Era Might Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 8 2006, 11:55 PM']If I'm to trust that God will take care of me when I'm getting married too soon, then I should trust that He will not let our children starve. It seems that if a couple gets married spouting the "we trust God" bit and then decides to put off children...it's a little hypocritical. [right][snapback]907040[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's flawed reasoning. If we took it to its logical conclusion, a family with 5 children would be justified in selling all their possessions for the poor, since "God will provide". God works through nature. Blindly taking a course of action in the name of Providence is not faith, it's foolishness. There is nothing wrong with two people getting married even if they must delay pregnancy. Marriage does not lose its meaning without children (as we see with barren women). There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with delaying pregnancy in such a case. Edited March 9, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) A marriage which must delay pregnancy does not lose its meaning, because the meaning of marriage (distinguished from the "ends") is the love between husband and wife. A poor couple does not have to refrain from marriage just because they can't have children right away. This would deprive them of the great gift that is marriage, a gift which is not dependent on children for its meaning. [quote]I don't get married to have a child. I get married because I love my husband. But the procreation of the child belongs so essentially to this unitive function that it is the first step which leads into it. If I were to say to one of you, you know I absolutely want to get married because even though it's late in life, I still hope to have a child. In other words I use you as a means for the sake of procreation, and afterwards you can go; I no longer need you. This is what happens among animals. No, you get married because you love, but in this love you understand that love is necessarily fecund. It produces -- it's fruitful. And I mean to cut the fruitfulness of love is to sap love in its bud, and therefore there is an essential link between spousal love and procreation that cannot be severed. [b]But obviously the meaning of marriage is a self donation of oneself to another person in front of God. This is the meaning of marriage, this is the marital icon, I mean this is why a marriage that is childless, that when husband and wife love God and love each other, can glorify God as much as a marriage with ten children or fifteen if you want, or seventeen, to speak of Fr. Marx' family. It all depends on the amount of love that you have[/b]. But you cannot sever this bond because it is related to God. This is why you can say sex can only be understood as an external manifestation of love. And the moment you sever sex and love you misunderstand sex. And a special type of love because a love that I have for a friend or for a child, or for my parents, hasn't got this quality. It is a special type of love which we call spousal love -- the love between the spouses. --Alice Von Hildebrand[/quote] Read the full text of her talk here: [url="http://www.vidahumana.org/english/family/reverence.html"]http://www.vidahumana.org/english/family/reverence.html[/url] Edited March 9, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I agree with what you're saying Era, you make a heck of a lot of sense. That being said, somewhere in my gut (malformed conscience?) it seems selfish to get married and not to have even a single child outside of VERY grave circumstances. Knowing that NFP is incredibly effective at avoiding (or creating) pregnancy, and the Church's acceptance of the practice under certain conditions it seems SO easy to abuse. Especially the "beginning of marriage" question is so volatile. Why not wait until you're able to have at least one child? If you enter into a marriage KNOWING that you are unable to have children right away, are you being open to life? The barrenness question gives me pause. However, that type of thing is not usually known until [i]after[/i] you have [i]tried[/i] to have a child. I could very well be wrong. And I know it is a volatile question (mainly because there are probably people reading this who are doing just what others are saying could be wrong) but I'm not able to get my head around it. *aside* Toledo... the sex life thing was hilarious, and I tend to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) [quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 9 2006, 12:32 PM']If you enter into a marriage KNOWING that you are unable to have children right away, are you being open to life? [right][snapback]907258[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course you are. If you DON'T get married, it's certain that you won't have children. But if you do get married, and are having conjugal relations, even if you're using NFP, there is still a CHANCE that God will surprise you and you'll get pregnant. From that point of view, getting married opens up the possibility of having a child; it is more disposed (or "open") to life than not getting married, which presents no possibility whatsoever of having children. As I said before, a married couple should always understand that the begetting of children is intimately bound up in their vocation, and they should cultivate a fervent desire to beget children. However, if the virtue of prudence dictates that they delay pregnancy until they can reasonably welcome a child, then there is nothing wrong with that. An important part of marriage is responsible parenthood. The Church doesn't say responsible parenthood only applies after you've had one child. There is nothing wrong with getting married if you must delay pregnancy for a time. If such is your vocation, and you have found someone to share that vocation with, then you should start cultivating that relationship between husband and wife. It will only make you better parents when the time comes that you can have children. Edited March 9, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 (edited) [quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 9 2006, 12:32 PM']The barrenness question gives me pause. However, that type of thing is not usually known until [i]after[/i] you have [i]tried[/i] to have a child. [right][snapback]907258[/snapback][/right] [/quote] An elderly couple knows that they cannot have children before they even get married. But that doesn't detract from the meaning of their marriage. Edited March 9, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagiDragon Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 also, don't forget about the "Language of the body." We aren't lying about total self-giving when we practice NFP, but we are if we practice contraception. It is impossible to give totally of oneself when contracepting, the same is not true of NFP. There is a huge gulf between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 I like you guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 It seems like we are dealing with two extremes here that ignore that there are two purposes of the "marriage act": unitive and procreative. The people who push artificial contraception ignore the procreative purpose. The people who say "don't get married until you are ready to have kids right away" ignore the unitive purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 amen norseman82 unitive is a nice purpose too! (lol who wouldathunkit? i'm defending the UNITIVE part ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 9, 2006 Share Posted March 9, 2006 [quote name='stbernardLT' date='Mar 9 2006, 10:37 AM']**I know alot about this because I got married and had a Kid while only bringing in $800 A MONTH. I gave it up to Jesus and our family has never been without. Seek ye first the Kingdom of heaven.*** [right][snapback]907184[/snapback][/right] [/quote] hmm...could you pay your rent? I bet you could. That would mean you were financially stable enough to make it work. If you can't at least make rent then you shouldn't get married. I'm not saying you need much money, you just have to have a place, a job and food. [quote name='bro. adam']But that is not what you said or implied. To state that if one is in poverty that it is irresponsible to get married, than indeed that is a communist ideal. And of course you'll hear from me when you spout satanic doctrines. Expect nothing less. smile.gif[/quote] sure...satanic doctrines. yer purty smart fella. It is not the act of a responsible person to get married if they cannot adequately give attention to both the unitive and procreative aspects. It's real easy to be unitive, but procreative takes some more capital. Not much, just enough to live. You'd think I had quoted a dollar amount or something. God Bless you for trying. Look, I realize all you young couples are going to be completely opposed to what I'm saying. That's ok, you poor dears. But men, it's not Satanic to wait until you can provide for a wife and child. That's sort of the more uh...traditional concept of being a husband. [quote name='Era Might']That's flawed reasoning. If we took it to its logical conclusion, a family with 5 children would be justified in selling all their possessions for the poor, since "God will provide". God works through nature. Blindly taking a course of action in the name of Providence is not faith, it's foolishness. There is nothing wrong with two people getting married even if they must delay pregnancy. Marriage does not lose its meaning without children (as we see with barren women). There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with delaying pregnancy in such a case.[/quote] What's flawed with it? Selling all one's possessions is stupid if you have dependent children. It's irresponsible. Just like it's irresponsible to get married before you can [b]provide[/b] for your wife and child. I'm not sure you got my point. I was asking, if a young couple is faithful enough that God will provide for them as they get married, what's stopping them from believing God will provide for their imminent children? [quote name='Err Amight']But if you do get married, and are having conjugal relations, even if you're using NFP, there is still a CHANCE that God will surprise you and you'll get pregnant. [/quote] haha, like a 1% chance. They go back and forth between touting the effectiveness of the program and emphasizing that it can screw up. Priceless. It's birth control, and if a couple goes into a marriage using it then it demonstrates a lack of preparedness for the responsibilities (all of them) of marriage. You guys are daffy. I wish my girlfriend would let me marry her while I was still an indebted unemployed student. She's making me wait til I'm just indebted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colleen Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='God Conquers' date='Mar 9 2006, 11:32 AM']That being said, somewhere in my gut (malformed conscience?) it seems selfish to get married and not to have even a single child outside of VERY grave circumstances. Knowing that NFP is incredibly effective at avoiding (or creating) pregnancy, and the Church's acceptance of the practice under certain conditions it seems SO easy to abuse. Especially the "beginning of marriage" question is so volatile. Why not wait until you're able to have at least one child? If you enter into a marriage KNOWING that you are unable to have children right away, are you being open to life? [right][snapback]907258[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I agree. If you are really not ready to have a baby right away, what's wrong with waiting a little while to get married until you are ready? And I realize that some people may get angry with me for saying that, but I personally see a really big problem with a couple getting married, knowing full well that they don't intend to try to have children right away. I think it would be different if people got married wanting to have kids right away and there were no financial or medical or whatever issues in the way, and then encountered such issues after marriage. Does that distinction make sense? And I think total abstinence vs. NFP is a cool and heroic thing, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Colleen' date='Mar 9 2006, 07:22 PM']I agree. If you are really not ready to have a baby right away, what's wrong with waiting a little while to get married until you are ready? And I realize that some people may get angry with me for saying that, but I personally see a really big problem with a couple getting married, knowing full well that they don't intend to try to have children right away. I think it would be different if people got married wanting to have kids right away and there were no financial or medical or whatever issues in the way, and then encountered such issues after marriage. Does that distinction make sense? And I think total abstinence vs. NFP is a cool and heroic thing, too. [right][snapback]907578[/snapback][/right] [/quote] :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dspen2005 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 maybe I missed someone making this point -- afterall i have not combed through all of the posts on this thread... but NFP when used for the explicit purpose of not having children and as a means because the Church forbids artificial contraception is indeed morall wrong. there have been cases where the couple fears going against the Church's stance on contraception and so uses NFP but at the same time has no intention of having children.... even though the unitive and procreative aspects are still there in the conjugal act, they are acting against the moral requirement and meaning of the Church's infallible teaching.... in a word, they are acting in a far worse manner, IMHO, than one who blatantly uses artificial contraception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='dspen2005' date='Mar 9 2006, 07:52 PM']maybe I missed someone making this point -- afterall i have not combed through all of the posts on this thread... but NFP when used for the explicit purpose of not having children and as a means because the Church forbids artificial contraception is indeed morall wrong. there have been cases where the couple fears going against the Church's stance on contraception and so uses NFP but at the same time has no intention of having children.... even though the unitive and procreative aspects are still there in the conjugal act, they are acting against the moral requirement and meaning of the Church's infallible teaching.... in a word, they are acting in a far worse manner, IMHO, than one who blatantly uses artificial contraception. [right][snapback]907591[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yeah, I said something about that a bit back......I quoted Fr. Frank Pavone on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote]If you are really not ready to have a baby right away, what's wrong with waiting a little while to get married until you are ready?[/quote] I agree as well. People who make the decision that they aren't ready for children should not get married. This is by and far opposed to the ideology that 'poor' people are acting irresponsibly if they have children, which is indeed communist. I suppose it depends how you define poor. I think this would apply to absolutely exceptionally few today. 'poverty' has come a long way. And back in the days when the vast majority either were 'covered in s***' or if they weren't were royalty, to use a monty python line, the Church didn't see anything wrong with people getting married and bearing children. If you have no means to feed yourself, then your dead anyway within the week so bearing children isn't the issue. If you can feed yourself, and have some type of shelter there is no impediment on having children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts