Are married couples who experience infertility required to actively try to adopt?

[DivineMercy01]

From the Catechism:

The openness to fertility

[1652](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1652.htm’) "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163

[1653](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1653.htm’) The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.164 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.165

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

Is 1654 saying that a couple can choose to be childless IF they experience perpetual infertility? Or would that couple be required to be open to adopting/fostering?

Any church document on the subject would be great! Thanks

 

[edward_george1]

Is 1654 saying that a couple can choose to be childless IF they experience perpetual infertility? Or would that couple be required to be open to adopting/fostering?

1654 isn’t really addressing that question one way or the other.

The Catechism does say that children are a gift. If a couple is infertile, they are not obligated to adopt, and neither are they really obligated to treat the infertility.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Agnus-Dei]

^
|
what he said
It does bring up a question with me though.
If ABC goes against god’s will, wouldn’t “artificially treating in-fertility” be against it also? (God chooses to withhold children for some reason)
Dominus vobiscum

 

[Anicette]

Is 1654 saying that a couple can choose to be childless IF they experience perpetual infertility? Or would that couple be required to be open to adopting/fostering?

I think to choose the term “choose to be childless” is offensive for people who can’t have children. To adopt or foster children is often not possible, and much more in these days. They also possibility don’t meat the criterais society except from prospective adoptive parents.

The catechism is clear: sterile couples can choose to try to adopt, but they are not requiered to do it.

 

[Anicette]

If ABC goes against god’s will, wouldn’t “artificially treating in-fertility” be against it also? (God chooses to withhold children for some reason

It is never moral to try to conceive a child outside of a the natural marital embrace.
And tha’s the position of the Church.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

I did not mean test tube type. (For clarity of previous post)
If the couple is infertile, and unable to conceive, doing anything to “make” conception happen could seem to go against “the will of god”. (“The will” being the couple’s inability to conceive in the first place)
Dominus vobiscum

 

[Anicette]

I tend to agree with you, but it is not an area where the Church clearly say “no”. She on the contrary encourages to fight the causes of infertility, to make the science progress and encourage people who wishes it to seek more ethical treatments such as surgery.

The debates is what someone see as acceptable and compatible with their own dinity.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No, they aren’t.

Think about it for a moment: the “infertile” couple might be 65 years old. Not exactly in a good position to be chasing after adopted children.

 

[1ke]

Is 1654 saying that a couple can choose to be childless IF they experience perpetual infertility? Or would that couple be required to be open to adopting/fostering?

No the Church doesn’t teach that infertile couples are required to adopt or foster children.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

I’m still seeing “The wants of the couple to have a child are being put above god’s restraint in keeping them infertile”.
Sorry, I will shut up, and return the thread now to it’s original poster.
Dominus vobiscum

 

[1ke]

If ABC goes against god’s will, wouldn’t “artificially treating in-fertility” be against it also?

No. “Artificial” has nothing whatsoever to with do either the morality of contraception or fertility treatments.

 

[Anicette]

Think about it for a moment: the “infertile” couple might be 65 years old. Not exactly in a good position to be chasing after adopted children.

At 65 years old, the couple is not “infertile”, they are naturally out of childbearing years. That’s a big difference!

 

[1ke]

At 65 years old, the couple is not “infertile”, they are naturally out of childbearing years.

They are infertile.

Infertile doesn’t only refer to those who cannot conceive by disease or defect, but also age.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

A couple are not fertile. Natural conception is not happening. If they choose to take medications or such that would allow, or force conception, that is the “artificial” part.
Dominus vobiscum

 

[Anicette]

I don’t agree with you and never heard this definition in a public debate for eg.

 

[1ke]

If they choose to take medications or such that would allow, or force conception, that is the “artificial” part.

Right. And something isn’t immoral or moral because it’s “artificial”. “Artificial” has nothing to do with WHY contraception is immoral and nothing to do with whether a treatment for infertility is moral or not.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

At 65 years old, the couple is not “infertile”, they are naturally out of childbearing years. That’s a big difference!

The woman may be naturally infertile. It’s no different from being naturally infertile at age 20.

 

[Anicette]

of course there is a difference! A 65 year old woman who had expererience menaupose would never been pregnant unless she use very artificial means.
A woman of 20 years old who don’t fall pregnant has still more chances to be one day than a 65 yars old. Unless she had an hysterectomies. A lot of women fall pregnant after thinking or being said they would not be, sometimes after having had previous IVF or adopting.

It is also different because it is normal to not being able to bear a child at 65, but not at 20 years old when we are still of reproductive age.

 

[Agnus-Dei]

No argument here. I have no vested interest in it on either side but did find the question of interest. If toying/altering/interfering towards achieving conception was as disordered as interfering to prevent it. (Based on the idea that either one could be going against the will of god)
Dominus vobiscum

 

[1ke]

Based on the idea that either one could be going against the will of god

That isn’t the reason contraception is wrong. Nor the basis for the morality of assisted conception.

Acts of contraception are immoral because each act of intercourse must be ordered to both unity and procreation.

Assisted reproductive technology is immoral or immoral on the same basis.