Morality of Family Planning

[eponymic]

If you assume that God wants us happy in this life, you err. God wants us happy with Him in heaven. He wants us to conform to his will in this life. That will ULTIMATELY make us happy, but not while we are fighting with our fallen selves.

(CCC 1718) The Beatitudes respond to the natural desire for happiness. This desire is of divine origin: God has placed it in the human heart in order to draw man to the One who alone can fulfill it:

We all want to live happily; in the whole human race there is no one who does not assent to this proposition, even before it is fully articulated. (St. Augustine, De moribus eccl. 1, 3, 4: PL 32,1312.)

How is it, then, that I seek you, Lord? Since in seeking you, my God, I seek a happy life, let me seek you so that my soul may live, for my body draws life from my soul and my soul draws life from you. (St. Augustine, Conf. 10, 20: PL 32, 791.)

God alone satisfies. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Expos. in symb. apost. I.)

(CCC 2548) Desire for true happiness frees man from his immoderate attachment to the goods of this world so that he can find his fulfillment in the vision and beatitude of God.

What in the world are they trying to accomplish? God did not ordain marraige for just sexual relations, but this is what they would be attempting to make it, if they were to marry. If they have no interest in being parents, they are either selfish, or are not being called to become parents. They can have every other part of their “wonderful, loving relationship”, licitly, except for the sex. They can live as brother and sister, vow to each other that they will be there always for each other, just as Christ is for us. It appears all they want from the marriage is ‘license’ to engage in sterile sex. That is not the purpose of marriage.

If what you say is true, then the purpose of marital sex is to have children. However, we both know that sex is also unitive, and sex when you know you’re 99.999% sure that it will not be fertile is licit. Sex provides more than children. In my scenario, I would not propose that the couple would reject or abort a pregnancy if one occurs, but only that they would not attempt to become pregnant on purpose. They are simply not seeking out God’s gifts, but not taking steps to prevent them altogether.

Au contrair. It is what exists at the time of marriage that matters." What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." If the marriage was valid, it does not matter what happens to intent later. You can try to 'change your mind", but that does not change the fact you are really married. Likewise if the marriage was not valid on the day it was attempted, it by definition, never existed.

I think you misunderstand my point. It is not valid for a couple to marry with the intention of having children, then completely change their minds a few days later and decide to use NFP for the rest of their lives to avoid pregnancy. If the intention of having children must be present on the wedding day, it must be present every day thereafter as well.

You ignore the very first teaching of the Church on God’s plan for marriage. Marriage is ordered towards the procreation of children. How can a couple entering a marriage accept that purpose and work intently on not fulfilling it?

I think gardenswithkids said it best:

It’s not marriage=intent of children. It’s more like marriage=man + woman in lifelong relationship that agree to accept the children lovingly from God that result from their sexual union, which reflects in a small way the relationship Christ has with His bride, the Church.

Do you enter marriage with the desire for children, or do you enter marriage with the desire to increase your combined love which may take the form of a child? You enter a marriage to have two people become one in God through a bond of love. As this love grows, it may realize itself in the creation and raising of a child, but it doesn’t have to. The requirement is the love, not the child.

 

[Timothy_486]

eponymic, your last 2 posts were very good, especially on how marriage has slightly changed over time. It is also interesting to note that even today in some parts of the world “traditional marriage”, as these cultures think of it, may take radical forms we may find strange to our idea of marriage, such as areas where a man may have several wives (or vice versa), areas where marriage between brother/sister are common, or a tribe I heard where one may actually marry the dead! (I can’t even imagine how many puns I could use on that one!)

Lastly, before someone does a stupid response by saying I am justifying homo-marriage, it is interesting to note that never before in history in any part of the world did they ever have marriage between 2 same sex partners.

 

[cynic]

What if you want to put off children, say for a year into the marriage, so you can, you know, do horribly selfish things like spend some time togethor. That allowed?

 

[Timothy_486]

What if you want to put off children, say for a year into the marriage, so you can, you know, do horribly selfish things like spend some time togethor. That allowed?

I’m sure even the “If you don’t have 25 children your going to hell” types would even concede you don’t need to pop babies out like a factory in the first year

 

[mapleoak]

In the case of existing children, if their welfare is at risk with the addition of an additional child at the present time, the Church teaches that the act of spacing children using NFP is OK…The primary responsibility that parents have is to their exising children, not to their future children. This is a different situation as intending to have and raise no children.

Not quite correct. It is irresponsible to 'have one more child" if the existing children will materially suffer.

Lots of great posts Grelinger. I would like to point out though, that their is nothing irresponsible, implying that under certain circumstances it could be sinful, to “have one more child”. The Church allows NFP, but certainly does not require it. Nor does it say that if you don’t make ‘X’ amount of money, if you won’t be able to send your current kids to such and such school, if you have to barter for food, etc., etc., then you must use NFP.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[gardenswithkids]

A few days away from the boards may have helped me understand things better.

Glad to read that and welcome back. I held off on posting any more on this thread since you (the op) were gone. This is a very interesting (albeit long) discussion and your asking questions does help me formulate and express some thoughts. I appreciate you and others asking the questions, because it gives me the opportunity to try formulating charitable answers.

However, I did want to revisit this statement. Marriage, as our society takes it, has changed drastically over the years. It is not a static thing by any means. Old Testament marriage was a business transaction. In Exodus,… but I am saying that the concept of marriage does indeed change. Most people who want to protect marriage from being redefined don’t want to turn the clock back to Exodus, but where do you want the clock to have stopped?

I prefer the clock stopped at Genesis 2–the entire chapter before the fall.

Seriously, when the pharasees asked Jesus about Mosiac divorce laws, Jesus went back to the beginning to define marriage. “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh…” Matt 19 The next thing Jesus does in Matt 19 after answering the question about marriage and divorce is he blesses the chidren and says, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them…” While we tend to separate the blessing of the children from the question of marriage, back in the beginning God didn’t.

 

[gardenswithkids]

What if you want to put off children, say for a year into the marriage, so you can, you know, do horribly selfish things like spend some time togethor. That allowed?

The Church encourage newlyweds to wait at least nine months before having a newborn.

 

[eponymic]

Glad to read that and welcome back. I held off on posting any more on this thread since you (the op) were gone. This is a very interesting (albeit long) discussion and your asking questions does help me formulate and express some thoughts. I appreciate you and others asking the questions, because it gives me the opportunity to try formulating charitable answers.I prefer the clock stopped at Genesis 2–the entire chapter before the fall.

Seriously, when the pharasees asked Jesus about Mosiac divorce laws, Jesus went back to the beginning to define marriage. “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh…” Matt 19 The next thing Jesus does in Matt 19 after answering the question about marriage and divorce is he blesses the chidren and says, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them…” While we tend to separate the blessing of the children from the question of marriage, back in the beginning God didn’t.

Matthew 19 does have a few interesting phrases though. In it (Matt 19:12), it seems to imply that infertile people are “incapable of marriage”, which would seem to conclude that marriage = children. I could also see how “because they were born so” would imply a lack of function, not of fertility, which is in line with Church teachings. Furthermore, the use of marriage to essentially mean sex has some odd conclusions as well. If marriage means sex, then it’s not about the vows and the love, but it’s really just about the sex. You don’t really need to love your spouse, you just need to have sex with them (which was really true for a vast part of human history). Then again, it could just be poetic license.

I’m also the last person you’d ever expect to argue for an extreme literal translation of the Bible, but Matthew 19:13-15 seems so out of place in the rest of the text that the events may not be related in context, just that they happened in that order. I’m not saying that there isn’t an important message in that short passage, but that it may not be related to the verses immediately preceding it. If they was such a connection, why would they not be relevant to the verses after it as well?

I’m well aware of John 20:29, but sometimes I wish I could go back in time and understand the context a little better.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… Matthew 19:13-15 seems so out of place in the rest of the text that the events may not be related in context, just that they happened in that order…

Until I looked up the verse earlier today about Jesus addressing marriage “from the beginning”, I also remembered those as separate stories. Probably Matthew arranged it way because of the timing of the actual events. Still, I find it interesting that those events happened in that order. Maybe just a coincidence in these particular verses, but marriage followed by children isn’t only coincidental.

Matthew 19 does have a few interesting phrases though. In it (Matt 19:12), it seems to imply that infertile people are “incapable of marriage”, which would seem to conclude that marriage = children. I could also see how “because they were born so” would imply a lack of function, not of fertility, which is in line with Church teachings…

I don’t think your first understanding is correct. Some translations use the word “eunich”, which implies castration. Generally speaking, unless there is some obvious malformation, people who are infertile don’t know it until they try making babies. Hopefully, they don’t try making babies until they are already married.

…Furthermore, the use of marriage to essentially mean sex has some odd conclusions as well. If marriage means sex, then it’s not about the vows and the love, but it’s really just about the sex. You don’t really need to love your spouse, you just need to have sex with them (which was really true for a vast part of human history). Then again, it could just be poetic license…

“Just about the sex.”? Interesting take on marriage. Love is something that we learn. By living out their vows, marriage can teach the couple to love more perfectly. Part of that learning to love often comes as they care for the children that result from their sexual union. God united making children with making love. So, to say its “just about the sex” implies maybe part of you questioning arises by not really understanding sex. Sexual intimacy expresses love and *also creates *deeper bonds of love between husband and wife–sometimes those bonds show up physically as their children’s DNA. Marriage isn’t “just about the sex”; sex isn’t even just about the sex. It’s about making love–real love.

 

[eponymic]

Until I looked up the verse earlier today about Jesus addressing marriage “from the beginning”, I also remembered those as separate stories. Probably Matthew arranged it way because of the timing of the actual events. Still, I find it interesting that those events happened in that order. Maybe just a coincidence in these particular verses, but marriage followed by children isn’t only coincidental.

I think it could be a rather dangerous thing to invent a connection that may not be there. You’d think that if He meant to connect the two, He would have said so. It’s not like that snippet was too long and it got edited for space considerations.

“Just about the sex.”? Interesting take on marriage. Love is something that we learn. By living out their vows, marriage can teach the couple to love more perfectly. Part of that learning to love often comes as they care for the children that result from their sexual union. God united making children with making love. So, to say its “just about the sex” implies maybe part of you questioning arises by not really understanding sex. Sexual intimacy expresses love and *also creates *deeper bonds of love between husband and wife–sometimes those bonds show up physically as their children’s DNA. Marriage isn’t “just about the sex”; sex isn’t even just about the sex. It’s about making love–real love.

That is why I think it’s most likely a literary device, although one could make an argument. You can exchange vows, rings, gifts and do the Chicken Dance all you want, but if the marriage is never consummated it can be annulled fairly easily.

The comment about the children’s DNA did get me thinking slightly more on topic though. Can a fertile couple decide to forgo biological children if they wish to adopt instead?

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Lots of great posts Grelinger. I would like to point out though, that their is nothing irresponsible, implying that under certain circumstances it could be sinful, to “have one more child”. The Church allows NFP, but certainly does not require it. Nor does it say that if you don’t make ‘X’ amount of money, if you won’t be able to send your current kids to such and such school, if you have to barter for food, etc., etc., then you must use NFP.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

Thank you sincerely for the compliment, I am in your debt.

You are correct, the Church does not require NFP to be used. The Church only requires moral behavior in all situations.

I have inferred that, in some situations, it may be an irresponsibility (sinful act) to attempt to create another child when existing children may materially suffer, since the Church’s teaching is that NFP is licit for this purpose. I used the term ‘material’ in a severe sense. In this context, I believe that the only thing that morally ‘trumps’ new life, is serious risk of death to existing life. This is what I meant by material. If the creation of another life results in a non-insignificant risk of death (perhaps by starvation?) of existing children, I am suggesting that the creation of another life may not be the moral thing to do. Perhaps a better scenario would be if a birth would bring significant risk of death to the mother who may reasonably expect her children to starve if she were to die. In this case, it may certainly be a gift of self for the mother to risk her own life for the benefit of the life of another child, but if the risk to the lives of her other children is significant, it may not be the most moral thing to do.

In reality, these are very extreme theoretical cases, and not applicable in any domain we are likley to be in.

Dan

 

[mapleoak]

Completely agree! Keep up the good work.

In Christ - J.M.J.
Mapleoak

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I finally have a few minutes to rejoin this discussion.

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger
Rejecting the children (do you know the sacrifices they demand?), but participating in the pleasure would seem to be a good enough definition of selfish.

But if that is true then using NFP at any time for any reason would be what you claim right above, so yet again you seem to be saying NFP is forbidden. (BTW eating snacks is not a part of sustainment but is for pleasurable purposes, do you oppose that as well?)

The ‘act’ of NFP is only periodic abstinence. In that regard, it really is not an ‘act’, but a failure to ‘act’. Abstinence (not having sexual relations at a specific time) is not immoral, except when one spouse denies the other. Both spouses may agree to abstain any time they want to, for many reasons. However, going into a marriage with the intent to never have children (the means by which this may be accomplished, e.g. ABC or NFP, are not the issue here, intent is the issue) invalidates the marriage.

It appears that there is confusion around two separate requirements. 1. A couple must intend to have children at the time the marriage is entered into. 2. Each marital act must be left open to the possibility of new life.

In regards to snacks. An attempt to enjoy the eating, but not accept the natural purpose of eating (as bulimics do) is sinful, and yes I do oppose sinful behavior.

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger
Engaging in sexual relations with the intent of no children is abuse of the spouse.

Yet again you use that phrase and yet again that would mean (if taken literally) that NFP is forbidden in all circumstances and many people would be forbidden to marry based on other circumstances not through their own fault.

I am sorry for the confusion. I did not say things in the best way.

1. To marry with the intent to engage in sexual relations, and the intent not to have any children, invalidates the marriage attempt, and is abuse of the other person, in that the sex is a mortal sin.
2. To engage in a sexual act that is not open to life (i.e. there is an action directed toward preventing pregnancy) is abuse of the spouse.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Marriage, as our society takes it, has changed drastically over the years. It is not a static thing by any means.

This is confusing as you are not precise. Do you suggest that marriage is not a static thing, or that society’s understanding and attempted use of marriage is not a static thing. God’s design of marriage is static. Society’s understanding varies widely.

The Church does not state that marriage means children anymore, but it used to.

You may wish this to be the case, but it is definitely not true. The catechism teaches that marriage is created by God for procreation, and Canon Law recognizes it as well. ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501578

The definition changed slightly to allow for infertile and elderly couples, who could not have children, to have legal marriages.

Again not true. The Church requires the same things of all couples regardless of age. The vows do not change. The part about children is there, no matter what age the couple are. If you find otherwise, please provide your sources, from authoritative Church teaching. It simply is not there.

I’m absolutely not advocating that the Church needs to recognize homosexual marriages, but I am saying that the concept of marriage does indeed change.

You seem to believe that people and society define marriage. That is a fundamentally flawed conclusion, and in direct opposition to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

Most people who want to protect marriage from being redefined don’t want to turn the clock back to Exodus, but where do you want the clock to have stopped?

The clock will never stop if we talk about societies’ interpretations and attempted uses of marriage. What we seek is the full understanding of what God has defined.

Love takes on many forms. In marriage, the Church teaches that the greatest expression of love between a couple is a child. However, does that mean that the infertile couple does not love each other to the same extent that a couple with children do? Absolutely not, it just means that the infertile couple has different expressions of their love that are all equally valid and just as meaningful between the couple. The love between a married couple and God can only be measured by those involved, and may or may not be evident in any outward signs that other people can measure. A large family may be a sign of generosity, but is a couple with a single child less generous than a couple with twenty? You cannot say based on that information alone. There is no earthly measuring stick for love, especially of love towards God.

Consider the parable of the talents. Infertile couples may love each other perfectly in accord with God’s plan, and not have children. Fertile couples have been given a gift from God, and are held accountable for delivering it. What is more valuable than life? The most precious gifts a fertile couple can give each other, society, and God, is children. Nothing else compares. If you believe there is something more valuable than human life directed toward God’s satisfcation that a married fertile couple can produce with their God-endowed faculties, please be specific. I will venture you can find nothing.

Dan

 

[Timothy_486]

1. To marry with the intent to engage in sexual relations, and the intent not to have any children, invalidates the marriage attempt, and is abuse of the other person, in that the sex is a mortal sin.

Ok then, what if a couple married with the intent of no children, but later on had many? According to you, that marriage would still be invalid since they decided not to have any at the beginning

1. To engage in a sexual act that is not open to life (i.e. there is an action directed toward preventing pregnancy) is abuse of the spouse.

I assume you would agree with me that NFP would not fall under this category?

 

[eponymic]

In regards to snacks. An attempt to enjoy the eating, but not accept the natural purpose of eating (as bulimics do) is sinful, and yes I do oppose sinful behavior.

I think the better example to prove this point is having a round of drinks with your friends. You are consuming beverages, and sometimes snacks, that may offer some minute nutritional value, but the basis of the consumption is on the social aspect. We have parties and feasts wherein the actual food is secondary to the social aspect of bonding and togetherness.

The Church celebrates “feasts” all the time, with the ultimate feast being Holy Communion. The consumption of food is designed towards delivering energy that sustains the biological functions of the body. However, it clearly contains the communal aspect of bonding that can be much more important than the sustenance itself. One does not partake in the Eucharist to satisfy the body, but instead the spirit.

If you maintain that it is sinful to partake in food for reasons other than sustenance of the body, then you may as well be calling Holy Communion a sin.

I am sorry for the confusion. I did not say things in the best way.

1. To marry with the intent to engage in sexual relations, and the intent not to have any children, invalidates the marriage attempt, and is abuse of the other person, in that the sex is a mortal sin.
2. To engage in a sexual act that is not open to life (i.e. there is an action directed toward preventing pregnancy) is abuse of the spouse.

Dan

In regards to #1, I still maintain that while the intent at the beginning of marriage is important as you say, the rules cannot change after day one. If what you say is true, then a couple may get married intending to have children, then change their minds the next day and that would be morally allowed.

As for #2, I think there may be a fundamental difference of opinion of the term “open to life”. What Timothy 486 and I seem to be saying is that if an act cannot create life, it is not open to life. However, your definition seems to be that if God decides not to create life (through momentary or permanent infertility), then it’s still open to life on our end, and that’s all we can control so that’s all we can do. I explained earlier that I take issue with the separation of the sexual act with the act of creating a child.

I also agree with Timothy that NFP is most definitely an act that allows a couple to engage in sex in a way that deliberately avoids pregnancy.

 

[eponymic]

This is confusing as you are not precise. Do you suggest that marriage is not a static thing, or that society’s understanding and attempted use of marriage is not a static thing. God’s design of marriage is static. Society’s understanding varies widely.

Since God doesn’t come down and preside over marriages Himself, that duty is relegated to religious personnel on earth. The design of marriage gets interpreted by the religious heads, be they Popes or Rabbis, and we must trust those leaders that their instructions are true. This is not “society”, this is religious implementation. If a man tries to buy a bride from her father today, and the truth was known by the priest, I highly doubt that the marriage would go forward in the Church. Sarah allowed Abraham to conceive a son with her handmaid. God certainly didn’t punish them for this action, but the Catholic Church wouldn’t condone that sort of activity today. My point is that since the time of Exodus, the religious leaders have changed their minds about what is acceptable behavior regarding marriage. The marriage rites, procedures and requirements we have today are not the same as they were in the past.

You may wish this to be the case, but it is definitely not true. The catechism teaches that marriage is created by God for procreation, and Canon Law recognizes it as well. ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=501578

Are you suggesting that marriage is entirely for procreation and that infertile and elderly couples do not have valid marriages?

Again not true. The Church requires the same things of all couples regardless of age. The vows do not change. The part about children is there, no matter what age the couple are. If you find otherwise, please provide your sources, from authoritative Church teaching. It simply is not there.

Pre Vatican II Rite
Post Vatican II Rite
First off, in the actual vows there is no clause about children. The bride does not say “I take X to be my husband, to have and to hold, to bear his children, from this day forward…”. Secondly, the specific question in the Post Vatican II rite regarding children, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”, is optional for elderly couples. Furthermore, it does not state, explicitly or implicitly, that the couple must seek out children. Thirdly, in both rites any prayer that asks for blessings of children are optional. Pre Vatican II specifically states that it may be omitted if the couple is too old to expect children.

You seem to believe that people and society define marriage. That is a fundamentally flawed conclusion, and in direct opposition to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church… What we seek is the full understanding of what God has defined.

As stated above, it is not “society” that defines marriage, but the religious heads that sanction and condone practices and attitudes towards it. Furthermore, nothing should ever be static. We’re not perfect and we don’t have all of the answers. We should be constantly striving to change to be closer to God. There are two problems with this though: 1) We aren’t God, so we can never achieve the goal, and 2) We don’t know the mind of God, so we can never really be sure of what “perfection” is while still on earth.

Consider the parable of the talents. Infertile couples may love each other perfectly in accord with God’s plan, and not have children. Fertile couples have been given a gift from God, and are held accountable for delivering it. What is more valuable than life? The most precious gifts a fertile couple can give each other, society, and God, is children. Nothing else compares. If you believe there is something more valuable than human life directed toward God’s satisfcation that a married fertile couple can produce with their God-endowed faculties, please be specific. I will venture you can find nothing.

Dan

What you suggest is that children are the end-all and be-all of marriage, which concludes that marriages without children are somehow lacking, broken or substandard. You mentioned, several pages ago in post #92, that you are part of an infertile couple. Is this how you see yourself and your relationship?

Marriage offers more than just children, and children are not the greatest thing to come of marriage to the detriment of all other gifts. A married couple offers love and support to each other, and by extension, their family and friends around them.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I still maintain that while the intent at the beginning of marriage is important as you say, the rules cannot change after day one…

You’re right, the rules don’t change after day one. The question about intent when the wedding takes place is something that annulment courts would look at if one of the couple asked for an annulment. Unless a Catholic “marriage” has been declard “null” (not a marriage in the first place because they didn’t have proper intent/maturity/form/etc), it is regarded as a marriage. If they don’t have the proper intent, maturity or other disposition to marry, I hope thats would be discovered before the wedding ceremony.

In the hypothetical couple you mentioned earlier, they didn’t have the intent to be open to children that may result from their union. But now let me add a hypothetical situation. It’s 10 years later. All their friends have children and the woman’s biological alarm clock rings. She hears it; he hits the snooze button and ignores her. But she wants a baby with him, and she is no longer satisfied at all with their previous arrangement. She stops telling him when she thinks she’s fertile, so he (not wanting a baby) withholds the marriage act. That goes on for three years. The arguments get worse and worse. The once-happy childless couple now argues about everything, not just about babies but about their whole lifestyle together. They decided to divorce, and being Catholics, they seek an annulment. It comes out during the annulment process that they agreed to never have children when they “contracted” the marriage.

Now, the Church would likely declare that because they were not open to the possibility of children at the time of the wedding, a Catholic marriage never took place. The arrangement they had was not a Catholic marriage.

…then a couple may get married intending to have children, then change their minds the next day and that would be morally allowed…

The rules wouldn’t change for this couple either. In this, your second example of a Catholic couple who enters marriage with the intent of children, only to change their minds later, (assuming no other irregular situations) they did enter a valid marriage on day one. Once a Catholic marriage takes place, the marriage lasts until the death of one of the spouses. No annulment would be granted if they choose to divorce later. Yes, this marriage would be morally allowed–that’s true, but their decision to not have children would not be a moral decision if they didn’t have “just” reasons to use NFP.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

1. To marry with the intent to engage in sexual relations, and the intent not to have any children, invalidates the marriage attempt, and is abuse of the other person, in that the sex is a mortal sin.

Ok then, what if a couple married with the intent of no children, but later on had many? According to you, that marriage would still be invalid since they decided not to have any at the beginning

That is true, but its not because I said so. It is because it is the truth the Church teaches. The Church very clearly teaches that God has ordered marriage to procreation. For a couple to deny that for their marriage when they attempt it, is for them to deny marriage. It is not possible for them to get married in this case.

And, the Church does not teach ‘common law’ marriage. Civilly, two people living as husband and wife long enough will be considered married by the state, generally after 7 years. However, the Church teaches that you cannot just ‘fall’ into a marriage. It must be entered knowingly (i.e. you know what marriage really is, what God has ordained it for) and that you freely accept it.

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger
2. To engage in a sexual act that is not open to life (i.e. there is an action directed toward preventing pregnancy) is abuse of the spouse.

I assume you would agree with me that NFP would not fall under this category?

Your assumption is correct. Many suggest that NFP is an ‘act’, like contraception. However, the action in NFP is the learning, the gathering of information. The ‘act’ of NFP has nothing to do with sexual relations. As long as each act of sexual relations remains naturally open to life, it is a wonderful, beautiful, grace filled act. Where NFP can be used illicitly, it is not through action, but through mal-intent. Morality is determined by action, intent, and circumstance. The ‘action’ of NFP can never be immoral. But the intent can be.

Sincerely, Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

If you maintain that it is sinful to partake in food for reasons other than sustenance of the body, then you may as well be calling Holy Communion a sin.

I do not maintain that. I have never suggested that. Whereas it is truth that one must accept the natural purposes of an act, it is poor extrapolation to indicate that this means it can only be for a single natural purpose.

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger

1. To marry with the intent to engage in sexual relations, and the intent not to have any children, invalidates the marriage attempt, and is abuse of the other person, in that the sex is a mortal sin.

Originally Posted by eponymic
In regards to #1, I still maintain that while the intent at the beginning of marriage is important as you say, the rules cannot change after day one. If what you say is true, then a couple may get married intending to have children, then change their minds the next day and that would be morally allowed.

We are getting close. There is more than one issue at stake. There is the issue of whether or not the couple is married, and there is the issue of whether they are fulfilling God’s will at any given time. If a couple marries intending to have children, and then change their mind, they are still married (for once married, always married), but their intent and actions may or may not be moral, depending on circumstances. If immoral, it does not affect the legitimacy of the marriage that already exists. Indeed, if immoral, it is a sin against God and against each other in this real marriage.

Originally Posted by Dan Grelinger
2. To engage in a sexual act that is not open to life (i.e. there is an action directed toward preventing pregnancy) is abuse of the spouse.

Originally Posted by eponymic
As for #2, I think there may be a fundamental difference of opinion of the term “open to life”. What Timothy 486 and I seem to be saying is that if an act cannot create life, it is not open to life. However, your definition seems to be that if God decides not to create life (through momentary or permanent infertility), then it’s still open to life on our end, and that’s all we can control so that’s all we can do. I explained earlier that I take issue with the separation of the sexual act with the act of creating a child.

Can we know if an act can or cannot create life? I know of no one who can with any certainty know, at the time of the act, if that particular act can (or will) create life. Many of us do not even know after the act if life was created or not, for God sometimes creates and takes very soon what has been created.

What is meant by open, is that we participate is that particular act with no actions that interfere with its natural purpose. I, too, believe that separating the sexual act from the act of human life creation is inherently immoral. One clarification that might help with my meaning. It is possible for a couple, during one act, to be closed to life (e.g. a physical barrier was used), and during the next, be open to life (nothing was done to interfere with that acts natural disposition to life creation.) The first sexual act was violated, was displeasing to God. The second was not.

Originally Posted by eponymic
I also agree with Timothy that NFP is most definitely an act that allows a couple to engage in sex in a way that deliberately avoids pregnancy.

That is a common belief. However, it is not the most accurate statement. First, we must look at what we mean by ‘act’. What is the ‘act’ of NFP? Can an ‘action’ be ‘not acting’? That would seem to be contradictory, but it seems to be what you suggest.

Thank you very much for the discussion. It is very beneficial to me.

Sincerely,

Dan