say God has an absolute plan for your life that you must follow or you’re sinning by turning your back on His plan. At the same time, I’m getting that His plan does not follow our desires. While focusing on our selfish pleasures is going too far, like you said, doesn’t God just want us to be happy? Do our instincts and desires count for nothing in God’s plan?

Example hypothetical situation: I have this, uh, friend who is engaged. He and his fiancee are very happy together, compliment each other and are really a great match. However, they are absolutely mortified at becoming parents. They have no parental instincts and are extremely awkward and anxious around any children. We’ve all heard the old adage, “they’re different when they’re your own”, but if they aren’t? What if they have the child like the Church tells them they must try, but it just doesn’t kick in and they remain cold and distant with their own child? I’m not talking about mere ambivalence or apathy towards children but a true uneasiness and anxiety when around any child. Could this possibly be God telling them that children aren’t for them, or is the only way God tells people they shouldn’t have children through infertility? Should they not get married, despite the wonderful, loving relationship that already exists? Do they have to ignore their instincts because the Church tells them that you are not morally allowed to avoid children in marriage?

What if they know, deep within their souls, discerned through prayer and mediation, that children are just not for them. Must they try to have children, and risk becoming a miserable wretch, or must they deny their love for each other and forgo marriage?

I’m not looking for a practical solution, and should this be a real scenario, obviously they should consult a priest. I’m just interested in your opinion and reaction.