In regard to unitive versus procreative, are they equal?

[Grace815]

Excellent posts, Grace. Thank you!

I know I sparked a lot of this particular discussion off a few days ago. But I have really enjoyed the dialogue and you all have forced me to think and pray harder about this issue - especially my call to the vocation of marriage. Thank you.

 

[Benedicta00]

we must respect the blessing of fecundity in marriage: entering marriage with the intention of never having children is a grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment because you aren't consenting to be married at all; blocking God out of your fertility, using technology to control it, limiting family size without serious reason are all attacks on the blessing of fecundity, contrary to God's command to "be fruitful and multiply", contrary to the generous love we are called to live every day, contrary to the faith and trust God wants us to have in Him. The atrocity of procured abortion is a direct attack on the fecundity of marriage. Resorting to technology for the conception of children, as Pope Paul VI terms it in Humanae Vitae, deliberately removing the unitive purpose of sexual intercourse, attacks the good of fecundity.

This brings to mind Fatima "Many marriages are not of God."

 

[Irenaeus]

Geo,

Hello! Good questions.

Well, I would have to say that the eating of candy bars and whatnot is okay, as long as it isn't contrary to temperance. I certainly don't eat them solely for their nutritional value. Even St. Teresa of Avila, as Michelina once shared with me, throughly enjoyed a certain bird, saying, "Penance is penance, pheasant is pheasant."

It really is a matter of conscience as to whether or not one is indulging beyond right rule of reason. For example, at weddings you may have wonderful foods and at times of celebration partake of a good meal, and harty company. Even the Book of Ecclesiastes mentions the goodness of a table partaken of with thanksgiving, and with good manners befitting a man in control of his appetites. It is when food becomes an end, and not a means, that a disorder takes place.

If I may go on a personal note, all my life I have been practically indulged to the point of thinking that almost every irrational craving I have for food is a need; now I am more discerning regarding my hungers, trying to offer them up for God, and saying in my heart, "Lord, I will give up these good things to love you. You are the food of my soul." So even though having a brownie after dinner isn't bad, there are different means for different souls. A Priest, Brother of Sister may be able to observe more rigorous abstinence then say a lay person, because of their state in life.

I hope this answers your question.

 

[Irenaeus]

May I point out briefly the speculation among the Fathers that sexual pleasure before the fall would have been greater with Adam and Eve; that pleasure not being intermixed with the possibility of abuse due to lust, as Augustine notes.

 

[skatepixie]

Is it wrong, then, to get married if you know you cant have a child?

I would say no, because you would still love eachother just as much, plus you could adopt a child, or multiple childern, and give them a home they wouldnt have otherwise had. So, the marrage would be complete that way.

But would it be wrong if a couple decided not to adopt?

 

[Grace815]

Is it wrong, then, to get married if you know you cant have a child?

I would say no, because you would still love eachother just as much, plus you could adopt a child, or multiple childern, and give them a home they wouldnt have otherwise had. So, the marrage would be complete that way.

But would it be wrong if a couple decided not to adopt?

I agree with you completely. Consider the CCC, "Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice." (CCC 1654).

 

[Benedicta00]

Is it wrong, then, to get married if you know you cant have a child?

I would say no, because you would still love eachother just as much, plus you could adopt a child, or multiple childern, and give them a home they wouldnt have otherwise had. So, the marrage would be complete that way.

But would it be wrong if a couple decided not to adopt?

Yes and no…

Here is where mentality comes into play.

Even if both of you are sterile and can never have children you can still posses a contraceptive mentality where you wouldn’t receive them even if you could.

I don’t think a couple is under any obligation to adopt but then must be open to life in any way it will present itself to them.

I know a couple who could not have kids and the man did ot want to adopt because he did not want a child that was not his own- yo can sin even if you are sterile.

 

[Benedicta00]

Geo,

Hello! Good questions.

Well, I would have to say that the eating of candy bars and whatnot is okay, as long as it isn't contrary to temperance. I certainly don't eat them solely for their nutritional value. Even St. Teresa of Avila, as Michelina once shared with me, throughly enjoyed a certain bird, saying, "Penance is penance, pheasant is pheasant."

It really is a matter of conscience as to whether or not one is indulging beyond right rule of reason. For example, at weddings you may have wonderful foods and at times of celebration partake of a good meal, and harty company. Even the Book of Ecclesiastes mentions the goodness of a table partaken of with thanksgiving, and with good manners befitting a man in control of his appetites. It is when food becomes an end, and not a means, that a disorder takes place.

If I may go on a personal note, all my life I have been practically indulged to the point of thinking that almost every irrational craving I have for food is a need; now I am more discerning regarding my hungers, trying to offer them up for God, and saying in my heart, "Lord, I will give up these good things to love you. You are the food of my soul." So even though having a brownie after dinner isn't bad, there are different means for different souls. A Priest, Brother of Sister may be able to observe more rigorous abstinence then say a lay person, because of their state in life.

I hope this answers your question.

I refuse to believe you are only 17.

 

[marciadietrich]

Marcia I have to say that my heart agrees with what you write- though I don't have the smarts to argue it authoritatively. Emotionally- I wish that I could just be totally open to not regulating my births at all...whenever I am not really able to have a baby it leaves a great, gaping wound in my heart...

Over the weekend I pulled out videos of when my guys were young, incredible how time flies and my "baby" is going to be 11 this summer. How many people get their kids raised and think they had too many instead of too few? Can you have too many grandchildren? In my case I may not get any grandchildren. But hey, we've got a computer for everyone in the family.

I don't know that I could or would have ever been able to be totally open and no regulating births ... when it comes down to it most of us will let fear and worry keep us from that sort of openness. I'm probably liberal in a lot of ways relative to many in this discussion ( if Charlie hadn't shown up in the thread I might have said most liberal ), so definately not trying to judge anybody.

Marcia

 

[marciadietrich]

The teaching must be understood in a balanced way, not as a reason for postponing marriage. The fact that the Church everywhere accepts the integrity of the intentions of young couples manifests the more balanced interpretation of the intent of the teaching.

Thanks, and I do think that is balanced if we're talking something fairly short term. But there is also the reality that many of those couples will find life doesn't go according to their plans and they might be having a child sooner than they expect. So always be ready to put finishing college or that new career on hold. My husband never finished college, he still says he has a degree - just it has my name on it!

Marcia

 

[Michelina]

...many of those couples will find life doesn't go according to their plans and they might be having a child sooner than they expect.

It happens every day, Marcia.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I think I have figured out why Catholics the world over refuse to accept the Chruches teaching on this: Unified field theory is easier to understand and democracy in Iraq is easier to implement.

I can't help but think we are way overthinking this.

At base this should be simple.

1) Sexual intercouse in a life affirming act. (Thats obvious to anyone who actually done it - or done it right at least)
2) It is reserved for marriage (Most people would probably accept that)
3) If you have sex you have to stand ready to deal with babies. (I think most everybody would would be ok with that too)

It just runs counter-intutative, I think, to most people that love and sex should be so thelogloical complicated and convoluted. And they get turned off to it.

Thats all I have to say on this thread, please continue - the discussion is very interesting.

 

[marciadietrich]

It just runs counter-intutative, I think, to most people that love and sex should be so thelogloical complicated and convoluted. And they get turned off to it.

Hi Charlie,

I think the reason it runs 'counter-intuitive' today is because people go into marriage thinking they can plan out having 1 or 2 well-timed children, spend a few years 'getting to know each other.' In the past I think it was very intuitive that if you got married you could well be pregnant on the honeymoon night, that you would have many children over the course of the marriage, that you were responsible for their care and education above your own needs and so on.

The reason it runs counter to modern thinking is we've gotten use to minimizing (or in many cases eliminating) the procreating and child rearing aspects with birth control (and I don't leave NFP out of the loop on that) and our modern educational system.

 

[geocajun]

Geo,

Hello! Good questions.

Well, I would have to say that the eating of candy bars and whatnot is okay, as long as it isn't contrary to temperance. I certainly don't eat them solely for their nutritional value. Even St. Teresa of Avila, as Michelina once shared with me, throughly enjoyed a certain bird, saying, "Penance is penance, pheasant is pheasant."

It really is a matter of conscience as to whether or not one is indulging beyond right rule of reason. For example, at weddings you may have wonderful foods and at times of celebration partake of a good meal, and harty company. Even the Book of Ecclesiastes mentions the goodness of a table partaken of with thanksgiving, and with good manners befitting a man in control of his appetites. It is when food becomes an end, and not a means, that a disorder takes place.

If I may go on a personal note, all my life I have been practically indulged to the point of thinking that almost every irrational craving I have for food is a need; now I am more discerning regarding my hungers, trying to offer them up for God, and saying in my heart, "Lord, I will give up these good things to love you. You are the food of my soul." So even though having a brownie after dinner isn't bad, there are different means for different souls. A Priest, Brother of Sister may be able to observe more rigorous abstinence then say a lay person, because of their state in life.

I hope this answers your question.

Hi Irenaeus, well said.
I was really trying to make a rhetorical point more than anything, because taking this to its extreme end, that eating for pleasure is the same as having sex for pleasure, coupled with the fact that eating is pleasurable, and we can indulge in pleasurable, non-nutritional foods temporatly, then it would stand to reason that one could also engage in marital congress (congress ) primarily for pleasure as well.
So whats my point? only that the analogy breaks down almost immediately.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Over the weekend I pulled out videos of when my guys were young, incredible how time flies and my "baby" is going to be 11 this summer. How many people get their kids raised and think they had too many instead of too few? Can you have too many grandchildren? In my case I may not get any grandchildren. But hey, we've got a computer for everyone in the family.

I don't know that I could or would have ever been able to be totally open and no regulating births ... when it comes down to it most of us will let fear and worry keep us from that sort of openness. I'm probably liberal in a lot of ways relative to many in this discussion ( if Charlie hadn't shown up in the thread I might have said most liberal ), so definately not trying to judge anybody.

Marcia

I just wanted to give you big a .

I dunno- Iknow some people who have like 40+ grandkids...that might be too many! Personally I'm angling for priestly and relligious vocations so I can midwife full time!

 

[geocajun]

If all 3 of my daughters became nuns, i'd be the happiest dad around!

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

If all 3 of my daughters became nuns, i'd be the happiest dad around!

Me, too! My son just told me today that in addition to being a super hero when he grows up he wants to be a priest.

 

[geocajun]

Me, too! My son just told me today that in addition to being a super hero when he grows up he wants to be a priest.

is there a difference?

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

is there a difference?

not any that I can think of- a priest eveb gets to wear a super suit (vestments) and sometimes even a cape (humeral veil).

Though I know what you're thinking.....no capes!

 

[geocajun]

not any that I can think of- a priest eveb gets to wear a super suit (vestments) and sometimes even a cape (humeral veil).

Though I know what you're thinking.....no capes!

capes are out - their dangerous. Have you seen the movie "The Incredibles" ?