First of all, I understand that you are coming from the Catholic Doctrine and simply explaining the concepts as they are detailed. But my broader point is that marriage is not a Christian act alone. Buddists, Muslims, Athiests, etc all get married. I think that is where the Catholic Doctrine disconnects with the general population. Where they see it as a function of religious institution, the majority of America see it as an act of love and a contractual obligation to their union.
I wouldn't say that's accurate. Catholics would argue that marriage is a
pre-political institution which is a reflection of its importance in the Natural Law. Until the day before yesterday, virtually every culture in recorded history recognized marriage as a conjugal relationship between a man and a woman. Christ added the requirements of monogamy and permanence, which accounts for most of the important differences between Christian marriage and other forms. In contrast, modern marriage is neither conjugal nor permanent, and it's unlikely to be monogamous for much longer either.
See my point above. I suppose that is a disconnect where non-Catholics see it as something entirely different than an ticket to procreate.
Absolutely. But the disconnect goes far deeper than the Magisterium stubbornly clinging to medieval social constructs in the face of an "evolving" institution. It's a reflection of radically incompatible beliefs about the natural of reality itself.
I think this is why you will see more people continually move away from the church. Also a relevant point to the Libertarian view of why government should stay out of the "marriage business". I agree with that point, but if the church denounces one's right to union, what other choice do people have to that contract and rights therein?
If we're talking about winning people over to the Church's position, I agree completely that arid canonical arguments won't convince anyone. What the modern West needs is re-conversion, and that will only happen when Western Christians burnish our own practices until their radiance dazzles the pagan eye once again (as they did in the early years of the Church). But the Western Church cannot do that while it is at war with itself. It has to recognize secular liberalism as a hostile religion, condemn it as heresy, and ruthlessly purge it from within its own institutions. There is no middle ground. One cannot be both a Christian and a modernist.
My comment didn't mean to infer the value of said life, but rather a couple's desire to not put a child through that pain. Say they married with the intent of children, found that they would be giving a child a painful existence, and are choosing not to do so. They cannot divorce in this case either, so what choice do they have but to live in sin?
If they haven't consummated their marriage yet, they'd have probable grounds for an annulment. Similarly, if their union hasn't yet produced children, they'd still likely be granted one. Marriage is the full, free, and total gift of self to another person for life, which includes the bodily gift of self through intercourse. If they cannot do that in good conscience, then they should be free to seek that Good elsewhere.
I think this is where the church struggles with modern ideology. I believe it is a difficult task to convince people that they are unfit for love simply because they do not desire children. See... the modern concept of marriage is rooted in love and rights, not the ability to procreate. The more the church stresses that fundamental difference, the more they will pull away from the modern ideals.
No one is "unfit for love"; conversely, that's the ultimate purpose of every human life. But marriage, as a Christian sacrament, is fit only for couples capable of the conjugal act and open to the possibility of new life. And that's not everyone. Just as Holy Orders aren't for everyone. That offends the egalitarian sensibilities of modern liberals, mostly because their worldview prevents them from recognizing any sort of Natural Law at work in nature or their own bodies.
Regardless, that is where we are in today's world. Marriage has a far wider breadth in today's society outside of children. It's definitely something the church needs to address, but in what manner is outside of my pay grade. A difficult issue that they should have addressed far before the meaning of the sacrament changed to more of a legal/social event.
How should it "be addressed"? Matthew 19:3-6 establishes Christian marriage as conjugal, monogamous and permanent, straight from Jesus' lips. There's no way to reconcile the modern and Christian concepts of marriage without eviscerating the latter.
It's worth noting that every Christian sect that has liberalized its doctrine on sexuality and marriage
has utterly collapsed. "Liberal" Christianity is well on its way to being completely extinct within a generation or two. So appeals to change doctrine in the interest of "attracting young people" or "remaining relevant" are basically just invitations to suicide.
I combined these two points because my comment addresses both. On some level, the "natural act" of child bearing is a thing of the past. Even if one abstained from prenatal vitamins, hormone therapy, ovulation medication or IVF. The act is still predominantly science-driven, even by practicing Catholics. They still will use ovulation calendars, they still will utilize technological advances to create a healthy baby. It's not a simple act of God that creates the child through natural means, imo. It's all a drawn out medical procedure at this point.
The Catholic ideal doesn't involve a Luddite rejection of technology
per se. We're meant to "have life and have it in abundance." But we're also called to humility and reverence before the world, which isn't consonant with the modern Baconian obsession with subjugating nature "for the relief of man's estate" (which is also bringing on apocalypse via global warming, but that's a different topic). That which is useful is not necessarily good.
While I by no means am trying to discredit the life of someone with disabilities, I understand why someone wouldn't want to create one if they knew it was probable. Most Americans agree with the value of life, regardless of disability. This isn't an argument of culling "in utero", it's a decision made pre "in utero". Choosing to abstain isn't culling anything, as it must exist to be culled. But I think the church will have quite a difficult task convincing modern society that their marriage is not valid if they don't purposely have a child that they knowingly will be born with disability or disease. I don't believe that the general public sees that as "culling" but rather moral obligation.
That's a hard (and extremely niche) case. They could choose to adopt, or have their marriage annulled and find another spouse with whom they can procreate in good conscience.
