What should a married Christian do when not ready to have children?

[Spartacus]

It is an interesting though. Given that it is not fully formulated, let me just throw this out there. You have painted a beautiful picture of a married couple conceiving in a loving and committed relationship. At the same time, the animal kingdom is rife with amoral promiscuity. Is that also sacred because the animals "through the act of sexual union, can participate in God's creation in a special way"? Reproduction is common to the entire animal kingdom. It is our posit that it is our relationships that make us unique, not our biological functions. You will need to establish why human conception is holy and sacred while other animal matings are not.

You're appealing to a case further removed from my idealized scenario than you need to: why not ask about a child born out of wedlock, or conceived in vitro rather than through intercourse?

[Alsharad]

No one here has denied that marriage is for the spouses. But marriage finds its fullest expression in the family, and its primary end is to the good of the child.

I don't think that you have Biblical warrant for that position. And from where do you draw the backing for the idea that marriage finds its fullest expression in the family? Can you cite any scripture or even present a logical argument based on scripture? So far, all I have seen is assertion. (From my side too, but I think that my position is more consistent with Scripture and the principles established therein)

So, hypothetically, Couple A marries and has children, but one spouse dies after only 15 years; Couple B marries and has no children but remain happily married for over 50 years. All other things being equal, which couple had the "fuller" (your word) marriage in your opinion?

[Paprika]

Marriage is for those that are in it. I am in a marriage, ergo the marriage is for me (and my wife, of course, but she isn't here posting this).

No one here has denied that marriage is for the spouses. But marriage finds its fullest expression in the family, and its primary end is to the good of the child.

Well it is consistent with the Bible. Why do you put that down?

It is literally self-centered.

[Jedidiah]

How self-centred.

Well it is consistent with the Bible. Why do you put that down?

[Alsharad]

I didn't flesh my own ideas out, either. I hope to do so in more detail sometime in the next few days, but for now, I'll just say that I think that the marital act-- in which the married couple, through an act of love, can create a new life-- is where the sacramentality of matrimony is most clearly displayed. It's not that the loving relationship is live-giving for the spouses, but that it can be wondrously and miraculously life-creating. It is because the married couple, through the act of sexual union, can participate in God's creation in a special way that married love has a special place and theological significance.

It is an interesting though. Given that it is not fully formulated, let me just throw this out there. You have painted a beautiful picture of a married couple conceiving in a loving and committed relationship. At the same time, the animal kingdom is rife with amoral promiscuity. Is that also sacred because the animals "through the act of sexual union, can participate in God's creation in a special way"? Reproduction is common to the entire animal kingdom. It is our posit that it is our relationships that make us unique, not our biological functions. You will need to establish why human conception is holy and sacred while other animal matings are not.

[Alsharad]

How self-centred.

Not really. It is no more self-centered than saying that the food I eat is for me. Or that my relationship with God is for me. The relationship exists for me because I am the one that needs it. The relationship meets many needs that I know that I have and I am sure meets needs that I don't know about or have forgotten. Saying so isn't selfish, it is reality. Marriage primarily benefits the people that are in it (far more than it benefits the children, I promise). Marriage is for those that are in it. I am in a marriage, ergo the marriage is for me (and my wife, of course, but she isn't here posting this).

[Paprika]

My relationship with my wife is for me, not for my children... A marriage is about the people that are in it, not for the children that may or may not come of it.

How self-centred.

[Paprika]

Nothing uncomfortable, Pap, just old hat.

Just one would expect: you're safe in your little bubble.

[Spartacus]

Scripture paints a pretty clear picture of who qualifies to be married. It is sacred because it was ordained by God as such. In any case, this isn't a long-winded explanation, I wanted to object to the statement that marriage is about having and raising children. I am not really concerned that a one-paragraph idea didn't fully explain or make a compelling case for the biblical standards of marriage. It was simply an idea (and a rough one at that) that I threw out against a statement that seems wrong in my experience and in my understanding of scripture.

I didn't flesh my own ideas out, either. I hope to do so in more detail sometime in the next few days, but for now, I'll just say that I think that the marital act-- in which the married couple, through an act of love, can create a new life-- is where the sacramentality of matrimony is most clearly displayed. It's not that the loving relationship is live-giving for the spouses, but that it can be wondrously and miraculously life-creating. It is because the married couple, through the act of sexual union, can participate in God's creation in a special way that married love has a special place and theological significance.

[Alsharad]

Which is incidentally the benefit that allows for the propagation of the species.

Marriage creates a special relationship, yes, but the relationship is primarily for the children.

Just so you have a understanding of my position, I have been married for 15 years and have three children that I love dearly. My relationship with my wife is for me, not for my children. They may benefit from it, but I am the one who receives the joy from my wife. I am the one who enjoys her company, her affection, and her intimacy. This is for me and my benefit and for her and her benefit. A marriage is about the people that are in it, not for the children that may or may not come of it. In my opinion, the primary purpose of marriage is to edify each other and bring glory to God in our love and humble submission to each other.

There is more to this view of sentimentality than of sacramentality. Marriage is not sacramental primarily because a relationship of self-giving love images the Trinity. There is no clear reason under this view that the norms of exclusivity, heterosexuality, etc., should apply, not least since we are to love one another (not just our spouses) as Christ loved us.

Scripture paints a pretty clear picture of who qualifies to be married. It is sacred because it was ordained by God as such. In any case, this isn't a long-winded explanation, I wanted to object to the statement that marriage is about having and raising children. I am not really concerned that a one-paragraph idea didn't fully explain or make a compelling case for the biblical standards of marriage. It was simply an idea (and a rough one at that) that I threw out against a statement that seems wrong in my experience and in my understanding of scripture.

[Jedidiah]

Nothing uncomfortable, Pap, just old hat.

[Paprika]

Or simply ignore it.

It must be great having a habit of ignoring uncomfortable views.

[Jedidiah]

Or simply ignore it.

[Paprika]

Clearly paprika has never read theology of the body... I suggest that you have misunderstood the position of the Church entirely. Read about marriage reproduction the natural spacing of children and sexuality between spouses. Start with the Catechism. Start with the Catechism.

Clearly you have not read my posts carefully: I am in no way speaking for the Catholic Church, nor describing its position.

If you do disagree with the position I am setting forth you are free to demonstrate how it is wrong.

[One Bad Pig]

I haven't read Theology of the Body either (but it's on my shelf, waiting patiently to be read).