can a couple who don't want to have children get married under the grace of God?

[catharina]

Originally Posted by silentstar

I'm having trouble following who is being quoted in some of these posts. I think the name and the quote don't always match up. But anyway, in many ways I would trust religious documents over secular accounts that may be designed to make the country look good, as in history is written by the victors. The facts may all be correct but the interpretation may be off. Also I have read that no country likes to face its own history which means the less-pleasant aspects can be glossed over, such as human rights abuse in any country.

You're quite right.
Wow - it's annoying!

[samiam1611]

Originally Posted by catharina

If you believe the gathered writings of secular history,
why would you doubt the teachings and history
gathered by Church Fathers? It makes no sense to me.

An unbroken line of faith scripted, guarded and passed down -
that's to be doubted? Or is it your own disgreement that leads
you to such thinking???

One reason I doubt the writings of the Church Fathers is because they said they heard from God. When my friend started hearing from God, she knew that wasn't right, she went to the doctor before things got out of hand, got on some medication, and no longer thinks that. How are those guys different from my friend? Because people who knew no better believed them.

Galileo said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."

Ancient people didn't have the means to understand why things (our bodies for instance) were the way they were. So when someone offered an explanation, they believed it. Like a snowball rolling down a mountain, more people picked up on these explanations and expanded on them. But that doesn't technically prove the writings were true or God's word. Popularity is NOT necessarily truth. You use faith to find the truth. I question the validity of the origins of these explanations and the authority of those who spread it. (Note I said question. not deny! don't worry!) I have found that sense and reason poke holes in the fabric of what is supposedly God's plan for man and woman.

[Traditional Ang]

Originally Posted by momor

I struggle too with the Church's position but in a different way and it's two opposite sides of the same moral coin. Two known infertile people marrying is not a problem but I don't understand why the Church allows a person who is assumed to be fertile to marry a person who is known to be infertile. The fertile person is allowed to choose that they will have 100% unitive love and eliminate the procreative aspect. Some may even do so intentionally as a means to marry but not have children they don't want.

To make it even more plain assume that this is not a post-menopausal age couple. Why isn't it considered a sinful witholding of a person's fertility? It's not like the infertile person they fell in love with is the only person on earth. If the person they loved refused to have children or refused to allow the kids to be raised Catholic the marriage would not be allowed despite being in love. Why the exception for infertility that is known prior to the marriage?

Please don't say because it's not someone's choice they are infertile. We don't allow that reasoning for homosexuals to marry. And please don't say because God can perform miracles because it's not acceptable to presume in advance on the Lord's intervention.

Momor:

It seems you have an inadequate grasp of God's Grace here -

Sarah was well Post-Menopausal (and Abraham was very old) when Isaac was conceived - That's why Sarah laughed when The LORD said, "I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him." (Episode in Genesis 18:10-15, with the LORD repeating what God said to Abraham in Gen. 17:19 & 21)

And, Zachariah couldn't believe the Angel Gabriel because Elizabeth was Post-Menopausal and he was old & decrepit on Luke 1:8-25 --

But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
And you will have joy and gladness
and many will rejoice at his birth;
for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:13-15 RSV-2CE

As you can see, in both cases, the Lord was quite capable of making the Infertile, fertile. The question isn't what is the person's physical status, it's whether he or she would accept it if the Lord decided to change it. Another question I might ask "younger" couples (couples in their 20's - 40's) in the position you described is would they be willing to consider adopting babies, esp. from women who decided to have the babies instead of killing them in Abortions....

With respect to Post-Menopausal couples, I think some questions you might want to ask yourself is, "How can someone withhold something he or she no longer has? Are you prepared to force a couple who has been married for 25 years to stop having sex simply because they can no longer procreate unless God performs a miracle? esp. if they've already raised 4 or more children in the Faith? OTOH, are you prepared to tell a Widow she cannot marry because she cannot procreate? Are you prepared to support her because you've decided that you will not allow her to marry and help a man to live in God's Grace? and, What of the Widower who wants to marry a Widow??

Are you willing to trust the Church's wisdom on this & to be at peace??
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

[catharina]

Originally Posted by samiam1611

One reason I doubt the writings of the Church Fathers is because they said they heard from God. When my friend started hearing from God, she knew that wasn't right, she went to the doctor before things got out of hand, got on some medication, and no longer thinks that. How are those guys different from my friend? Because people who knew no better believed them.

You think you can legitimately compare your delusional friend
to inspired teachers and historians - who did not claim to "hear
from God" but simply claimed to be inspired by God?
If so, mighty sad.

Galileo said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." So he spoke regarding science. He did not speak that way regarding morality.

Ancient people didn't have the means to understand why things (our bodies for instance) were the way they were. So when someone offered an explanation, they believed it. Like a snowball rolling down a mountain, more people picked up on these explanations and expanded on them. But that doesn't technically prove the writings were true or God's word. Popularity is NOT necessarily truth. You use faith to find the truth. I question the validity of the origins of these explanations and the authority of those who spread it. (Note I said question. not deny! don't worry!) I have found that sense and reason poke holes in the fabric of what is supposedly God's plan for man and woman.

Again you seem to be speaking of physical sciences - NOT of morality.
It is for God to lead us in morality. That's basic.

[catharina]

Originally Posted by Traditional Ang

Momor:

It seems you have an inadequate grasp of God's Grace here -

Sarah was well Post-Menopausal (and Abraham was very old) when Isaac was conceived - That's why Sarah laughed when The LORD said, "I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him." (Episode in Genesis 18:10-15, with the LORD repeating what God said to Abraham in Gen. 17:19 & 21)

And, Zachariah couldn't believe the Angel Gabriel because Elizabeth was Post-Menopausal and he was old & decrepit on Luke 1:8-25 --

But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
And you will have joy and gladness
and many will rejoice at his birth;
for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:13-15 RSV-2CE

As you can see, in both cases, the Lord was quite capable of making the Infertile, fertile. The question isn't what is the person's physical status, it's whether he or she would accept it if the Lord decided to change it. Another question I might ask "younger" couples (couples in their 20's - 40's) in the position you described is would they be willing to consider adopting babies, esp. from women who decided to have the babies instead of killing them in Abortions....

With respect to Post-Menopausal couples, I think some questions you might want to ask yourself is, "How can someone withhold something he or she no longer has? Are you prepared to force a couple who has been married for 25 years to stop having sex simply because they can no longer procreate unless God performs a miracle? esp. if they've already raised 4 or more children in the Faith? OTOH, are you prepared to tell a Widow she cannot marry because she cannot procreate? Are you prepared to support her because you've decided that you will not allow her to marry and help a man to live in God's Grace? and, What of the Widower who wants to marry a Widow??

Are you willing to trust the Church's wisdom on this & to be at peace??
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

Why are you naming the angel Gabriel?
I've never seen that in any Scripture verse.

[momor]

Originally Posted by Traditional Ang

Momor:

It seems you have an inadequate grasp of God's Grace here -

Sarah was well Post-Menopausal (and Abraham was very old) when Isaac was conceived - That's why Sarah laughed when The LORD said, "I will surely return to you in the spring, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him." (Episode in Genesis 18:10-15, with the LORD repeating what God said to Abraham in Gen. 17:19 & 21)

And, Zachariah couldn't believe the Angel Gabriel because Elizabeth was Post-Menopausal and he was old & decrepit on Luke 1:8-25 --

But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zechari'ah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John.
And you will have joy and gladness
and many will rejoice at his birth;
for he will be great before the Lord,
and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink,
and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother's womb.
Luke 1:13-15 RSV-2CE

As you can see, in both cases, the Lord was quite capable of making the Infertile, fertile. The question isn't what is the person's physical status, it's whether he or she would accept it if the Lord decided to change it. Another question I might ask "younger" couples (couples in their 20's - 40's) in the position you described is would they be willing to consider adopting babies, esp. from women who decided to have the babies instead of killing them in Abortions....

With respect to Post-Menopausal couples, I think some questions you might want to ask yourself is, "How can someone withhold something he or she no longer has? Are you prepared to force a couple who has been married for 25 years to stop having sex simply because they can no longer procreate unless God performs a miracle? esp. if they've already raised 4 or more children in the Faith? OTOH, are you prepared to tell a Widow she cannot marry because she cannot procreate? Are you prepared to support her because you've decided that you will not allow her to marry and help a man to live in God's Grace? and, What of the Widower who wants to marry a Widow??

Are you willing to trust the Church's wisdom on this & to be at peace??
Your Brother & Servant in Christ, Michael

Please go back and re-read what I wrote again. Most of what you are saying doesn't apply. I am only talking about knowledge of infertility prior to marriage in couples of typical child-bearing age.

The basis for expressing my difficulty with the Church's position on allowing someone who is fertile to marry someone who is infertile is that it seems to directly oppose the stated requirements of marital sex, that it be procreative and unitive, when it's already known beforehand that intercourse will not be open to procreation (short of a miracle from God). It's not that I oppose infertile people marrying. It's that I have yet to see an explanation for allowing it that makes sense in view of the Church's teaching about marital sex. I'm searching for an explanation that shows the marital sex requirement is consistent.

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by catharina

Actually -
you countered with an absolute.

catharina,

I used the words "many" and "about" in the refutation. I'm not sure how absolute you interpret those words to be but I usually don't mean them as absolutes.

The prohibition of blood on Jews to maintain purity was rather absolute if you read through the Torah, however.

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by catharina

Why are you naming the angel Gabriel?
I've never seen that in any Scripture verse.

sigh

[catharina]

Originally Posted by SonCatcher

sigh

Sorry to have you made you sigh ...
but thank you. Excellent.

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by silentstar

What about people with illness/disability who want to marry but can't become parents? Not through infertility but for health reasons. And I don't mean parenthood is difficult I mean it's not possible. I'm in that situation and judging from some of what I've seen on CAF, I get the impression that ill/disabled people who want to marry need to convert to another faith to do so. Is that always true and can anyone cite official documents rather than personal opinion?

I know about the unitive/procreative concept but I'm looking for something official that says that all Catholic marriages need to produce at least one child if the couple is biologically capable of it. No exceptions for illness or disability. You are alone for life or you convert to another faith or no faith in order to marry.

When we got married 15 years ago I hoped to be able to have kids so that's what we said but time showed it should not happen.

People with health problems that prevent pregnancy are allowed to marry.

There is no absolute requirement to have children even for reasonably fertile couples. However, the decision to delay (even indefinitely) needs to be for a just reason.

Those who remain childless even despite being willing and open to life are still valued. Having children does not make your value. God does.

[Petergee]

Originally Posted by erodelphian

I have a hard time with the concept that one who says: I love you, I want to be with you, I want to make your best days better and your worse days go away. I want to grow old with you, take care of you, etc. being seen as unworthy somehow of God's grace, love, understanding, blessing, whatever. I can't picture anyway in which that makes sense.

I know several pairs and groups people who say that to each other. Brothers and sisters, friends, members of religious communities etc. Nobody is saying that they are unworthy of God's grace, love, understanding, blessing whatever. Only pointing out that this is not a marriage.

[SonCatcher]

Originally Posted by samiam1611

1) you don't know how old I am so I don't think grow up is really even an appropriate insult. And I know everyone can't help but be annoyed sometimes. I am different in that what some people find cute, I find annoying. What some people find rewarding, I just don't care. What some people think is a beautiful gift from God, I think is a burden.

age and maturity are different things.

Originally Posted by Chili Davis

Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.

2) I am suggesting that for some, such as myself, dogs CAN replace people. Can in the sense that if one of the things you enjoy about children is receiving their love, than yes, my dog can do that. If you enjoy how your kid looks cute when they sleep, or eat, or play, well dogs do that too. If you like carrying around your baby in your arms, guess what, i hold my dog like a baby all the time and she loves it.

Actually, I rather enjoy conversations with my 6 y.o. It's rather surprising the things he learns by observation and deduction.

4) my bf is aware of my insecurities. he makes some effort to dispel them but the thoughts are persistent. it just so happens i do go to a counselor.

I'm glad

5) true...in this case, the other means have been tried (including going so far as to live at the National Institutes of Health in D.C. for several months in order to be part an experimental procedure that if it worked would allow me to stop my medication. but it didn't work). it's not cosmetic.
so you said this (the medication thing) is a legit excuse. do you mean you would approve of (like pretend you're the priest) a marriage that intended to be childless if this was the only reason? (thus you would approve of them having sex even though they were hoping and praying and crossing their fingers that it would not lead to pregnancy.)

It's difficult to say. I would really need to know more about the person and situation. I have heard it suggested that it is okay for one who is incapable of having children to not want then (I suppose there is a certain "sour grapes" factor that is accounted for - after all, it can be more difficult emotionally for someone who does want children but can't).

I think the answer might lie in the couple's response to the hypothetical, "suppose a cure were found for your condition - would you reconsider having children in that situation?" (I would have to find a sufficiently diplomatic way to introduce the hypothetical, of course).

[Traditional Ang]

Originally Posted by samiam1611

One reason I doubt the writings of the Church Fathers is because they said they heard from God. When my friend started hearing from God, she knew that wasn't right, she went to the doctor before things got out of hand, got on some medication, and no longer thinks that. How are those guys different from my friend? Because people who knew no better believed them.

Galileo said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."

Ancient people didn't have the means to understand why things (our bodies for instance) were the way they were. So when someone offered an explanation, they believed it. Like a snowball rolling down a mountain, more people picked up on these explanations and expanded on them. But that doesn't technically prove the writings were true or God's word. Popularity is NOT necessarily truth. You use faith to find the truth. I question the validity of the origins of these explanations and the authority of those who spread it. (Note I said question. not deny! don't worry!) I have found that sense and reason poke holes in the fabric of what is supposedly God's plan for man and woman.

Samiam:

It turns out a lot of the ancients' explanations held water; as did their engineering, which we weren't able to match until modern times...
The 4 "Elements" of the Greeks match the 4 States of matter -
Earth - Solid
Water - Liquid
Wind - Gas
Fire - Plasma
Physicists are proposing other states, but these pretty much are not observable in the natural world. See - Wikipedia State of Matter and Enchanted Learning - Phases of Matter.

The Surgical Tools used by Galen and his contemporaries to treat the wounds of Gladiators and Roman soldiers are similar to those used by Doctors today. These tools were regularly sterilized, and the surgeons washed their hands much as surgeons do today. and, We even discovered some of the drugs they used to anesthetize their patients during surgery and to ease their pain before and afterwards. Galen's patients probably had much better odds of surviving and recovering from surgery than those of most doctors until the 1890's.

The Pantheon is still the world's largest unreinforced concrete dome, 1900 years after it was built. It has survived earthquakes that have leveled modern buildings around it... Trajan's Market was a 3 level mall carved into a hill with offices above - It was used throughout most of the Renaissance. The Coliseum (aka Flavian Amphitheatre) shaded 55,000 screaming fans from sun and rain... We haven't touched on the engineering required to build the Pyramids, the Sphinx or many of the other "marvels" in antiquity....

I don't know about your friend, and I do tend to doubt anyone who claims he or she hears from God. Scripture tells us to "Test the Spirits" and Jesus said to "Look at the fruit". So, that's what I do. If I see someone who is "hearing God" who seems to be getting "commands from God", or who seems to be displaying other "symptoms of psychiatric illness", then I would tend to agree with you. This wasn't the case with the Apostles & the Church Fathers - these were Sober Men. Most had responsible jobs, some worked in the Imperial Court, and the journal of one (The Confessions of St. Augustine of Hippo) is considered to be a model "Journal" for employee and patient evaluation (He really left nothing out). One was even a persecutor of Christians before he was converted en route to persecuting still more, and he had witnesses who saw what happened... Most believed so strongly in what they were doing they gave their lives for it, and many of them wrote letters encouraging others as they traveled to Rome to be executed.

This is the only thing you have to remember, just because you can't see, touch, taste smell or see it under a microscope doesn't mean ir doesn't exist. and, If you're a Catholic, at some point, you're obligated to give your willing assent to the Teaching of the Church, even if you think it's not rational, and then ask God to help show you how it's rational. I've just found that a willingness to accept something often makes my mind lust a little more open to the logic and reason...

In Christ, Michael

[Traditional Ang]

Originally Posted by catharina

Why are you naming the angel Gabriel?
I've never seen that in any Scripture verse.

Catherina - He's named later on in the conversation -

And Zachariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am old man and my wife is advance in years." And, The angel answered him, "I am GABRIEL, who stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And, Behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day these things come to pass, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
Luke 1:18-20 RSV-2CE

Gabriel's name is in the context, and I saw no reason not to include his name and to say who it was that was speaking. I was already making a long post, and didn't want to make include the entire Scripture when all I wanted was to specify who God's Messenger was...

I was figuring people would read the whole episode and see that I was trying to avoid unnecessarily lengthening a post when all that was required was specifying the speaker...

In Christ, Michael

[Traditional Ang]

Originally Posted by momor

Please go back and re-read what I wrote again. Most of what you are saying doesn't apply. I am only talking about knowledge of infertility prior to marriage in couples of typical child-bearing age.

The basis for expressing my difficulty with the Church's position on allowing someone who is fertile to marry someone who is infertile is that it seems to directly oppose the stated requirements of marital sex, that it be procreative and unitive, when it's already known beforehand that intercourse will not be open to procreation (short of a miracle from God). It's not that I oppose infertile people marrying. It's that I have yet to see an explanation for allowing it that makes sense in view of the Church's teaching about marital sex. I'm searching for an explanation that shows the marital sex requirement is consistent.

Momor:

Thanks for the assumption that I didn't read what you said. I read it twice. I would hope you'd show the next person whose answer you don't like a little more charity.

I'm sorry you didn't like my answer. I'm a layman and not a theologian. I tried my best to think it through. All I know is that Openness to Procreation and Uniting have to go together, no matter our physical condition - Language tends to be sequential - God isn't.

If we're open to giving Life, the Holy Spirit comes into the Middle of the Act through both of the Partners, making it Holy unto God and Grace-Giving. I'm sure God knows the disposition of our hearts better than we do, so your question becomes not one of the body, but one of the heart. It really is a, "What if?"

Christianity is a religion built on miracles - We assume the miraculous and live with it all the time. That's why your, "Don't assume a miracle." is to some extent, unfair.

As God looks at the heart, and not the body, His Question is different from yours, as is his follow up, which I'm afraid we fail miserably.

I believe that Question is (From Kelly Clinger)
What do we do AFTER Moms Choose Life?
Your Brother in Christ,
Michael