But what if she just doesn't like children?

[Consecrated]

Dubervilles:

I have been praying about it and will continue to do so. Do you think perhaps it is an emotional problem if I would rather stab myself with a rusty spoon than have children? I seriously do not think I could handle the responsibilty and do not think I would necessarily be a fit parent–is that the chance one is to take?

I agree with the person who recommended spiritual direction… the boards can only be so helpful!

I would, though, like to comment on what it takes to be a “fit parent”. Not much. a willingness to address physical and spiritual needs. You do that for your husband now, don’t you? I don’ t know if this exactly is your road block, but if you’re thinking responsible parenthood requires you to know EVERYTHING about raising a child from infancy through maturity from the moment you consider trying to conceive, no wonder you’d rather stab yourself with a rusty spoon! The beauty of a baby is… you can grow with them! A baby is not born with the needs and demands of an impressionable 5 year old. You’ll make mistakes, drop the ball, let slip the occasional bad word in front of your toddler … that happens. So you learn from that and keep going.

Responsibity can be daunting, yes. But all it requires is a willingness to learn to be selfless. And all you have to do is ask God to help you with that one. I’ve got a 2 1/2 y.o, and a 1 y.o. I pray every day for the grace to be patient and selfless… you think I make the cut every day? Nope, not even close somedays…

I love them with a love that I would never have thought possible, but I didn’t create that love… it was given to me as a gift from God. How could we have ever known what was in store for us if DH and I hadn’t made the leap and cooperated in God’s plan for the creation of our children?

 

[monina]

ElizabethAnne:

God also told us to “be fertile and multiply.” .

Why is this strictly interpreted as biological fertility?

What if the marital embrace does indeed produce life with each act, but not biological life? What if each marital embrace promotes the life of the family? In other words, each time a husband and wife renew their wedding vows with the one flesh union the life of their family, the love they produce, the renewal of their love is generated and re-created?

Just as in the Eucharist we become one flesh with our Lord and are commanded to re-generate and re-create this love throughout our daily lives.

 

[Kendy]

ElizabethAnne:

God also told us to “be fertile and multiply.” He did not say, “Get married and love each other and avoid pregnancy if you don’t want any children.”

The Church requires couples to agree to welcome children into their marriage before they are married. It comes up in marriage preparation as well as the wedding itself. A couple would have to lie to the Church on at least two occassions in order to get married without the intention of having children.

Can the couple get married and postpone having children for a few years? Or what if they adopted children instead of having them?

Kendy

 

[ElizabethAnne]

monina:

Why is this strictly interpreted as biological fertility?

What if the marital embrace does indeed produce life with each act, but not biological life? What if each marital embrace promotes the life of the family? In other words, each time a husband and wife renew their wedding vows with the one flesh union the life of their family, the love they produce, the renewal of their love is generated and re-created?

Just as in the Eucharist we become one flesh with our Lord and are commanded to re-generate and re-create this love throughout our daily lives.

Yes, “be fertile and multiply” can mean more than having children. But it also means having children. If someone intends to never have children, that person should not get married in the Catholic Church because they do not understand marriage as the Church does. The Church teaches that marriage is a sacrament that represents the trinity – two persons (God and Jesus) whose love for each other create another person (the Holy Spirit).

Also, if someone gets married and intends to never have children, what does that person plan to do when the natural end of marriage, pregnancy, happens?

 

[Kendy]

ElizabethAnne:

Also, if someone gets married and intends to never have children, what does that person plan to do when the natural end of marriage, pregnancy, happens?

I can answer that. If I was practicing NFP and I became pregant, I would have the child, raise him, and love him.

Kendy

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Kendy:

Can the couple get married and postpone having children for a few years? Or what if they adopted children instead of having them?

Kendy

For your first question, it would depend entirely on the motivations of the couple to postpone having children. Some people will cite that the couple must have grave reasons, but more often it is defined as serious or just reasons. Whether or not a couple has such reasons is something they must determine for themselves with the help of an informed conscience and spiritual direction.

I really don’t know the answer to your second question. I cannot think of a reason why a couple could not adopt children and use NFP to not have biological children. This would also be something they would need to discern with the help of an informed conscience and spiritual direction. Maybe they are called to have fewer biological children so that they can adopt. I don’t really know.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Kendy:

I can answer that. If I was practicing NFP and I became pregant, I would have the child, raise him, and love him.

Kendy

I am glad to hear that. My concern is that some would get married, not want children and come up with a different solution when they became pregnant. That is why I believe it is important for couples to understand that raising children is part of marriage.

 

[Kendy]

ElizabethAnne:

For your first question, it would depend entirely on the motivations of the couple to postpone having children. Some people will cite that the couple must have grave reasons, but more often it is defined as serious or just reasons. Whether or not a couple has such reasons is something they must determine for themselves with the help of an informed conscience and spiritual direction.

I really don’t know the answer to your second question. I cannot think of a reason why a couple could not adopt children and use NFP to not have biological children. This would also be something they would need to discern with the help of an informed conscience and spiritual direction. Maybe they are called to have fewer biological children so that they can adopt. I don’t really know.

Well, I have always wanted to adopt children if I had any. The first reason is that there are so many children who need a good home. When I was a teacher in the South Bronx, I wanted to take a couple kids home with me. I just wanted to rescue them from their disfunctional homes. There are so many AIDS orphans in Africa, and I feel the pull to adopt one of them much more than having one of my own.

Second, adopting children would also mean that I would not have to worry about age. I could adopt in my forties.

Kendy

 

[udral]

ElizabethAnne:

I, myself, do not consider scientific and cultural advances to be the prime indicator of a society’s success. Nor would I say that Western society has produced more people who are “happy” and
well off." In fact, more and more individuals suffer from depression and lonliness. As far as the society being “humane,” that is another problem. I would hardly call 40 million abortions in this country humane. It seems that one-third of children conceived in the United States face pretty hostile living conditions.

God bless.

Well, you’re free to name a better society in the history of humanity. Was it Rome? When at one point 1/3 of all individuals were slaves, and the gap between the rich and the poor was far greater than what it is in the US today. Whatever they say about Rome’s “decadence” didn’t apply to most Romans, only to the tiny rich elite.

Was it perhaps the Japanese Samurai culture where it was “honorable” to put a sword through oneself when you failed at something, or something along those lines.

Perhaps Medieval Europe, with mass persecutions of heretics, the Inquistion, persecution of “witches”, plagues, mass illiteracy etc.?

Do I need to mention that in these societies women had virtiually no rights beyond being an obedient wife and mother?

Were Nazis who massacred millions of Jews better? Soviet Communists with their persecutions of “heretics”, gulags, hunger, murders?

Do I need to mention how low the standard of living was without scientific advances for the average person? What the child-mortality rate was without medicine? What the maternal mortality rate was?

Is Africa better? Saudi Arabia?

You mention people here having psychiatric problems, but what makes you think people in those other countries don’t have them? The difference is that here there is a system of care, psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, there is no stigma surrounding mental illness.

Do I need to tell you about asylums for the mentally ill a few hundred years ago and how they were treated in them?

And do I need to mention the FREEDOMS we enjoy here? Freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from being harrassed by the police, from being imprisoned without cause, self representative governments etc.

No more slavery, tolerance, treating women as human beings, welfare systems to help the poor, amazing medical technology that saves so many lives and improves the quality of life, education, opportunity etc.

Abortion is being debated on another thread. forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=103055

 

[monina]

ElizabethAnne:

Yes, “be fertile and multiply” can mean more than having children. But it also means having childrenQUOTE]

So what if a married couple has “been fertile and multiplied”, meaning they have several children. At each future marital embrace, as long as it’s procreative (not necessarily biologically, but re-creates the family’s love/renews the life of their family) and unitive, would it then be ok to use artificial contraception?

 

[Elisabeth]

Forest-Pine:

And what if neither of them actively seek outside NFP to forgo pregnancy, but after prayerful reflection neither of them believe they are in a position to bring children into the marriage at the time? Being open to life, according to NFP’s norms is quite different from desiring children. It is my understanding that the theological minimum for marriage validity would be a willingness to be open to life within the norms of NFP, which can include indefinitely avoiding pregnancy for grave reasons. Whether this would be a grave reason would depend on the couple and their spiritual counselor and would not be something we could give a generic answer for.

I am afraid you may have been misinformed about the proper use of NFP. NFP is only to be used when there is serious reason for spacing children. It is not to be used with a “contraceptive mentality” to avid pregnancy. And no, not wanting children does not qualify as a sufficently serious reason

 

[SemperJase]

monina:

A 20-ish woman is pondering her life, her goals, her aspirations. She hopes one day to find love and marry.

But what if she just doesn’t like children?

My wife was 22 when we met. She swore she never wanted children and never wanted to be around them.

Now she babysits for her job. Her biggest desire is to have a child of our own (God willing that will happen in the next year).

The families she babysits for are amazed at how wonderful she is with kids and how much she knows about caring for them.

Moral of the story, never say never. Hearts change. The woman in question shouldn’t have children right now. I’d bet her heart will change in time.

 

[DreadVandal]

monina:

Why is this strictly interpreted as biological fertility?

What if the marital embrace does indeed produce life with each act, but not biological life? What if each marital embrace promotes the life of the family? In other words, each time a husband and wife renew their wedding vows with the one flesh union the life of their family, the love they produce, the renewal of their love is generated and re-created?

Just as in the Eucharist we become one flesh with our Lord and are commanded to re-generate and re-create this love throughout our daily lives.

The relevant passage from Genesis says “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.” You can’t make the text say anything other than what it says. Its a blessing and command from God to fill the earth with people.

 

[DreadVandal]

monina:

ElizabethAnne:

Yes, “be fertile and multiply” can mean more than having children. But it also means having childrenQUOTE]

So what if a married couple has “been fertile and multiplied”, meaning they have several children. At each future marital embrace, as long as it’s procreative (not necessarily biologically, but re-creates the family’s love/renews the life of their family) and unitive, would it then be ok to use artificial contraception?

No. Artificial contraception is never okay and it destroys the unitive act as well. Contracepted sex is neither procreative (unless it fails) nor unitive. Read humanae Vitae

 

[ElizabethAnne]

monina:

ElizabethAnne:

Yes, “be fertile and multiply” can mean more than having children. But it also means having childrenQUOTE]

So what if a married couple has “been fertile and multiplied”, meaning they have several children. At each future marital embrace, as long as it’s procreative (not necessarily biologically, but re-creates the family’s love/renews the life of their family) and unitive, would it then be ok to use artificial contraception?

Artificial contraceptives are never a morally licit way to avoid pregnancy. A couple using such contraceptives withhold the procreative part of themselves from each other during the marital embrace. Those who use NFP to delay pregnancy simply do not engage in the marital embrace and respect the fertility of their spouses. They do not alter the marital embrace itself.

 

[monina]

DreadVandal:

You can’t make the text say anything other than what it says. Its a blessing and command from God to fill the earth with people.

Yes, but can there be any doubt that we have successfully completed this task and then some?

 

[monina]

DreadVandal:

monina:

No. Artificial contraception is never okay and it destroys the unitive act as well. Contracepted sex is neither procreative (unless it fails) nor unitive. Read humanae Vitae

Contracepted sex is not procreative, if you consider only BIOLOGICAL procreation. But if procreation means much, much more than just biological fertility, then contracepted sex can indeed be procreative–it can renew the family, the life of the couple, re-produce familial love, can it not?

 

[David_Zampino]

monina:

Hypothetical situation:

A 20-ish woman is pondering her life, her goals, her aspirations. She hopes one day to find love and marry.

But what if she just doesn’t like children?

I understand Catholic teaching regarding marriage is that if one marries one should be open to children. That is, if one does not like the prospect of having children with her husband one ought not be getting married.

So is this woman doomed to a solitary life if she just does not have a desire to be a mom?

Surely there are thousands of women in this situation. I hate to think of a woman having children if she does not like children…

Frankly, CS Lewis would describe this as a character flaw (and one which he freely admitted he had!)

I tend to agree with Lewis.

Blessings,

 

[pittsburghjeff]

monina:

DreadVandal:

Contracepted sex is not procreative, if you consider only BIOLOGICAL procreation. But if procreation means much, much more than just biological fertility, then contracepted sex can indeed be procreative–it can renew the family, the life of the couple, re-produce familial love, can it not?

Come on now monina. Sex is procreative just the way God created it. People who contracept somehow have a problem with the way God created sex, and the way God created their spouses. Therefore, they have to use chemicals and barriors to take the procreation out of the sexual act. Not only is it not procreative, but its not really sex because God’s life-giving power is shut out. Rather it is a form of mutual masturbation.

And no - contraceptive “sex” does not renew the family, the life of the couple, etc. Only Jesus Christ can do those things - and only a couple truly open to his will willy be fully renewed through the marital act.

 

[DreadVandal]

It seems to me that all of this really boils down to one thing; obedience to the Church. Either you believe that the Church is our mother and teacher and established by Christ and is to be obeyed or you don’t. But, for those who are Catholic and don’t believe this: one might ask, “why are you Catholic and not lutheran or unitarian?” I know, that’s another thread. But the bottom line is that we either say to God “Thy will be done” or we say “My will be done.” That is the choice. One can choose life or death. But as Moses said, this day choose life. Choose God’s law over man’s desires.