Posted on 04/25/2014 10:53:51 AM PDT by Weiss White
Q: If God established marriage for the procreation of children, does it affect the validity of a marriage if one spouse is infertile? What if you know for sure that you can’t have children, can you get married in the Church anyway? How does that work? –Donna
A: As we’ve seen before in this space, the Church holds that marriage is, by its very nature, ordered to the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children (c. 1055.1). As Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church in the Modern World stated nearly 50 years ago, “By its very nature, the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of offspring, and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (Gaudium et Spes 48). And both Gaudium et Spes (50) and the Catechism (1652) observe that “children are the supreme gift of marriage.”
At the same time, of course, we all know that some marriages are childless because at least one of the spouses is simply unable to have children. Could infertility have an effect on the validity of a marriage celebrated in the Catholic Church?
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...
So?
Some blogger shows up acting as a parasite and you say “So?”!?
Being blind to bad behavior because the bad-actors happen
to have packaged their “message” in a way that you like
is exactly what facilitated Nazi Germany and all that followed.
Yes, I know.. bring up Nazis, automatic fail.
"Parasite"? Really? We're all "using" this wonderful Free Republic tool to link, to network, to get our ideas out, to communicate. Some people also donate $$ according to their means. But since you don't have a donors list, I don't think you know who's being more parasitical than whom.
This "parasite" charge is bogus. The blogger is using an option that has not been prohibited, costing you nothing and harming nobody. That's worth a vote to acquit, in my court of laissez-faire.
That's what the blogger is doing.
It's something you've taken it upon yourself to define, and then act as prosecutor, judge, and pursuing Nemesis on the premises, all by your lonesome, in the court of FReeper opinion.
I don't quite follow you on all that, but "Nemesis on the premises" sounds pretty cool.
We're all "using" this wonderful Free Republic tool to link, to network, to get our ideas out, to communicate.
Yes.
And some Nemesis on the premises are posting excerpts to score some hits. Like Parasites.
But since you don't have a donors list
Available on each FReepathon thread.
This "parasite" charge is bogus.
You spelled "apt" wrong.
The blogger is using an option that has not been prohibited
Wearing saggy pants isn't prohibited either, but decent folks don't do it.
That's worth a vote to acquit, in my court of laissez-faire.
Well then.. that settles it.
Apt?
Not “Bogus”.. the charge is apt.
Am I using “apt” wrong?
apt
apt/Submit
adjective
1.
appropriate or suitable in the circumstances.
“an apt description of her nature”
And I meant to say an "officious" nemesis on the premises. You can quote me, if you use the word "apt." (Eyes bugging slightly. Muffled giggle behind the hand.)
As long as you aptly provide me with cool phrases
you are welcome to disagree with me all you want.
Wait, what?
Weren't you just scratching up dust over "apt"?
Pick one and stick with it.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
humblegunner do you have the links to some of the posts JR has made about bloggers posting on freerepublic?
I have seen them posted before, but I think Mrs. Don-o needs to see one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.