But what if she just doesn't like children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter monina
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From 1 Corinthians 7:7-9:
Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
Click to expand...
Those who choose to marry rather than to be on fire are not sinning because of that choice.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
I can certainly imagine wanting to get married and not have children. There are all kinds of things I can imagine. I have a question for you: Are you Catholic? The reason I can give the answers I give is that I am simply following the teachings of the magisterium. Is it always easy? No, not always. Is it possible that one will have to make sacrifices and experience some emotional pain by being faithful to Church teaching? Yes, not just possible, but inevitable. Emotional pain is not intrinsically bad. It helps us to stop focusing on what we want and what we feel. Our feelings should be the last place we consult when making decisions. They usually lead us astray unless they are grounded in objective truth.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am catholic. I am a revert.

As far as what we want, I think we should all be willing to do what God wants, but sometimes, what God wants for a particular person is not so obvious.

I know that I want a husband. I have no reason to believe that that is not what God wants for me but I don’t know for sure. I also don’t know whether God wants me to be a mother. I only know that I have no great desire to do this. I am not against it. I just feel indifferent. Sometimes, when I am involved in my studies, I think I would hate for anything to pull me away from this work. This is my calling. Now, I don’t say it’s my calling because God told me. I just mean it’s what I love.

Kendy
 
Okay, that’s all fine. Do you consult the teachings of the Church and Scripture? Which would come first? How you feel about something or what the Church says about something?
 
40.png
Catholic2003:
From 1 Corinthians 7:7-9:

Those who choose to marry rather than to be on fire are not sinning because of that choice.
Click to expand...
So, if you are a widow or a post-manopause person and you are free to marry, then you may. If you are young and single and wish to marry, you may. But this doesn’t mean that you can marry to deal with lust but to avoid children. Paul is simply talking to those who want to be celibates. If they can be celibate then that is what’s best, but if it is too difficult then they should marry.
 
40.png
Kendy:
Does that mean you can marry to avoid being on fire while still avoiding having children?
Click to expand...
The “sine qua non” part from the old Catholic Encyclopedia article is the key to understanding when the desire to avoid children invalidates a marriage:
Such an agreement or condition [to limit or exclude children] denies the perpetual duties of matrimony, limits matrimonial rights, suspends the duty consequent on the use and exercise of those rights; if really made a sine qua non of marriage, it necessarily annuls it; the parties would wish to enjoy connubial intercourse, but evade its consequences.
Click to expand...
A more detailed explanation of when the intention to exclude children invalidates a marriage can be found in this post.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
Okay, that’s all fine. Do you consult the teachings of the Church and Scripture? Which would come first? How you feel about something or what the Church says about something?
Click to expand...
Well, I do consult the teachings of the church. It doesn’t seem obvious from scripture that not having children would not be okay. It doesn’t seem obvious to me that a godly couple could commit themselves together and to other ends. They might find that they need the love and support of a spouse on their journey.

Usually, I feel fine when the church says something. But sometimes, I am not sure :o .

Kendy
 
40.png
Kendy:
Well, I do consult the teachings of the church. It doesn’t seem obvious from scripture that not having children would not be okay. It doesn’t seem obvious to me that a godly couple could commit themselves together and to other ends. They might find that they need the love and support of a spouse on their journey

Kendy
Click to expand...
So what do you think when the Church says definitively that the positive exclusion of children on the part of the spouses nullifies a marriage? Is that doctrinal teaching to be obeyed? Or is it friendly advice to take into consideration?
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
So what do you think when the Church says definitively that the positive exclusion of children on the part of the spouses nullifies a marriage? Is that doctrinal teaching to be obeyed? Or is it friendly advice to take into consideration?
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know. It seems out of touch with the lives of otherwise faithful people. It doesn’t take into account that there are many other ways for married people to use their lives to serve God. And it ignores the many benefits of marriage that may provide comfort to the individuals on their Earthly journey, like better health.

I think God wants most people to have children and more often than not our reasons for not wanting children, like having fancy cars, are not Godly. However, I am not convinced that he calls every couple to have children.

But maybe, God is more rigid than I think He is.

Kendy
 
40.png
Kendy:
Well, I don’t know. It seems out of touch with the lives of otherwise faithful people. It doesn’t take into account that there are many other ways for married people to use their lives to serve God. And it ignores the many benefits of marriage that may provide comfort to the individuals on their Earthly journey, like better health.

I think God wants most people to have children and more often than not our reasons for not wanting children, like having fancy cars, are not Godly. However, I am not convinced that he calls every couple to have children.

But maybe, God is more rigid than I think He is.

Kendy
Click to expand...
What does “out of touch” mean? I suppose we have to decide first whether openness to children within marriage is a part of universal moral law or simply a preference of God’s. If it is part of the universal, moral law then is it ever legitimate to break it?

If it is not a part of the universal, moral law, then how can the Church legislate on the matter? This issue is very much tied up with the issue of contraception. This is why the Church is opposed to contraception. Sex is intrinsically ordered toward procreation and to have sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative end is to commit a grave sin. So a couple that positively excludes children is committing grave sin every time they have sex. Of course, this is all true only if the Church is right that we are dealing with the moral law and not personal preferences. But here is the fundamental question. Am I ever justified in violating the moral law for a personal preference, even if the personal preference seems to be motivated by good intentions?
 
40.png
Kendy:
Well, I do consult the teachings of the church. It doesn’t seem obvious from scripture that not having children would not be okay. It doesn’t seem obvious to me that a godly couple could commit themselves together and to other ends. They might find that they need the love and support of a spouse on their journey.

Usually, I feel fine when the church says something. But sometimes, I am not sure :o .

Kendy
Click to expand...
I was just rereading your post and thinking some more. I think that is the deciding factor in this issue or most issues really. What status does the Church have? Are the Church’s decrees on moral matters absolute? That is something all of us have to search out, whether we are willing to accept that notion of the Church, which is the Catholic notion or whether we are more inclined to accept our personal feelings as final, which would be the protestant position.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
What does “out of touch” mean? I suppose we have to decide first whether openness to children within marriage is a part of universal moral law or simply a preference of God’s. If it is part of the universal, moral law then is it ever legitimate to break it?
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know how one defines a universal moral law outside of God. :confused:
40.png
DreadVandal:
If it is not a part of the universal, moral law, then how can the Church legislate on the matter? This issue is very much tied up with the issue of contraception. This is why the Church is opposed to contraception. Sex is intrinsically ordered toward procreation and to have sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative end is to commit a grave sin. So a couple that positively excludes children is committing grave sin every time they have sex. Of course, this is all true only if the Church is right that we are dealing with the moral law and not personal preferences. But here is the fundamental question. Am I ever justified in violating the moral law for a personal preference, even if the personal preference seems to be motivated by good intentions?
Click to expand...
What about uniting the spouses?
 
40.png
Kendy:
Well, I don’t know how one defines a universal moral law outside of God. :confused:

What about uniting the spouses?
Click to expand...
Humane Vitae is clear that the positive exclusion of children disunites the spouses. There is no true unity without openness to children. Here is a reading recommendation: “Love and Responsibility” by Pope John Paul II. Theology of the Body is good too.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
I was just rereading your post and thinking some more. I think that is the deciding factor in this issue or most issues really. What status does the Church have? Are the Church’s decrees on moral matters absolute? That is something all of us have to search out, whether we are willing to accept that notion of the Church, which is the Catholic notion or whether we are more inclined to accept our personal feelings as final, which would be the protestant position.
Click to expand...
Well, I assume the church also doesn’t want to drag us kicking and screaming to obedience. I agree that our personal feelings are not should not be the final word on matters of faith and moral. However, I sometimes feel suffocated by how little room for personal feeling the church leaves us. Outside of picking out my own clothes and what to make for dinner, I feel like there are all these rules to govern every little aspect of our lives.

Most people are going to have children. It’s what their bodies compels them to do. Isn’t there any room for a particular couple to think about what this means for them personally. And I could list a number of others. There is a rule for every thing! Sometimes, I would rather not know about them.

Kendy
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
Humane Vitae is clear that the positive exclusion of children disunites the spouses. There is no true unity without openness to children. Here is a reading recommendation: “Love and Responsibility” by Pope John Paul II. Theology of the Body is good too.
Click to expand...
This seems like the church calling things whatever she wants. Why is there no uniting the spouses without children? And if that’s the case, would that not again imply that the sterile couple is not united?

Kendy
 
40.png
Kendy:
This seems like the church calling things whatever she wants. Why is there no uniting the spouses without children? And if that’s the case, would that not again imply that the sterile couple is not united?

Kendy
Click to expand...
There would be no true union because the spouses would be withholding their procreativity from one another, which is the natural end of marriage. In the case of sterility, it is not willed, so the couple could still will that their procreativity be given to the other even though it can’t, only because of an act of nature.
 
Not like children? What?

Does this selfish young woman realize that she was once a “children”???

:mad:
 
40.png
Kendy:
Yes, I am catholic. I am a revert.

As far as what we want, I think we should all be willing to do what God wants, but sometimes, what God wants for a particular person is not so obvious.

I know that I want a husband. I have no reason to believe that that is not what God wants for me but I don’t know for sure. I also don’t know whether God wants me to be a mother. I only know that I have no great desire to do this. I am not against it. I just feel indifferent. Sometimes, when I am involved in my studies, I think I would hate for anything to pull me away from this work. This is my calling. Now, I don’t say it’s my calling because God told me. I just mean it’s what I love.

Kendy
Click to expand...
Kendy,

I was thinking of you recently. I came a across a great book at a Catholic bookstore and thought of recommending it to you. I know you struggle with some of the church issues regarding women and their roles. Check out Phyllis Schlafly’s book Feminist Fantasies. It’s an excellent book and it it worth reading and pondering.
 
40.png
1ke:
Kendy,

I was thinking of you recently. I came a across a great book at a Catholic bookstore and thought of recommending it to you. I know you struggle with some of the church issues regarding women and their roles. Check out Phyllis Schlafly’s book Feminist Fantasies. It’s an excellent book and it it worth reading and pondering.
Click to expand...
Thank you for thinking of me:). I am not sure that Ms. Schlafly and I always get along very well 😛 .

Kendy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top