Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: d15 on July 02, 2013, 01:24:03 PM
-
Something from the "Number of kids and what people think" thread got me thinking. Am I correct in thinking the following:
1. Under normal circuмstances, a married couple should do nothing to avoid having children.
2. Under grave circuмstances, a married couple may, but is not obligated to, avoid having children by abstaining from the marital act. (NFP is for another discussion, please do not derail the thread.)
3. A married couple is never obligated to actively try to have more, or any, children, so long as the above are being followed.
Is this correct?
-
Perhaps if the word "grave" is defined better.
-
Something from the "Number of kids and what people think" thread got me thinking. Am I correct in thinking the following:
1. Under normal circuмstances, a married couple should do nothing to avoid having children.
2. Under grave circuмstances, a married couple may, but is not obligated to, avoid having children by abstaining from the marital act. (NFP is for another discussion, please do not derail the thread.)
3. A married couple is never obligated to actively try to have more, or any, children, so long as the above are being followed.
Is this correct?
I see nothing wrong with the first two points, though I agree with Napoli in that there has not been sufficient pastoral explication on what amounts to a circuмstance grave enough to permit retarding the fecundity of marriage through abstinence. Accepting the first two points, the third point is altogether unnecessary and, taken on its own, could damage the faith by suggesting, contrary to Catholic moral theology, that the primary purpose of the marital act is something other than generative.
-
My understanding is a couple can abstain from the marital act as long as the decision is freely consented to by both spouses. This could also be done as a form of penance/mortification.
-
I agree with John grey
If a couple abstains coconsensually, it's a form of NFP, which is evil.
-
My understanding is a couple can abstain from the marital act as long as the decision is freely consented to by both spouses. This could also be done as a form of penance/mortification.
Avoiding children is a form of penance? Not in my household!
-
I agree with John grey
If a couple abstains coconsensually, it's a form of NFP, which is evil.
I don't agree that it's an objective evil but I can conceive really of only a very few cases in which such a thing would be licit. The circuмstance which I consider to have the greatest probability of licitness is in the case where there is sufficient biological or genetic disorder on behalf of the parents that the reasonable probability that any prospective child could be carried to sufficient maturity to receive baptism is virtually nil. In such a case, preventing souls from unnecessarily being condemned to limbo should, I believe, be construed as moral good. That said, in such a case, so as to cultivate temperance and absolute trust in Divine Providence, I would argue that it would behoove the couple in question to practice as chaste a marriage as possible.
-
I agree with John grey
If a couple abstains coconsensually, it's a form of NFP, which is evil.
I don't agree that it's an objective evil but I can conceive really of only a very few cases in which such a thing would be licit. The circuмstance which I consider to have the greatest probability of licitness is in the case where there is sufficient biological or genetic disorder on behalf of the parents that the reasonable probability that any prospective child could be carried to sufficient maturity to receive baptism is virtually nil. In such a case, preventing souls from unnecessarily being condemned to limbo should, I believe, be construed as moral good. That said, in such a case, so as to cultivate temperance and absolute trust in Divine Providence, I would argue that it would behoove the couple in question to practice as chaste a marriage as possible.
I'm not arguing that there are no cases where such a thing would be licit, but I disagree with the limbo thing. It's up to God when we live and die. If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
-
I'm not arguing that there are no cases where such a thing would be licit, but I disagree with the limbo thing. It's up to God when we live and die. If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
Only in the sense that a thalidomide baby, or a child with cancer, or a mentally handicapped individual is God's will. It is God's will that we use the marital act as the means by which we propagate the human species, and this generative process is a reflection of the greatest nobility which He bestowed on the human race, namely free will. You will note that I said that the cause of this failure at marital fecundity would likely be a problem that is genetic or biological in nature. It is not a stretch to say that these problems find their cause in the effects of sin committed freely by the human race, be it directly by the parents, the parents' forebears, or even environmentally from a person or people that the parents might never have met. In this sense, the failure of marital fecundity is not in accord with God's will, which seeks only beneficence for humans, but as effect of the free will of humans it is not contrary to God's will.
Put another way, if the eternal reward of a man, though foreknown by God as the Author of all things, does not involve that man's cooperation and cannot be influenced by another acting in charity that that person might be saved, then all missionary work labored on by the Church has been in vain. Of course, we know that is not the case. We know that we share culpability in those souls that lose Beatific Vision because of our inactivity, our lack of zeal, our unwillingness to make sacrifice and reparation to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts. Is it inconceivable then that we have a duty to save souls from the loss of Beatific Vision, especially when no other parties than we and God Himself have any power to do so? After all, if man's intended end, through the beneficence of God, is Beatific Vision, it cannot be that He positively wills that soul to be lost from the moment of that conception.
-
I agree with John grey
If a couple abstains coconsensually, it's a form of NFP, which is evil.
Mutual abstinence is not necessarily a form of NFP and is not evil. Couples can abstain without the goal to be avoiding pregnancy - for example during Lent or Advent, and they can choose to live as brother and sister indefinitely.
Unfortunately the whole issue of abstaining due to a serious reason has been hijacked by the "family planners" like the Kippleys who taught anti-Christian ideas.
-
I agree with John grey
If a couple abstains coconsensually, it's a form of NFP, which is evil.
I don't agree that it's an objective evil but I can conceive really of only a very few cases in which such a thing would be licit. The circuмstance which I consider to have the greatest probability of licitness is in the case where there is sufficient biological or genetic disorder on behalf of the parents that the reasonable probability that any prospective child could be carried to sufficient maturity to receive baptism is virtually nil. In such a case, preventing souls from unnecessarily being condemned to limbo should, I believe, be construed as moral good. That said, in such a case, so as to cultivate temperance and absolute trust in Divine Providence, I would argue that it would behoove the couple in question to practice as chaste a marriage as possible.
wife is under going chemotherapy
wife was just discharged from the hospital due to a severe infection
upcoming surgery
severe congestive heart failure
stage 4 cancer
-
I agree with John grey
If a couple abstains coconsensually, it's a form of NFP, which is evil.
I don't agree that it's an objective evil but I can conceive really of only a very few cases in which such a thing would be licit. The circuмstance which I consider to have the greatest probability of licitness is in the case where there is sufficient biological or genetic disorder on behalf of the parents that the reasonable probability that any prospective child could be carried to sufficient maturity to receive baptism is virtually nil. In such a case, preventing souls from unnecessarily being condemned to limbo should, I believe, be construed as moral good. That said, in such a case, so as to cultivate temperance and absolute trust in Divine Providence, I would argue that it would behoove the couple in question to practice as chaste a marriage as possible.
wife is under going chemotherapy
wife was just discharged from the hospital due to a severe infection
upcoming surgery
severe congestive heart failure
stage 4 cancer
:smile: All of those fall under biological complications that seriously retard the fecundity of marriage, either temporarily or permanently. In any of those cases, it achieves the double good of increasing the survivability of the mother as well as preventing another soul from being damned to limbo.
-
I was not judging. I am sure there are good reasons to abstain. But, they are the exception not the norm.
-
What God has made and designed is not evil. It is the attitude and reasoning behind it that is judged. There is nothing evil in postponing with grave reason.
-
Thank you for all of the answers thus far. I wasn't terribly clear in my original post, but what I was really getting at was the third point I made, not the first two.
If a married couple is doing nothing to avoid having a child, and has a "normal" life when it comes to the frequency of the marital act, but the wife does not get pregnant, am I correct in believing that the couple commits no sin by simply continuing to live as they are? In other words, married couples are under no obligation to make a concerted effort to have more (or any) children, whether that means engaging in the marital act more often, around the time the wife is most fertile, etc.
-
Thank you for all of the answers thus far. I wasn't terribly clear in my original post, but what I was really getting at was the third point I made, not the first two.
If a married couple is doing nothing to avoid having a child, and has a "normal" life when it comes to the frequency of the marital act, but the wife does not get pregnant, am I correct in believing that the couple commits no sin by simply continuing to live as they are? In other words, married couples are under no obligation to make a concerted effort to have more (or any) children, whether that means engaging in the marital act more often, around the time the wife is most fertile, etc.
Of course not. In freely consenting to the marital embrace without attempting to retard its fecundity through the wife's innate periodic infertility, they have fundamentally submitted to Divine Providence in determining its degree of fruitfulness. So long as they interiorly assent to the possibility of the blessing of a child with willingness and thanksgiving, I cannot imagine how they could accused of abusing their married state.
-
If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
Then is it God's will for babies to be conceived outside of marriage?
-
What God has made and designed is not evil. It is the attitude and reasoning behind it that is judged. There is nothing evil in postponing with grave reason.
The issue is what defines grave reason. That has been distorted to fit a plethora of scenarios to accommodate convenience even though that has been soundly condemned, even in the conciliar church!
The examples Tiffany gave are clearly grave.
But inability to financially support? Not grave. One or both parents are addicts? Not grave. Disruption of the current familial harmony? Not grave. Mom's age? Not grave because if she were truly too old she's couldn't conceive. Inmaturity on the part of the parents? Not grave.
You are right songbird that human fertility is good, not evil. It's human intent that is evil.
-
Very good answer Zeitun.
Grave matter is well........ grave. Not frivolous or worldly.
-
If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
Then is it God's will for babies to be conceived outside of marriage?
A child is a gift from God.
-
If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
Then is it God's will for babies to be conceived outside of marriage?
I was unaware that we were discussing illicit relationships. Based on the original post I thought we were talking about marriage and the marital act.
God doesn't will that people fornicate. Can life be created against Gods will?
-
If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
Then is it God's will for babies to be conceived outside of marriage?
I was unaware that we were discussing illicit relationships. Based on the original post I thought we were talking about marriage and the marital act.
God doesn't will that people fornicate. Can life be created against Gods will?
You're talking about God's permissive will.
Everything has to happen by God's permissive will at least, or it wouldn't happen.
But God never wills that we sin.
-
If you conceive is it not Gods will? If the baby dies prematurely is it not Gods will? It's up to God if a baby ends up in limbo.
Then is it God's will for babies to be conceived outside of marriage?
I was unaware that we were discussing illicit relationships. Based on the original post I thought we were talking about marriage and the marital act.
God doesn't will that people fornicate. Can life be created against Gods will?
You're talking about God's permissive will.
Everything has to happen by God's permissive will at least, or it wouldn't happen.
But God never wills that we sin.
He permissively wills sin, though-- which is another way to say He allows it. Just seemed odd that you would make that distinction about God's permissive will at the beginning of your post and then simply say that God does not will sin (without the qualifier). Perhaps that's what you meant.
Easy way to think about it: All good=God's positive will. All evil=God's permissive will.
-
I agree that the word "grave" needs to be defined.
Didn't Pius XII say something about economic reasons? Or was that meaning in a Depression?
We've had priests (yes, plural) tell us to use NFP because we had children year after year. One even said to use it for 2 years.
I wonder how many children you all have. It's kind of easy to be an armchair referee when you don't have many children, or they are naturally spaced so by the time you have 9, your oldest is in late teens. The parents now-a-days have way more on their plate than back in the day (homeschooling, no Catholic family support, high costs, etc). NFP could be evil if it's abused. I know, I know...I'm not going to go on about NFP. Not at all. Just a comment I had to share.
-
We've had priests (yes, plural) tell us to use NFP because we had children year after year. One even said to use it for 2 years.
Where is the shakes head smiley!
-
My point was that a person sins in fornicating. It is not Gods will that a person fornicates. If God didn't want a life created through this sinful act he wouldn't give it life. Show me proof that people can conceive against Gods (perfect) will.
Does God not will that a baby conceived during rape live? And just so we are clear the rape is obviously not Gods will it is an evil act. Sorry to bring up another example not related to the op.