That isn’t what she said.I don’t think that advanced maternal age is necessarily an example of a reason that is serious for each and every couple.
The morality of unilateral refusal of the practice of the marital act is existing. Each spouse can invoke this possibility, in respecting the catholic rules (for a good/just/serious reason or for good/just/serious reasons, or under a very particular condition, or under very particular conditions). Here, I make a focus on the singular and on the plural, because some catholic lay persons think that at least two reasons are necessary, and only one is not quite enough. They are wrong.This is not Church teaching. It is the wife’s “moral right” to refuse to have sex except during infertile times ONLY if the couple has prayerfully discerned a moral reason to delay the birth of another child. Such a “right” cannot be invoked unilaterally and connote be invoked without a good/just/serious reason.
The Song of Songs: the quality of the carnal union is so essential for each member of the couple.When the pope denounces the " conjugal rabbits ", he criticizes two aspects, the aspects linked to the conjugal procreation and the aspects of the duration of the conjugal union.
The conjugal act has to be done in the responsible procreation, the conjugal act is not only for the babies, the conjugal act does not has to be done quickly (the union between male rabbit and the female rabbit is very short), here,* he denounces the selfishness of husbands on the modus operandi of the marital act.* The husband has to try to last for his wife. The husband has to give some sexual pleasures and some sexual orgasms to his wife, via his caresses and co, in the human fashion. The husband has to try to be the best conjugal lover for his wife. The quality of the conjugal union is very important.
I have some concerns about that priority system, logistically speaking.Good point. Catholic teaching is that #2 should be the 'default" with #1 used when there are good reasons present.
As Xantippe notes, I too have a problem with this idea of a ‘default’ approach. It doesn’t serve human dignity to claim such a thing. If we already defer to the human and divine institution of marriage to curtail our reproductive urges ie. no sex before or outside of marriage for life… we are already reflecting that choice and planning is involved in our natural animal urges to reproduce. We get to choose who we marry and we can choose when to marry them or we can even choose not to marry and devote our maternity or paternity to religious life. It doesn’t therefore make sense that we would suddenly stop exercising choice or planning for our families wellbeing because ‘nature made us that way’.Originally Posted by AP4Him View Post
I see 3 different approaches…
Human beings are capable and obliged to care not just for themselves but for the society they belong to and to be appreciative for the human effort that has brought us health, wealth, security and optimism for future generations. When I say wealth, I mean the ability to feed and educate our kids to be generous and productive members of future society.
If the default is that all married couples just keep having kids until they break down in some way… the end result of such a practice would be a poorer, unhealthier, unlearned, primitive society. That is not in keeping with human survival. That is the road of extinction seen in soulless species. As human beings our most important principle is to ‘do unto others…’ and to ‘love one another’ and a natural effect of those virtues is to care for the future we leave our offspring and descendents… not just to live for the day according to our own whims.
Yes.As Xantippe notes, I too have a problem with this idea of a ‘default’ approach. It doesn’t serve human dignity to claim such a thing. If we already defer to the human and divine institution of marriage to curtail our reproductive urges ie. no sex before or outside of marriage for life… we are already reflecting that choice and planning is involved in our natural animal urges to reproduce. We get to choose who we marry and we can choose when to marry them or we can even choose not to marry and devote our maternity or paternity to religious life. It doesn’t therefore make sense that we would suddenly stop exercising choice or planning for our families wellbeing because ‘nature made us that way’.
Human beings are capable and obliged to care not just for themselves but for the society they belong to and to be appreciative for the human effort that has brought us health, wealth, security and optimism for future generations. When I say wealth, I mean the ability to feed and educate our kids to be generous and productive members of future society.
If the default is that all married couples just keep having kids until they break down in some way… the end result of such a practice would be a poorer, unhealthier, unlearned, primitive society. That is not in keeping with human survival. That is the road of extinction seen in soulless species. As human beings our most important principle is to ‘do unto others…’ and to ‘love one another’ and a natural effect of those virtues is to care for the future we leave our offspring and descendents… not just to live for the day according to our own whims.
Hello Xantippe and thanks for your post. I cited Psalm 128 regarding the blessing of children earlier in the thread so it’s good you brought it up here. First off, I think it is important to lay out a foundational issue in this discussion, namely the teaching of the Church (from the Apostles onward–as noted above) that these passages are: 1. the infallible, inerrant and eternal Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit and 2. they were written for all people for all time.We see here a number of ideas expressed very close together: that being god-fearing means financial security, peace, happiness, a large family, a prosperous homeland and long life. These things are all tightly connected in the mind of the psalmist.
I’m not sure that in the Old Testament, that large numbers of children are viewed as a blessing without accompanying worldly goods. I can’t think of a single story in the OT where you see a large poor family. And poor families are pretty peripheral figures in the classic stories of the OT.Hello Xantippe and thanks for your post. I cited Psalm 128 regarding the blessing of children earlier in the thread so it’s good you brought it up here. First off, I think it is important to lay out a foundational issue in this discussion, namely the teaching of the Church (from the Apostles onward–as noted above) that these passages are: 1. the infallible, inerrant and eternal Word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit and 2. they were written for all people for all time.
Going to your observations on the passage–it is clear that even in the strictly literal application of this passage for the Old Covenant believer, when read in the context of other Old Testament passages (as all passages must be done–as noted from the Church Fathers onward), it is not saying that children are nothing more than temporal “blessings” like a fine house or wealth. The Old Testament explicitly warns against abundance of strictly “materialistic” blessings or wealth (e.g. Proverbs 30:7-9 where believers are instructed after the pattern of the inspired author to pray for God to NOT give “riches”, but only to provide our “daily bread”). In contrast with the Old Testament instructions to not desire abundance of wealth, the Old Testament teaches explicitly that the believer should desire an abundance of God’s gift of children (e.g. Psalm 127:3-5).
God Bless and have a great weekend (and as usual it might be a while before I have time to join the discussion again).
Hello Xantippe,It suggests that the fine print to Psalms 127 and 128 is something like, “a large number of children are a blessing when you’re well-off enough that you can actually keep your children at home rather than selling them.”