Can a couple who don't want to have children get married under the grace of God?

[1inICXC]

Thank you for your kind words 1inICXC. Interestingly, despite 21 pages of posts, your post is not redundant. Your story about your son is touching.

This was the first thread I started when I joined CAF, and wrote the OP as if I was Catholic/believed in God bc I was trying to understand y’all’s theology, not debate, but I am indeed an atheist, so am not obligated to be open to life.

While I still do not have a desire to be a parent, I have gained understanding of your beliefs that could only come from actual discussion with you guys. For instance, HV and TOB explain the theology, but had me baffled why anyone would choose to follow those “rules.”

I have learned that a big part of people’s compliance with the Church’s “rules” is their conviction that the Church is the one true church started by Jesus, and is guided by the Holy Spirit, so cannot err on an issue such as this (morals). That, and also, people loooove that eucharist, and are willing to sacrifice their own desires in order to receive it!

I understand now that a Catholic marriage is not just about 2 people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. A Catholic marriage is for the good of the spouses and the raising of children.

Unfortunately, Nighthawk, as a faithful Catholic, “The intention, when marrying, to never have children (canon 1101§2)” is grounds for an annulment. So although you wouldn’t be sinning by being abstinent, your marriage would not be valid. That might be problematic.

Samiam, your posts often make me smile- i remember the one about you wanting to shake all of us . One reason is your interest in understanding our beliefs and the other is that you are not insulting and condenscending! It’s so rare to talk to an atheist and not be told that you belong to a mental institute or that we are all intelectually inferior. Of course, considering that we “looooove receiving the Body and Blood of Christ” i do understand that from an atheist perspective we may seem very disturbed but it is refreshing to see someone who doesn’t just go writing 1 billion people (today, many more throughout history) off as mental cases. And, furthermore, you are raising great questions not just the tiring and redunant: if God is so good, why is there suffering?

God bless your heart! You make loving atheists so much easier

 

[1inICXC]

It has not, because I know I am not ever going to want children. That’s as rock-solid a position as there is for me. That’s a decision I’ve been ready to make for years. My position on children is simple: Not now, not ever. I know that there is no way in heck that I am ever changing my position on wanting to spend 20 years of my life taking care of someone.

o.

How about 20 years after that, when THEY will be taking care of you? Not that anyone should have children for the sole purpose of being taken care of in old age.

I think we should all cut you some slack, you are still at the age when you think that x and y will NEVER change. Life has a way of teaching each and everyone of us at some point to NEVER say NEVER. I’m not much older than you but I got that lesson already so I won’t engage in your debate about the children situation but do remember my words… When you have the wrong position on something, you will always have AT LEAST ONE, occasion to reconsider and there will be a time of regret- this is not a threat

A friend of my mother’s- late 50s- never wanted children and, “fortunately” for him, neither did his wife. Even more “fortunately” they never conceived once. The guy converted about 5 years ago and since then has started to LOVE kids beyond words and would wish for othing more than to be a grandfather. His wife never converted ( from atheism) but, some stray kitty made her way into their home half a year ago and after caring for her for some time she became really attached to her, and, with time, that also developed into a love for children- young ones mostly.

Now, I only hope you won’t be 60 by the time you reconsider
God bless!

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2;8544981:

*A Josephite marriage is granted for the purposes of gaining holiness not for the depraved reasons you propose. I don’t see why you need the blessing of the Church considering that God’s will mean zilch to you. *

It’s against forum rules to question the sincerity of another’s beliefs, and uncalled for in this case anyway. From what I can tell, being a faithful Catholic is important to Nighthawk. He doesn’t agree with this teaching, so is trying to find a way around the rule. He thinks he found one. He did not, but how about we charitably explain it to him instead of questioning his ability to abstain or his faith in God? As I said a few pages back, discussion helped me understand why the Church teaches this so let’s engage him in discussion, not insult him.

Let me explain why what I said did not break forum rules.

When I questioned the sincerity of Nighthawks belief, it is based on what he has stated himself. He said that he considers children a curse. If that is so, then that makes his expressed belief in God, and in Catholic belief highly questionable.

Catholic belief is grounded on the Bible - the Bible that says children are a blessing. He on the other hand has a very disordered and evil view of children and thus contrary to Catholic belief. Therefore I can rightly question his feigned honoring of God when it is so obvious that God’s will mean nothing to Him based on what he has said so far.

A person who has determined that they will not have children (because children are a curse), and for whom this is a non-negotiable point is not Christian. How can one claim to be Christian and at the same time decide that God has absolutely no say in this matter? More to the point, how can can one call oneself Catholic and yet think that the apex of creation is actually a curse? Being Christian means believing Christian teaching. Being Catholic means believing Catholic teaching even when we fail to live up to these beliefs.

Nighthawk needs to wake up and smell the stench of his depraved belief.

He calls children a curse totally obvlivious of the fact that in doing so he is saying that he is a curse himself.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…I think we should all cut you some slack, you are still at the age when you think that x and y will NEVER change. Life has a way of teaching each and everyone of us at some point to NEVER say NEVER. I’m not much older than you but I got that lesson already so I won’t engage in your debate about the children situation but do remember my words… When you have the wrong position on something, you will always have AT LEAST ONE, occasion to reconsider and there will be a time of regret- this is not a threat …

I agree. Having been 23 once and now being several years removed from it, I know that time and experience have a way of changing and maturing a person. There is a reason why most of us catch ourselves saying at least one something or other either our Mother or Father said or used to say and it is something we thought we ourselves would NEVER say, and yet we do, don’t we?.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Hello, here is a theoretical scenario.
A young married couple temporarily delayed to have babies due to their economical and social reasons. A couple of years later they come to a conclusion that having babies would drive them nuts so they don’t have babies.
Did they do anything wrong according to the Church’s teaching?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Hello, here is a theoretical scenario.
A young married couple temporarily delayed to have babies due to their economical and social reasons. A couple of years later they come to a conclusion that having babies would drive them nuts so they don’t have babies.
Did they do anything wrong according to the Church’s teaching?

The marriage must be open to life to be valid. If either or both parties decide not to be open to life, there cannot be a valid marriage. NFP must be taught with the admonition that if used with a contraceptive mentality, that constitutes grave matter.

 

[Jaaanosik]

The marriage must be open to life to be valid. If either or both parties decide not to be open to life,** there cannot be a valid marriage.** NFP must be taught with the admonition that if used with a contraceptive mentality, that constitutes grave matter.

Who says so?

 

[PatriceA]

Who says so?

If they were married in a Catholic wedding ceremony, the teachings of the Catholic Church says so.

 

[SwizzleStick]

Who says so?

The Church says so. Read the Catechism. Then, please read the thread, my post #333 is quoted below.

In order for Catholics to be validly married:

"…Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority. "…

Source: nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

Then do a search on CAF and read a few other threads on the topic. Here are a couple, but there are more.

Marriage without accepting children
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=524555

Must a married couple attempt to have children?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=466517

 

[salusanimarum17]

huh? I don’t rule all those things out. I just disagree with the rule that if you intend to not have children, you can’t get married or if you do somehow get around that rule, your marriage is not valid anyway.
It’s only if you look at it from a Catholic perspective that you understand why the rule exists. From a secular perspective, the rule is pointless. As an atheist, I did not understand it. An atheist sees no reason to accept that rule and feels sorry for people who abstain completely, or have children they didn’t want to have bc NFP failed or who stress out about going to hell bc of a contraceptive mindset. They go through all this suffering in an effort to get to heaven which IMO doesn’t even exist.

Although I am still an atheist, I understand it better now, but only in religious context. If I put myself in a theist’s shoes, if I “pretend” (in my mind) to be a Catholic, I get it.

All the things I mentioned are either essential elements or properties of marriage, unless I am mistaken. Why should only the one regarding children be considered “dumb”? And, if that one can be called “dumb,” why can’t the rest of them be similarly labeled?

 

[salusanimarum17]

It was sarcasm

Thanks for noticing. I thought it was obviously such.

 

[samiam1611]

All the things I mentioned are either essential elements or properties of marriage, unless I am mistaken. Why should only the one regarding children be considered “dumb”? And, if that one can be called “dumb,” why can’t the rest of them be similarly labeled?

It’s not that having children is dumb…it’s the Church being so strict on that rule that I disagree with. There are no compromises - i.e. if you are adament about not having your own children, but are willing or intend to adopt. Nope. Can’t get married. It’s gotta be your kids that you agree to raise.

Another example…a man and a woman have a child out of wedlock. Later, they want to get married, but do not want to have any more kids. The Church will refuse that marriage as well. That’s dumb that a child’s parents cannot get married simply because they don’t want any more children.

I don’t mean to be insulting, I am just expressing my opinion, but yes, it is dumb that if a man and woman fall in love, have similar values, want to spend their rest of their lives together and are perfectly suited for marriage in every way, except neither one is willing to have and raise children, they are not allowed to get married in the Catholic Church. It’s not fair and I feel sorry for people who feel obliged to follow that rule and who have to break up with their true love bc of it. I don’t know how often that happens. Maybe people lie to their priests, and get married anyway.

 

[Birdpreacher]

It’s not that having children is dumb…it’s the Church being so strict on that rule that I disagree with. There are no compromises - i.e. if you are adament about not having your own children, but are willing or intend to adopt. Nope. Can’t get married. It’s gotta be your kids that you agree to raise.

That cant be right, so if a guy loses his sexual reproduction organs in an accident then he cant get married, adopt and raise the kids catholic?

I

 

[Corki]

That cant be right, so if a guy loses his sexual reproduction organs in an accident then he cant get married, adopt and raise the kids catholic?

I

That would be correct. If a man is permanently impotent, he may not validly marry. His intent to raise kids is not a factor; he is simply unable to contract a marriage.

 

[Birdpreacher]

So even if they love each other, if a man were to get his sexual organ blown off in Iraq, the Chruch will not marry him and his fiancee? If he were already married could his wife leave him?(assuming that they have already consumated the marriage)

 

[Corki]

So even if they love each other, if a man were to get his sexual organ blown off in Iraq, the Chruch will not marry him and his fiancee? If he were already married could his wife leave him?(assuming that they have already consumated the marriage)

Anything that happens later in the marriage does not invalidate it. So, no, it would not be grounds for his wife to leave him. The only valid grounds for separation are danger to the other spouse or the children (including financial danger).

Impotence is an impediment to marriage.

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

 

[SwizzleStick]

So even if they love each other, if a man were to get his sexual organ blown off in Iraq, the Chruch will not marry him and his fiancee? …

They would not be able to marry in the Church.

…If he were already married could his wife leave him?(assuming that they have already consumated the marriage)

Death is the only thing that can end a marriage.

 

[Birdpreacher]

So if Iraqi vet with wound that makes him impotent comes back and shacks up with his fiancee is that sinful? I mean they cant get married but they love each other, what should they do?

 

[SwizzleStick]

So if Iraqi vet with wound that makes him impotent comes back and shacks up with his fiancee is that sinful? I mean they cant get married but they love each other, what should they do?

I don’t want to derail the thread and I also don’t know how to answer your questions, but below is a link to a recent Q&A from the “Ask an Apologist” section of the thread. Also, I think the topic has been discussed many times on CAF if you want to do a search on the topic.

Can an impotent couple kiss?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=610173

 

[Birdpreacher]

I don’t want to derail the thread and I also don’t know how to answer your questions, but below is a link to a recent Q&A from the “Ask an Apologist” section of the thread. Also, I think the topic has been discussed many times on CAF if you want to do a search on the topic.

Can an impotent couple kiss?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=610173

I read it and it seemed pretty heartless. Surely the Church has got a better position then this. I love the RCC but if this is set in stone doctrine, I am gonna have a hard time swallowing it (not that I wont adhere to the Church at the end of the day) but really what a sad decry on matters of the heart.

Heck if you sent a doctor from today to Abraham and Sara in the OT he would prolly declare him or her permanately incapable of having any future babies yet they did through God.