An interesting blog entry from the blog of outspoken Archbishop-Emeritus Oscar Cruz
"The marriage covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, is by its very nature ordered to the well being of the spouses and to the procreation and education of their children ..." (Canon 1055 CIC)
Thus stands the synthesis of the teaching of the Catholic Church, one, about marriage, two, about the spouses, three about their children. Thus stands as well, the synthesis of marriage according to human nature which in turn, is derived from natural law. Thus likewise stands the key teaching of the Catholic Church about the tripod of marriage-spouses-children. And thus finally the Catholic Church proclaims, affirms and promotes her doctrine on marriage - as a covenant, an institution, a sacrament as an one integral reality the realm of reason and faith. [And thus the stand on artificial birth control.]
It does not take much celebral [I think this should have been cerebral] function to understand that no less than a threefold responsibility - the exercise of the established rights and the fulfillment of the inherent pursuant obligations - is the fundamental premise of marriage: First, responsibility required for the purpose of getting married. Second, responsibility expected for the well-being of the spouses. Third, responsibility mandated by not merely the procreation but also needed education of their children. Only fools do otherwise. [Right on the mark!]
Neither does it need any academic degree to understand the following elementary conclusions: One, woe to the irresponsible if either or both parties get married. [That is why some priests even discourage couples of getting married just for the sole reason of getting the woman impregnated.] Two, woe as well to the irresponsible for daring to be a spouse or spouses. Three, woe eventually to the irresponsible for expertise in procreating but incapable of educating the children born thereof. Even animals demonstrate their attention and care for all their little ones they brought into the world.
Much less does it require any profound knowledge to also understand the following consequences: One, those who are not capable of educating children has no right of procreating even but one of them? Two, those who are not capable of educating more children that they already have, do not [have] the right to procreate even but one more of them. Three, those who do otherwise, are downright irresponsible. Thus stands the substance of irresponsible parenthood.[Which is plaguing our country. Not mere overpopulation!]
Conclusions: Irresponsible are the spouses who eagerly exercise their right to copulate but at the same time rejects the possible procreation that goes therewith. Also, irresponsible are the people who give, offer or provide the anti-natalist means to couples in order for these to desire and enjoy copulation but nonchalantly deny and discard the children who can consequently born therefrom. This is a living,, example of couples who crave for the "sarap" by junks the possible "hirap" that may arise therefrom.
11 OCTOBER 2010
Excellent post, don't you think?
Use this argument to trump those who think that all we cry out loud about the RH Bill is letting women give birth "indiscriminately".