Brother Adam Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 "Money? Why would you sell your ticket something common as money? Money is nothing special, there is a great deal of money in the world. They print more every day. There are only 5 golden tickets." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'm getting a bit confused. Two of my closest friends were born from a good Catholic NFP family, and they both waited a couple of years after they were married to have children. I'm not their pillow, I don't know what the reasonings were between them, and they certainly married intending to have children, because they have them now. They are a youth ministry couple that are staunch advocates of NFP. My guess is that they chose to spend time adjusting to the many aspects of married life and probably had economic reasons as well -- in the end, they wanted to have children when they believed they would be the best parents they could be. So are some of you saying that they were in the wrong or sinning mortally for delaying their first child? As I see it, no, I don't think people should get married unless they demonstrate some readiness or openness to have a child, because ideally, the two go hand in hand. And I can't imagine a couple using NFP to follow the rules, but never intend to have a child. That is just wack. But I never got the idea that a couple was going to hell for not trying to have children right away after getting married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 10 2006, 08:32 AM']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. [right][snapback]907923[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yeah. so you understand what I was saying then. It's not communist, it's common sense. It's irresponsible for someone who cannot provide (poor) to get married and have children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Mar 10 2006, 08:55 AM']I'm getting a bit confused. Two of my closest friends were born from a good Catholic NFP family, and they both waited a couple of years after they were married to have children. I'm not their pillow, I don't know what the reasonings were between them, and they certainly married intending to eventually children, because they have them now. They are a youth ministry couple that are staunch advocates of NFP. My guess is that they chose to spend time adjusting to the many aspects of married life and probably had economic reasons as well -- in the end, they wanted to have children when they believed they would be the best parents they could be. So are some of you saying that they were in the wrong or sinning mortally for delaying their first child? As I see it, no, I don't think people should get married unless they demonstrate some readiness or openness to have a child, because ideally, the two go hand in hand. And I can't imagine a couple using NFP to follow the rules, but never intend to have a child. That is just wack. But I never got the idea that a couple was going to hell for not trying to have children right away after getting married. [right][snapback]907931[/snapback][/right] [/quote] they aren't in mortal sin, that's for sure. Seeing as how NFP is officially endorsed and all. I would question their judgment about the proper time for them to wed. Why put off children immediately? If you aren't ready for kids, you aren't ready for marriage. And that is a scientific fact! [img]http://www.anchorman-themovie.com/wallpapers/images/champ_wp_800x600.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Oops and I'll add that I am not talking about infertile or older couples in the above post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 07:57 AM']yeah. so you understand what I was saying then. It's not communist, it's common sense. It's irresponsible for someone who cannot provide (poor) to get married and have children. [right][snapback]907932[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Provide what? Food? There isn't anyone, at least not in this country, that can't do that. I wouldn't call it poverty, I think its a wonderful idea to raise children in poverty (without material wealth = dependancy on God), I would call it desolation. There may be some in third world countries that are dying of starvation that may not want to procreate because they do live in desolate, not simply impoverished, areas. I think someone also mentioned being in college. I'm in college. I know over a dozen people here who are, who work, go to school, and have a family (children). It can be done without a great deal of angst. Edited March 10, 2006 by Brother Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Mar 10 2006, 08:19 AM']I think its a wonderful idea to raise children in poverty (without material wealth = dependancy on God), I[right][snapback]907947[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Or the government.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 LOL! Toledo.... Gotta love the champ Anyway, like I said, I wasn't their pillow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I'm with toledo_jesus on this one. Don't get married if you don't intend to have children right away. YES, there is the unitive aspect of sexual intercourse. BUT it is INSEPARABLE from the procreative aspect. If the reasons are GRAVE enough to avoid children, then they are probably GRAVE enough to postpone marriage until a more proper time. In all honesty, Bro. Adam, I think you are taking toledo_jesus' words out of context and dragging them to an extreme that he never implied. It IS unwise and COMPLETELY irresponsible to get married if there are GRAVE reasons to avoid conceiving a child. Those same GRAVE reasons are probably reason enough to postpone the marriage until there exists a more stable atmosphere. He's not saying that you have to wait until you're filthy rich and have paid off all your college debts... he's saying you wait until you can do that which a husband is supposed to do... PROVIDE. If you can't provide for children then you can't be a husband. This doesn't entail enormous amounts of money, etc. (this is why you are taking things out of context... I don't think what toledo_jesus meant by poverty was the standard American quota for the poverty line). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 09:47 AM']Don't get married if you don't intend to have children right away. YES, there is the unitive aspect of sexual intercourse. BUT it is INSEPARABLE from the procreative aspect. If the reasons are GRAVE enough to avoid children, then they are probably GRAVE enough to postpone marriage until a more proper time. [right][snapback]907957[/snapback][/right] [/quote] There is absolutely nothing to gain by not getting married in that case. 1) Getting married is more open to life than not getting married. It introduces the POSSIBILITY of having children, even if you are using NFP. 2) Getting married will allow you to live out your vocation with your spouse, and it will only make you better parents when the time comes to have children. 3) Practically, getting married allows you to share incomes, to get your spouse on your health plan, and so on. It will only help you to build your resources so that you can speed up the day when you're realistically able to support a child. 4) As Alice Von Hildebrand points out, procreation is not the MEANING of marriage. To get married just because you're able to have children is, in effect, a form of spousal abuse. You are using your spouse as a baby making machine, and it distorts the meaning of marriage, which is the coming together as "one flesh". This coming together has creative potential, but a marital union cannot be reduced to this creative end. As I said before, the Church does not teach that responsible parenthood only applies when you have a child under your belt. There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting married if you must delay pregnancy right away. To say there is something wrong with it is a distortion of what marriage is, and consequentially, would lead to a stigma on barren women and the elderly. Why should they get married at all, since they can't have children? This is far from the mind of the Church. So long as a married couple has a clear understanding of their vocation as co-workers in God's creation, it is not for you or I to examine their conscience for them and decide when they should or should not delay pregnancy. [quote]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. It all depends on the amount of love that you have. --Alice Von Hildebrand[/quote] Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The possibility of having a child should be a central concern for anyone getting married, although as Era said it's not the only end of marriage. Even a couple planning to postpone children for a couple of years has to consider the possibility that God could grant the blessing of a child at a time the parents would otherwise have preferred to wait. If you're not willing to accept that possibility, then don't get married. Where I would have once said a couple wishing to put off parenthood for a few years should also put off marriage for a few years, I now believe a couple can responsibly discern grave reasons for avoiding pregnancy while still acknowledging other good ends of marriage, and still being open to the possibility of life. And let's not forget that it is God who opens the womb and grants that a child be given. I read stories from the Old Testament in which women are very conscious of that fact, but we seem to so easily forget it in this day and age when technology seems to play this role. We are participants in a divine mystery ... I think NFP can be a means to keep us aware of that fact, and to trust God with our fertility when it's used with the proper mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Who the hell is Alice Von Hildebrand and why do I care what she thinks? If you are too poor to afford food and shelter, then you are too poor to support children and a wife. You shouldn't get married. Since when did poor mean that you can afford things? I thought poverty meant that you couldn't buy things like food. Desolation and poverty...sounds like hairsplitting. If someone can eat and sleep under a roof they aren't poor. MAybe to Americans that is poor, but I'm sure there are a couple of African kids who'd disagree. OK NFPers, answer this question. Is NFP effective in deterring pregnancy? If it is, then how can it reasonably be open to life unless the couple screws up? Or, is NFP really not much better than the rhythm method, and therefore completely stupid to promote as an effective form of birth control? Which is it? Does NFP work or are you really going to have a baby on it? I feel like there's no point if you can just get pregnant anyway. I'm rapidly approaching a point where I think that NFP should be lumped in with other contraception simply because of the mentality. Fine distinctions like I'm seeing here sound more like rationalizing. And again, Alice Von Whodebrand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:21 AM']Who the hell is Alice Von Hildebrand and why do I care what she thinks? And again, Alice Von Whodebrand? [right][snapback]907986[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Someone who matters in the intellectual life of the Church, unlike you and I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:26 AM']Someone who matters in the intellectual life of the Church, unlike you and I. [right][snapback]907990[/snapback][/right] [/quote] that didn't answer my question. In some circles Rosemary Ruether matters in the intellectual life of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Do yourself a favor and look her up. Look up her husband while you're at it. His name was Dietrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts