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

[samiam1611]

also, my original post was pretty thought out and revised a few times but my subsequent posts have kind of just been my random thoughts lol like the whole praying for a miscarriage thing. that’s a really weird thing to say.

 

[dans0622]

did we ever come to a conclusion on how come it’s okay for a couple where one or both of the people are knowingly infertile to get married? as long as they are open to life blah blah blah

If I know I don’t want to have [my own] children, is it okay to purposely go out of my way to find an infertile man to love and marry? i’m gathering that my desire to not have children (note I didn’t say lack of desire to have children) means I could not enter into a valid Catholic marriage, no matter my reasons or circumstances.

Hello samiam1611,

I will replace the “blah blah blah” with the following: “In other words, as long as they mutually give and accept the perpetual and exclusive right to the body and to acts that are, in themselves, apt for the generation of offspring.” This is the essential point. If a guy says “I want to not have children.” but hands over this “right to the body” and the gift of his body, it would be hard to say that he is not validly married.

Your second paragraph’s conclusion is basically correct. But, if it were to happen that you were getting married in the Church and you said all the right words, everyone (including “the Church”) would presume that you were validly married.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[TheRealJuliane]

also, my original post was pretty thought out and revised a few times but my subsequent posts have kind of just been my random thoughts lol like the whole praying for a miscarriage thing. that’s a really weird thing to say.

Just trying to yank our chains a bit then?

I’ll let others continue this discussion because what I have to say at this point would not be charitable at all.

 

[samiam1611]

Just trying to yank our chains a bit then?

I’ll let others continue this discussion because what I have to say at this point would not be charitable at all.

oh no, i didn’t mean to yank your chain, my bad. i was basically trying to come up with the most extreme closed-to-parenthood-yet-open-to-life thing that i could think of. as a way of acknowledging/showing my understanding that the open to life thing is not negotiable…but still trying to come up with a scenario that circumvents the rule. it is kind of just for the heck of it at this point…but i don’t mean i’m trying to mess with you, I just want to know how you feel (with explanations). do you know what i mean? it’s like a curiosity thing kind of. i swear it’s not like malicious or whatever. malicious isn’t the right word but whatever the adjective version of yank your chain is. i want to understand your faith, your personal feelings, not just the facts/official rules. I don’t know why I’m mostly only interested in Catholics’ opinions, especially since I’m not particularly trying to become one or particularly trying to change my opinion to agree with yours. It’s kind of like, “well I feel this way, for these reasons, and some people feel this other way, but I don’t know their reason (or can’t understand it) and would like to know.” People aren’t so interested in hearing my reasons hehe but oh well. That isn’t my purpose for doing this.

 

[samiam1611]

Hello samiam1611,

I will replace the “blah blah blah” with the following: “In other words, as long as they mutually give and accept the perpetual and exclusive right to the body and to acts that are, in themselves, apt for the generation of offspring.” This is the essential point. If a guy says “I want to not have children.” but hands over this “right to the body” and the gift of his body, it would be hard to say that he is not validly married.

Well said. I didn’t mean blah blah blah like sarcastically or anything, just didn’t feel like thinking of the exact wording i meant. clearly you know what i mean as i assumed you would

 

[plinko]

The basis for expressing my difficulty with the Church’s position on allowing someone who is fertile to marry someone who is infertile is that it seems to directly oppose the stated requirements of marital sex, that it be procreative and unitive, when it’s already known beforehand that intercourse will not be open to procreation (short of a miracle from God). It’s not that I oppose infertile people marrying. It’s that I have yet to see an explanation for allowing it that makes sense in view of the Church’s teaching about marital sex. I’m searching for an explanation that shows the marital sex requirement is consistent.

I’m with you on this. I’m infertile with 0% chance of pregnancy (I have no ovaries). I get the sympathetic “Aww, you could be blessed with a miracle”, but really, fertile people have no idea how offensive that is. And the thing is, they will never truly understand unless they go back in time and remove their own gonads. But seeing as that’s just as impossible as me getting pregnant…

The kicker is, I’m lucky because I never wanted kids in the first place. It still stings to know that the option is gone, but really, kids are not something that I’m called to do. Funnily enough, I’ll be working with kids for the rest of my life (I love working with them, not raising them). So just because someone has an aversion to kids of their own doesn’t mean they hate kids. I just know that my place on this earth is helping the kids that are already here, not cooking up some of my own. And I can cheat the whole birth control/NFP thing. What a lucky duck I am.

So after explaining this on countless threads–the fact that I want to marry my boyfriend but we are in no way “open to life”–has sparked huge debates. What I’ve discovered, Momor, is that the Church has made up its own definition to the words “procreate” and “procreation”. A dictionary defines those words as meaning ‘to beget and conceive’ and ‘the act or process of conceiving’, respectively. So by those definitions, an infertile couple cannot marry; they can never procreate in the true definition of the word. The Church has changed the meaning of procreate to mean “open to the slim possibility that maybe one day your gametes will form a kid. Maybe.” This is where I see fault. The Church has made its own definition to suit its purposes to allow infertile people to marry.

My marriage will never be procreative or open to life. It would be like saying that your marriage should be open to a threesome. Why be open to something that will NEVER HAPPEN?

I have yet to get a good explanation about this “procreation” thing. People typically get mad at me for “arguing semantics” and using ad hominem attacks because this is a topic near and dear to my heart. So if someone can address this in an intelligent way, I’d appreciate it.

I’m gonna have the best UNITIVE marriage I possibly can, procreation be darned!

 

[Petergee]

in response to several of the most recent posts:
thanks for your concern on me getting blocked hehe. i was/am concerned about the things i’m saying being unpopular. i try to keep it polite and not like anti-Catholic. no one has accused me of being way out of line (attitude towards Catholicism-wise) so i guess i’m doing an okay job of that, and as i think i mentioned, if anyone feels offended by what i say, just let me know, it’s not my intention and just by pointing it out to me it is a learning experience for me. i’m not Catholic if you haven’t figured that out yet, I just am interested in educating myself on the Catholic way of things on some particular subjects. (I am surrounded by Catholicism at my work and ignored it since I started working there several years ago until about 6 months ago.)
About the hating kids thing, I should stress that a lot of my questions/scenarios are purely hypothetical (i agree that would be a very “strange course of action”). For instance, my boyfriend and I are nowhere near getting engaged–>married. he barely even says i love you even though it’s been over 3 years! So he’s probably not the one I’m going to marry. also I am kind of exaggerating my dislike (“anger, hatred”) of kids. It’s for the sake of discussion. so i’m not saying prayer is NOT what i need (i would never turn down someone praying for me!), i just don’t want you to be toooo concerned like omg this girl is so messed up, why isn’t God there for her right now?!

I see why she thought that, but for what it’s worth, I don’t mind at all you asking hypothetical questions to try and work out what Catholic principles would lead to in unlikely situations. Some people have taken offence when I’ve done it too.

My reaction to "What if your own mother and father had felt that way about YOU??? Ever think [of] it [in] those terms?? " is I’m reminded of this joke I heard once: “learn from your parents’ mistake: use birth control.” Not a very Catholic oriented joke! but still made me chuckle when I first heard it.

Whether someone is Catholic or atheist or whatever, I wouldn’t even call that a joke, it sounds like a hateful insult. And yes I know sometimes in some subcultures such insults are seen as a mark of friendship. e.g. here in Oz a man might call his best mate
“a bstrd” and his mate will smile at that.

 

[Petergee]

I know you said you have medical conditions that you might pass on to your children. No child is perfect but we can’t create perfect children - that is called eugenics. Both my sons need eyesight correction. One has asthma, one has celiac disease (can’t eat wheat, barley, rye). One has weird double-jointed elbows (!). One has a large gap between his great toe and the next one down, which makes his feet look weird.

Hey, that’s not weird, everyone in my family has feet like that. It’s a great advantage to an Aussie - makes it much easier to slip your thongs on and off!

 

[Petergee]

So after explaining this on countless threads–the fact that I want to marry my boyfriend but we are in no way “open to life”–has sparked huge debates. What I’ve discovered, Momor, is that the Church has made up its own definition to the words “procreate” and “procreation”. A dictionary defines those words as meaning ‘to beget and conceive’ and ‘the act or process of conceiving’, respectively. So by those definitions, an infertile couple cannot marry; they can never procreate in the true definition of the word. The Church has changed the meaning of procreate to mean “open to the slim possibility that maybe one day your gametes will form a kid. Maybe.” This is where I see fault. The Church has made its own definition to suit its purposes to allow infertile people to marry.

My marriage will never be procreative or open to life. It would be like saying that your marriage should be open to a threesome. Why be open to something that will NEVER HAPPEN?

I have yet to get a good explanation about this “procreation” thing. People typically get mad at me for “arguing semantics” and using ad hominem attacks because this is a topic near and dear to my heart. So if someone can address this in an intelligent way, I’d appreciate it.

The Church uses the exact same dictionary definition of “procreate” that everyone else uses. The trouble here is that you are ignoring the word “open”. The Church doesn’t say “every married couple has to procreate children”. It says only that every married couple must be open to the procreation of children. Even if it’s a million to one chance or even less. Just like it’s probably a billion to one chance that I could be elected the next Pope. But if I was, I’d be open to it. And yes, there have been very rare cases where a woman who has had her ovaries removed has conceived a baby.

I’m gonna have the best UNITIVE marriage I possibly can, procreation be darned!

If you did, then it wouldn’t really be a marriage.

 

[dans0622]

… The Church has changed the meaning of procreate to mean “open to the slim possibility that maybe one day your gametes will form a kid. Maybe.” … My marriage will never be procreative or open to life. …

Hello plinko,

The Church does not define “procreate” in that manner, either theoretically or practically. I can’t say much more than I’ve already said earlier in this thread but every marriage is, by definition, procreative. That is, every marriage is ordered to the good of offspring. Whether or not there are ever any children born of a marriage is does not matter and it does not change the nature and purposes of marriage. Consent, given at the moment of the exchange of vows, makes marriage. Not children or the lack thereof. Not ovaries or the lack thereof.

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[plinko]

The Church uses the exact same dictionary definition of “procreate” that everyone else uses. The trouble here is that you are ignoring the word “open”. The Church doesn’t say “every married couple has to procreate children”. It says only that every married couple must be open to the procreation of children. Even if it’s a million to one chance or even less. Just like it’s probably a billion to one chance that I could be elected the next Pope. But if I was, I’d be open to it. And yes, there have been very rare cases where a woman who has had her ovaries removed has conceived a baby.

1. I’d be very interested in a case study of a woman conceiving without ovaries, not as proof of your point or mine, but just for pure scientific curiosity. Do you have a link?
2. According to people posting here, no, the Church does not have the same definition. Here’s the catechism itself, straight from the Church’s mouth.

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”[84]

People on this thread, and elsewhere, argue that when the Church says a marriage is “procreative”, it is “ordered to the possibility of conception”. This is NOT the definition of procreative. To procreate means “to make offspring”, not “open to the potential of offspring”. There is a difference that people on this thread are failing to see. So when the catechism defines a marriage as unitive AND procreative, they are insisting that couples procreate. It would be a different story if they defined marriage as unitive and open to offspring, but no. The terminology is wrong. There’s no other way to put it. Can you at least see where I’m coming from?

1. Let’s say hypothetically, a couple cannot conceive. What does it matter whether they are “open to life”? If people accuse me of arguing semantics in point #2 above, how is this any different? Again, saying that I will conceive is a huge slap in the face to me, as if I’m being looked down on for my inabilities and you (general you, none of this is actually directed at you alone!) feel sorry for me. I don’t need to have a kid to feel self worth. With that said, I am 1 billion percent sure that I will not have a child. Telling me that I might is an insult and a lie. So who cares whether I’m open to life or not? Sure, I’m open to life. I’m also open to breathing underwater and having lunch on Pluto. This “open to life” phrase is flung around so much that I’m unsure if people actually understand what it means.

 

[SonCatcher]

1. I’d be very interested in a case study of a woman conceiving without ovaries, not as proof of your point or mine, but just for pure scientific curiosity. Do you have a link?
2. According to people posting here, no, the Church does not have the same definition. Here’s the catechism itself, straight from the Church’s mouth.

People on this thread, and elsewhere, argue that when the Church says a marriage is “procreative”, it is “ordered to the possibility of conception”. This is NOT the definition of procreative. To procreate means “to make offspring”, not “open to the potential of offspring”. There is a difference that people on this thread are failing to see. So when the catechism defines a marriage as unitive AND procreative, they are insisting that couples procreate. It would be a different story if they defined marriage as unitive and open to offspring, but no. The terminology is wrong. There’s no other way to put it. Can you at least see where I’m coming from?

1. Let’s say hypothetically, a couple cannot conceive. What does it matter whether they are “open to life”? If people accuse me of arguing semantics in point #2 above, how is this any different? Again, saying that I will conceive is a huge slap in the face to me, as if I’m being looked down on for my inabilities and you (general you, none of this is actually directed at you alone!) feel sorry for me. I don’t need to have a kid to feel self worth. With that said, I am 1 billion percent sure that I will not have a child. Telling me that I might is an insult and a lie. So who cares whether I’m open to life or not? Sure, I’m open to life. I’m also open to breathing underwater and having lunch on Pluto. This “open to life” phrase is flung around so much that I’m unsure if people actually understand what it means.

CCC1601 is the introduction to the section on marriage and as such is a statement of norm. Keep reading and you will find further details and teaching on exceptional situations:

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.

 

[SonCatcher]

Samiam - Bottom line is it is your life and you can live it any way you want to. If you want to get married in a church - Go For It!!! Don’t allow other people to dictate to you the way you live your life.

And careful…apparently disagreeing public on a public debate forum will get you sent to “time out”

Is it?

Can you?

If you are redeemed by Christ, then shouldn’t we say that your life is now His?

If your life is His, it seems more fitting to live the way He would want; correct?

 

[plinko]

CCC1601 is the introduction to the section on marriage and as such is a statement of norm. Keep reading and you will find further details and teaching on exceptional situations:

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.

That is irrelevant to the point at hand. The Church gave a definition and then, as an afterthought, listed people (infertile individuals) that are, for some reason, exempt from the definition.

It’s kind of like if I said that I was having a party and only girls were invited. But Bob can come too, because he’s cool and can’t help that he’s a guy. That’s what I feel the Church is saying. They define marriage under explicit terms and then decide that an entire subset of people is exempt from the definition for some (still mysterious to me) reason.

Here is my point, stated for something like the fifth time. Procreation means the act of making offspring. To procreate means to conceive (gametes fusing). Nowhere in those two definitions is the mention of “openness to life”. The definitions are the physical processes of forming a baby. By those definitions, the church has contradicted itself. Infertile couples should not be allowed to marry under the church’s premise. And yet, the Church has made a special exception for one reason or another.

As a woman who wants to marry, I will admit that I’m cool with the Church’s contradiction. But it is still a point that I will never understand.

 

[Petergee]

1. I’d be very interested in a case study of a woman conceiving without ovaries, not as proof of your point or mine, but just for pure scientific curiosity. Do you have a link?

No I don’t offhand but my point is no matter how unlikely it is, you can still be open to it.

1. According to people posting here, no, the Church does not have the same definition. Here’s the catechism itself, straight from the Church’s mouth.

People on this thread, and elsewhere, argue that when the Church says a marriage is “procreative”, it is “ordered to the possibility of conception”. This is NOT the definition of procreative. To procreate means “to make offspring”, not “open to the potential of offspring”. There is a difference that people on this thread are failing to see. So when the catechism defines a marriage as unitive AND procreative, they are insisting that couples procreate. It would be a different story if they defined marriage as unitive and open to offspring, but no. The terminology is wrong. There’s no other way to put it. Can you at least see where I’m coming from?

Sorry but I’m afraid what I see is that it’s you who is failing to see the words “ordered toward” in that quote from the Catechism. In this context “ordered toward” effectively means the same as “open to”. The Church does not think that “Procreate” includes the word "“open to” or “ordered toward”, that’s why she adds them in such sentences. The Church most certainly does not insist that couples procreate!

1. Let’s say hypothetically, a couple cannot conceive. What does it matter whether they are “open to life”? If people accuse me of arguing semantics in point #2 above, how is this any different? Again, saying that I will conceive is a huge slap in the face to me, as if I’m being looked down on for my inabilities and you (general you, none of this is actually directed at you alone!) feel sorry for me. I don’t need to have a kid to feel self worth.

That’s Ok I don’t take it personally as I have never told you that you will conceive, much less told you that you need a kid to feel self worth. Anybody who told you that, knowing your condition, is very uncharitable and not a good Catholic.

 

[Petergee]

That is irrelevant to the point at hand. The Church gave a definition and then, as an afterthought, listed people (infertile individuals) that are, for some reason, exempt from the definition.

It’s kind of like if I said that I was having a party and only girls were invited. But Bob can come too, because he’s cool and can’t help that he’s a guy. That’s what I feel the Church is saying. They define marriage under explicit terms and then decide that an entire subset of people is exempt from the definition for some (still mysterious to me) reason.

Here is my point, stated for something like the fifth time. Procreation means the act of making offspring. To procreate means to conceive (gametes fusing). Nowhere in those two definitions is the mention of “openness to life”. The definitions are the physical processes of forming a baby. By those definitions, the church has contradicted itself. Infertile couples should not be allowed to marry under the church’s premise. And yet, the Church has made a special exception for one reason or another.

As a woman who wants to marry, I will admit that I’m cool with the Church’s contradiction. But it is still a point that I will never understand.

There is no contradiction and no special exception. The Church does not tell **anybody **that he must procreate.

 

[plinko]

didn’t see the above…my bad. Sorry about that!

 

[SonCatcher]

That is irrelevant to the point at hand. The Church gave a definition and then, as an afterthought, listed people (infertile individuals) that are, for some reason, exempt from the definition.

It’s kind of like if I said that I was having a party and only girls were invited. But Bob can come too, because he’s cool and can’t help that he’s a guy. That’s what I feel the Church is saying. They define marriage under explicit terms and then decide that an entire subset of people is exempt from the definition for some (still mysterious to me) reason.

Here is my point, stated for something like the fifth time. Procreation means the act of making offspring. To procreate means to conceive (gametes fusing). Nowhere in those two definitions is the mention of “openness to life”. The definitions are the physical processes of forming a baby. By those definitions, the church has contradicted itself. Infertile couples should not be allowed to marry under the church’s premise. And yet, the Church has made a special exception for one reason or another.

As a woman who wants to marry, I will admit that I’m cool with the Church’s contradiction. But it is still a point that I will never understand.

Infertility has been an issue for millennia and the Church is well aware of it. CCC 1654 is written to address that well-known issue. The apparent contradiction only comes from reinterpreting the Church’s ancient teaching through the lens of modern medicine.

It is only in recent decades that we have been able to determine that someone before (s)he even attempts to have a child. The Church did not change her teaching based on the change in medical knowledge. People who are found to be infertile via modern medicine would have been presumed otherwise without such knowledge so marriage is not prevented them.

 

[plinko]

Infertility has been an issue for millennia and the Church is well aware of it. CCC 1654 is written to address that well-known issue. The apparent contradiction only comes from reinterpreting the Church’s ancient teaching through the lens of modern medicine.

It is only in recent decades that we have been able to determine that someone before (s)he even attempts to have a child. The Church did not change her teaching based on the change in medical knowledge. People who are found to be infertile via modern medicine would have been presumed otherwise without such knowledge so marriage is not prevented them.

I find that to be… it’s hard to describe the word I’m looking for… maybe primeval? This is one example of many where the Church has shrugged at modern medicine instead of applying knowledge to teaching and even saying, “hey, we might need to take a fresh look at this”.

Additionally, the Catechism says this:

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.

It says nothing about being “open to life” or “making babies” or anything. It just says “not granted children”. Could it be that you can *choose *not to have children? The statement quoted does not imply that one must be open to life. I’m just seeing way too many contradictions.

I know I don’t have the majority’s outlook on this forum. I only bring these things up to see if I can be persuaded. The more that I am here on this forum, though, the more convinced I am that I’m no longer a Catholic; I don’t think my beliefs are budging. This, and condoms, and gay marriage, and the scandals… I don’t know if this is the place for me. But I digress. Thanks for your intelligent (name removed by moderator)ut and putting up with a (presumably annoying) dissenter.

 

[GraceDK]

The marital embrace must be both unitive and procreative. If one of these is missing, the act is not respected but is an act of lust instead of an act of authentic love.

Anyone who engages in sex must recognize the innate nature of the sexual act as an act of the procreative power. Its a reproductive power and must as such be respected. To be procreative is the nature of the act, and we have to respect this order of God in nature, and not make sexuality something which has merely to do with pleasure and recreation.

Persons who don’t desire children have no business engaging in the functions of the body which are directly by nature aimed at procreation.

Mutual masturbation - sex closed off to true mutual selfgiving, and becoming one flesh - is below the dignity of spousal love and will end in the objectification of one spouse by the other.

These are the teaching of the Church. The OP seems to not believe in the Bible as Revelation and can thus have little motivation to respect nature as having intrinsic goals that God as creator has put into them. These ends must not be manipulated and frustrated.

Our bodies belong to God and will be with us in the resurrection.