Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:48 AM']If a couple truly NEEDS to delay having children right away, then that couple NEEDS to remain abstinent so as to not get pregnant. Thus, their marriage would be better postponed. [right][snapback]908014[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Citations from the Magisterium, please.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:48 AM']It wasn't meant to "defeat" anything. It was just a useful look at the personalist dimension of human sexuality, which Von Hildebrand has a good command of. [right][snapback]908015[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, she really does, but I don't think it's fair to throw her in a discussion that she doesn't (to my knowledge) address directly. I don't think she would advocate marriage of two people perfectly capable of conceiving a child, planning to delay having children. To say so is twisting her words.
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:47 AM']toledo_jesus alice von hildebrand freaking rocks. don't diss her. that said, I don't think anything era might has posted from her "defeats" anything. No, marriage is not merely about procreation, but, in essence, procreation is the heart of marriage (marriage... 'mater'.. mother/motherhod). If a couple cannot provide for a child as soon as they are married, then they ought to postpone the marriage. NFP is a method of spacing births, not avoiding birth completely (if you need to do that, then you need abstinence and might as well just postpone the wedding). [right][snapback]908013[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yeah, I don't dispute that she's "with it" as far as orthodoxy. I just found the quotes irrelevant.
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM']Citations from the Magisterium, please. [right][snapback]908016[/snapback][/right] [/quote] well, perhaps you should provide where it specifically addresses NFP use among newlyweds before we dispute anything.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM']Citations from the Magisterium, please. [right][snapback]908016[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Era... the primary purpose of marriage IS procreation. Read any document on marriage. newlyweds PURPOSELY planning to avoid that end should not be getting married.
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:50 AM']Yes, she really does, but I don't think it's fair to throw her in a discussion that she doesn't (to my knowledge) address directly. [right][snapback]908017[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, I disagree. The question of the "meaning" and the "purpose" of marriage, which she distinguishes (following the lead of JP2), is essential to this discussion of NFP.
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:52 AM']Era... the primary purpose of marriage IS procreation. Read any document on marriage. newlyweds PURPOSELY planning to avoid that end should not be getting married. [right][snapback]908023[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1) The Church teaches that a couple can delay pregnancy if necessary. 2) You are claiming that they can only do so after they've had children (and, hence, can't delay pregnancy right after getting married). 3) You have not substantiated this claim from the teaching of the Church. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:53 AM']Well, I disagree. The question of the "meaning" and the "purpose" of marriage, which she distinguishes (following the lead of JP2), is essential to this discussion of NFP. [right][snapback]908025[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yes, marriage is more than merely the begetting of children. But it does not and cannot exclude them. the unfortunate cases where infertility exists is a fact usually known AFTER the wedding, and the lack of childbearing is an unfortunate and uncontrollable situation... But it is NOT self-imposed, as it would be with newlyweds using NFP. you are twisting her words out of context and meaning.
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:55 AM']the unfortunate cases where infertility exists is a fact usually known AFTER the wedding, and the lack of childbearing is an unfortunate and uncontrollable situation. [right][snapback]908029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That is not true. An elderly couple knows that they cannot have children before they even get married (and sometimes a young woman or man knows that they cannot beget or conceive children). The Church has no problem with them getting married, and she doesn't stipulate that they can only do so when they're able to afford to adopt. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:54 AM']1) The Church teaches that a couple can delay pregnancy if necessary. 2) You are claiming that they can only do so after they've had children (and, hence, can't delay pregnancy right after getting married). 3) You have not substantiated this claim from the teaching of the Church. [right][snapback]908027[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The Church teaches a couple MAY delay pregnancy for GRAVE reasons. If these GRAVE reasons exist prior to the marriage, then the marriage should be postponed until the couple is in a more stable situation. Find me one document that espouses NFP/child-delay specifically for newlyweds... the burden of "proof" in this scenario is on your shoulders, to show why a couple facing GRAVE reasons for not getting pregnant has GRAVER reasons for getting married and defying the purpose of the conjugal act.
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:57 AM']If these GRAVE reasons exist prior to the marriage, then the marriage should be postponed until the couple is in a more stable situation. [right][snapback]908033[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Again, you keep making this claim, but you have yet to substantiate it.
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:57 AM']That is not true. An elderly couple knows that they cannot have children before they even get married (and sometimes a young woman or man knows that they cannot beget or conceive children). The Church has no problem with them getting married, and she doesn't stipulate that they can only do so when they're able to afford to adopt. [right][snapback]908032[/snapback][/right] [/quote] They cannot get married if they are both completely closed to reality of children. Procreation (which includes the begetting and education of children) IS the primary end of marriage. Most elderly couples have already had children in previous marriages. ...and how often does this really occur?
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:58 AM']Again, you keep making this claim, but you have yet to substantiate it. [right][snapback]908035[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Because it's common sense. Do we have to go over the understanding of "grave" and what that entails?
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:59 AM']They cannot get married if they are both completely closed to reality of children. Procreation (which includes the begetting and education of children) IS the primary end of marriage. Most elderly couples have already had children in previous marriages. ...and how often does this really occur? [right][snapback]908036[/snapback][/right] [/quote] A barren or elderly women cannot be "open to the reality of children". They cannot have children. Period. Yes, procreation is the primary end of marriage. But it is not the MEANING of marriage. When that end is unachievable (for prudential reasons, or biological, or whatever), it doesn't mean a couple can't get married. But they do have to remain true to the language of the body, which someone mentioned earlier. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:01 PM']Because it's common sense. Do we have to go over the understanding of "grave" and what that entails? [right][snapback]908037[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The question of "grave reasons" (which is not black and white anyway) is not what we are discussing. What you claim is that a couple can't get married in the face of "grave reasons". Nowhere does the Church teach this, and I challenge you to show that it does. Otherwise, it is nothing more than your own personal speculation. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might
Fides_et_Ratio Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:02 PM']A barren or elderly women cannot be "open to the reality of children". They cannot have children. Period. Yes, procreation is the primary end of marriage. But it is not the MEANING of marriage. When that end is unachievable (for prudential reasons, or biological, or whatever) it doesn't mean a couple can't get married. But they do have to remain true to the language of the body, which someone mentioned earlier. [right][snapback]908038[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Again, how often does this occur... and how often would it be that there were no previous children? The meaning of marriage is not entirely separate from it's purpose. Procreation doesn't cease to be the primary end of marriage. Again, natural infertility is FAR different from self-imposed avoidance of children.
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:05 PM']Again, how often does this occur... and how often would it be that there were no previous children? The meaning of marriage is not entirely separate from it's purpose. Procreation doesn't cease to be the primary end of marriage. Again, natural infertility is FAR different from self-imposed avoidance of children. [right][snapback]908043[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Of course it's not separate. But the end of procreation is not the JUSTIFICATION for marriage, as you are making it out to be. People do not get married to have children, they get married to share in the Sacramental coming together of two persons. As Alice Von Hildebrand notes in the passage cited, this coming together is "fruitful", but procreation doesn't justify marriage in itself. This is why "grave reasons" are not an impediment to marriage. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 NFP should be used by spouses to avoid conception when their personal circumstances [b]truly [/b]constitute a [b]just cause[/b] for that avoidance. "We got married and we can't afford them yet" doesn't seem just. Neither does "We want to work on us first." NFP is not wrong, it's just only to be used in certain circumstances. Not by newlyweds! If a person gets married knowing they can't provide for children then they are at best irresponsible. Nobody's questioning whether the marriage would be valid...just whether it would be a mature, responsible, adult decision.
Era Might Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) [quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:37 PM']NFP is not wrong, it's just only to be used in certain circumstances. Not by newlyweds! If a person gets married knowing they can't provide for children then they are at best irresponsible. Nobody's questioning whether the marriage would be valid...just whether it would be a mature, responsible, adult decision. [right][snapback]908084[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So you are admitting that this is nothing more than your own personal opinion, and NOT the teaching of the Church? ("This" being the proposition that newlyweds can't make use of the bride's infertile periods.) If so, I'm satisfied. That's all I want to clarify. Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might
toledo_jesus Posted March 10, 2006 Posted March 10, 2006 [quote name='Errs Mightily' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:44 PM']So you are admitting that this is nothing more than your own personal opinion, and NOT the teaching of the Church? ("This" being the proposition that newlyweds can't make use of the bride's infertile periods.) If so, I'm satisfied. That's all I want to clarify. [right][snapback]908095[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Yeah, you show me where the Church specifically answers my question and I'll call myself satisfied as well. You've got as much supporting you as I do to support me. And I said "shouldn't" make use, not "can't." It's approved by the Church and there is no Grave Reasons Police.
Recommended Posts