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

[dans0622]

I feel like this may have been directed at me, so I guess I’ll respond. I’m not looking for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions. I’m trying to point out what seems to be a glaring contradiction in the hopes that the Catholic Church would loosen their restrictions on marriages, namely with barrier birth control (condoms). The language that the Church uses just doesn’t make sense. We have the technology to test and 100% confirm that a person is infertile and yet as long as they’re “open to life”, the marriage is valid?! Am I the only one who sees how silly that is? It’s a way for the Church to skirt the issue and allow infertile couples to still marry while enforcing the no condoms policy it has.

… It is because we are higher creatures that sex is more than just making babies and, I posit, an act that needs no procreation whatsoever.

Hello plinko,

My whole comment was directed at you, I suppose. Anyway, I wonder how you would define marriage. I also wonder how you would say marriage comes into being. For me, two people marry by consenting to a mutually beneficial covenant that is permanent and faithful; they must give and accept each other bodily, and exchange the right to those acts that are, in themselves, apt for the generation of offspring. If I may presume to say it, this is how the Catholic Church defines marriage and marital consent. A person who is proven to have, at the wedding, positively excluded any or all of these things would be considered to have consented to a relationship that is not marital. Simply because someone is sure he/she cannot have children does not automatically prevent him/her from expressing marital consent (as defined above). And, just because someone uses artificial birth control doesn’t mean that the Church automatically considers his/her marital consent to be invalid.

As far as your last comment, sure. At the same time, the conjugal act, per se, is naturally procreative (of, relating to, or directed toward procreation).

Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[roseofshannon]

You are correct that we all have a free will and can choose to live our lives according to any faith we like. There are over 20,000 varieties of Christianity to choose from. We can find a faith that conforms to our likes, or design a new one.

Practicing Catholics have chosen freely to conform ourselves the teachings of the Catholic Church which have been passed down from Jesus, rather than the other way around. No one makes us do this.

Most Catholics I know who are courageous enough to live this counter-cultural lifestyle have wrestled a great deal with issues like this, and have chosen to submit to the “yoke” of Christ because faith and reason have led them to do so. This “yoke” may seem like a burden, but when you compare it to the consequences of following the ways of the world and it’s empty promises, it is light–as Jesus promised. (For instance–NFP=dramatically lower divorce rate. Sex within marriage only=no STD’s…etc.)

However, if you only see the faith as a set of “rules” which must be obeyed or else, it’s a heavy burden which distorts the beauty of faith as a loving and trusting relationship with God. Often times this trust leads us to places we can’t readily understand, as with Abraham and his son Isaac, whom God told him to destroy.

You see, we believe that God is at work in all circumstances to lead us to greater holiness. How many times do people realize that some of life’s greatest tragedies turn out to be their greatest triumphs? This can happen if we accept God’s will and use what we perceive to be negatives to grow in virtue. When we demand that life always go our way, according to our designs, we become self-serving and it stunts our growth in virtue. When we accept what God is calling us to, we become other-oriented and grow in love, becoming more like God himself.

SamIAM, I understand your difficulties with kids, but keep in mind how very different it is with your own kids. That is what this mom, who formerly lived a lesbian lifestyle, discovered:
sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com/2009/05/babies.html

You might want to browse her website and book. I think you might find some of her views to be enlightening in that she found “freedom” in the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality. Many have found that the modern sexual liberty is truly a form of bondage in disguise.

 

[roseofshannon]

I’m trying to point out what seems to be a glaring contradiction in the hopes that the Catholic Church would loosen their restrictions on marriages, namely with barrier birth control (condoms). The language that the Church uses just doesn’t make sense. We have the technology to test and 100% confirm that a person is infertile and yet as long as they’re “open to life”, the marriage is valid?! Am I the only one who sees how silly that is? It’s a way for the Church to skirt the issue and allow infertile couples to still marry while enforcing the no condoms policy it has.

Plinko

With all due respect to your question, I guess I’m wondering why you are hoping the Church loosens it’s restrictions on condoms? There is a distinct difference in heart of those who are sterile through no fault of their own, and those who choose to use condoms to make themselves “sterile”. Also, one can join any number of other churches if this is what they really want.

I guess you argue that those who had operations are able to then enjoy their “sterility” so to speak, but they have to repent of their sin in their heart with true contrition, and probably would do well to find other ways to be in “the service of life” as penance (sharing their story of conversion of heart, adopting, volunteering…etc). Perhaps are you thinking that people would intentionally get an operation with the mind of then repenting and getting around the “rules”. That would be presumption. You don’t play games with God. Their heart would simply not be in the right place.

When someone wants to be Catholic, they give their WHOLE hearts to God and aren’t trying to find ways around “rules”.

This is where the biggest stumbling block to Christianity comes in: The Cross

All of these various scenarios in this thread are depicting crosses. The thing about our faith is that it guarantees there will be crosses. In fact, unlike other religions, even God Himself gets one! Plus he said that if we are to follow him, we have to “deny ourselves and pick up our cross”, not “indulge yourself and pick up your pillow”. Everyone is looking for a type of Christianity without a cross, but as I tell my kids, “If you run from your crosses, you know what you find…more crosses!”

The goal is holiness so that in the end, we look like Jesus. He shows us what real love is: sacrifice. The extent to which you are willing to sacrifice is the extent to which you really love. He obeyed even unto death, as did His apostles. We are called to the same kind of love. And He lived a celibate life as do our priests, so no one’s “getting off easy” or calling us to do something they are not willing to do themselves.

This call to holiness requires some difficult disciplines in much the same way a person seeking a great physique would require a difficult regimen. They would seek a personal trainer who would challenge them to high standards, rather than complain they are too hard and look for ways around their strict “rules”. Each discipline works on a different “muscle group” or virtue. The Catholic Church is just such a personal trainer for holiness. They don’t make up rules to make our lives miserable, they teach us disciplines to make our lives holy.

When we are required to give of ourselves, we grow in love and holiness. Once, when Mother Theresa was introduced to a family, they gave her all of their children’s names. When they came to their child who was paralyzed and in a wheelchair, they told his given name, but said, “We call him the Dr. of love…because he is teaching us all how to love.” He is there cross and their path to holiness, which is transformed into joy with love.

SamIAm, one final note, I am saddened to think that you would not want your children to inherit your genes. From what I have read of your posts, it seems clear to me that you are a very intelligent, humble seeker of truth and wisdom. You have shown kindness and deference even when others have not. People like you are the very kinds of people the world needs; much more than so called “beautiful people”. I encourage you to give God a chance, and give life a chance.

Here is an inspirational video of a man who found that the cross God gave him is also his greatest blessing! He travels the world, giving hope to high school students and young and old alike. He shows that it’s whats on the inside that counts. Most parents would have killed him before birth, but he is such an inspiration to me, and I’m so glad he was born:
youtube.com/watch?v=oGZYT50Bow4
lifewithoutlimbs.org/mediaroom/india-evangelism

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I feel like this may have been directed at me, so I guess I’ll respond. I’m not looking for ways to make the Catholic Church impose more restrictions. I’m trying to point out what seems to be a glaring contradiction in the hopes that the Catholic Church would loosen their restrictions on marriages, namely with barrier birth control (condoms). The language that the Church uses just doesn’t make sense. We have the technology to test and 100% confirm that a person is infertile and yet as long as they’re “open to life”, the marriage is valid?! Am I the only one who sees how silly that is? It’s a way for the Church to skirt the issue and allow infertile couples to still marry while enforcing the no condoms policy it has.

Additionally, I’d like to make another observation. It seems like a lot of the argument is **that we are higher beings with the power to rationalize and think through things beyond the abilities of our primate cousins. ** Thus, we should be able to not give into lust and temptation (because, sex outside of marriage or with a barrier is totally abusive and lustful ). But at the same time, people are saying that sex boils down to procreation and that’s why the Church is right. You can’t say that we have the cognitive capacity to transcend animal behavior and then compare a highly emotional act to its bare bones (pardon that pun). It is because we are higher creatures that sex is more than just making babies and, I posit, an act that needs no procreation whatsoever.

I think you should speak for yourself - none of my cousins are monkeys!

 

[samiam1611]

Thank you for your kind words, roseofshannon. I haven’t watched the video yet but I will when I get to my home computer.

 

[samiam1611]

It seems like a lot of the argument is that we are higher beings with the power to rationalize and think through things beyond the abilities of our primate cousins. Thus, we should be able to not give into lust and temptation (because, sex outside of marriage or with a barrier is totally abusive and lustful ). But at the same time, people are saying that sex boils down to procreation and that’s why the Church is right. You can’t say that we have the cognitive capacity to transcend animal behavior and then compare a highly emotional act to its bare bones (pardon that pun). It is because we are higher creatures that sex is more than just making babies and, I posit, an act that needs no procreation whatsoever.

As I am not Catholic, that is completely true to me. I also posit that the act, such as it is, having a unitive purpose that only us humans can appreciate, should not be restricted by the procreative purpose. Trying to look at it from a Catholic perspective as best I can, I’ve wondered why God made us the way we are, that is, physically capable of reproducing (no free will involved, it’s just the way He designed us - if there was free will involved I would will myself sterile!) yet did give us the free will to decide for ourselves if we want children. It’s like He said, yeah you can decide for yourself if you don’t want kids, but if you do decide on that, you’re sinning [when you purposely reduce or eliminate the possibility of pregnancy] by disobeying my order. If He feels so strongly about us procreating He should’ve made us like bunnies. But He didn’t make us like bunnies. He gave us a choice - but with only one “right” answer (a.k.a God-approved).

It’s like our very design is flawed. Either that, or the Catholic fathers were wrong! Ahhh I can’t say that can I? Ok maybe flawed/wrong are too strong of words. Can I call it a paradox? I’ve gotten one stop closer to understanding why Catholics feel the way they do on certain things - such as the statement “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” is **a lot more meaningful ** to me now than the first time I read it. But I’m still trying to wrap my brain around why some of you are so accepting of the fact that without an openness to procreation, a marriage is not really a marriage (or some variation of that. not a valid Catholic marriage. not the kind God intended. you know what I mean). I know it’s bc (among other reasons) you have faith that the Church fathers interpreted God’s word correctly.

The goal is holiness so that in the end, we look like Jesus. He shows us what real love is: sacrifice. The extent to which you are willing to sacrifice is the extent to which you really love.
This call to holiness requires some difficult disciplines in much the same way a person seeking a great physique would require a difficult regimen. They would seek a personal trainer who would challenge them to high standards, rather than complain they are too hard and look for ways around their strict “rules”. Each discipline works on a different “muscle group” or virtue. The Catholic Church is just such a personal trainer for holiness. They don’t make up rules to make our lives miserable, **they teach us disciplines to make our lives holy.**When we are required to give of ourselves, we grow in love and holiness

That’s really well said. Put in a way not quite like others have. That perfectly articulated an explanation on why someone would choose to be Catholic even though it is such a restrictive religion. Why do people need a personal trainer? Because it’s hard to keep oneself on the difficult regime needed to attain a great physique. Why are people Catholic? Because it’s hard to become holy and Christ-like without the discipline the Catholic Church brings.
I could go on an on about why I do not want to be Catholic (a lot of it has to do with my lack of faith in the validity/authority of the Church fathers which is super important), but now I have a better understanding of those that don’t have this issue - those who only question why they said this or that, not if.

 

[plinko]

There is a distinct difference in heart of those who are sterile through no fault of their own, and those who choose to use condoms to make themselves “sterile”.

Is there? You assume that all sterile people want kids but can’t have them and all people who use condoms are fertile and don’t want them. That’s neither here nor there though.

The rest of your post was beautifully written and makes sense, even though I still fear that I disagree with it. You’re right though, there are any number of other churches that I can choose from. I truly thank you for your valuable (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[plinko]

I think you should speak for yourself - none of my cousins are monkeys!

Sometimes I think you love to find ways to disagree with me so that you can avoid responding to the bigger picture. Oh well, if all I can do is be here for your amusment, at least I’ve accomplished something.

What do you think about my premise otherwise? I would love to hear your opinion (no sarcasm). Everything from our opinions to our ages to our types of education are completely different; I feel like your viewpoint may actually shed some light of my supposed flawed system of thinking.

 

[roseofshannon]

plinko

Originally Posted by roseofshannon
There is a distinct difference in heart of those who are sterile through no fault of their own, and those who choose to use condoms to make themselves “sterile”.
Is there? You assume that all sterile people want kids but can’t have them and all people who use condoms are fertile and don’t want them.

No, it’s not that all sterile people want kids. It’s just that they are not actively pursuing to sterilize sex. People who use condoms usually are actively pursuing to sterilize sex, unless they have a STD or something. (Otherwise, why would they use them?)

God Bless!

 

[benedictus2]

The problem of the OP’s statement is that that one is saying “I love you, I want to be with you, I want to make your best days better and your worse days go away. I want to grow old with you, take care of you, but I DON’T want to have kids with you.”

That person is withholding something of himself and his love. Marriage requires a total giving of self with no reservation.

In short the OP is LYING AND LIVING A LIE.

 

[Peepers]

I have less to offer in wisdom than some of the more experienced members. I have lived long enough to know that I cannot predict where life will take me. Not wanting children now, does not necessarily mean that you will never want children. Besides, if you have a healthy and active sex life with your spouse, you might not have a choice in the matter.

 

[copperblade]

I don’t understand why, if the procreative purpose of intercourse can be set aside during times when pregnancy is not possible (post-menopause, naturally occuring infertility), why not all the time?

Because you’re not the one setting it aside. You are simply being subjected to reality. Your attitude toward being open to having children should be the same, when it isn’t possible.

Why does God give us the ability to think independently and rationally to decide for ourselves if we want children (as opposed to animals, who have a pure driven instinct to procreate) but if you choose to not want them, it is wrong?

You’re not required to want or have kids (or get married). So I really don’t see the inconsistency.

Why would God be so kind as to bring a special person into our lives, but forbid us from expressing our love in the physical way our bodies desire? He also gave us the desire to want to please each other. But He didn’t give us the desire to have children!

God does not forbid you to express your sexual desire, just as God does not forbid you to eat cake. But you are forbidden to eat only cake (gluttony) and exclude exercise or work (sloth) for obvious reasons. Maybe the reasons for the restrictions on your sexual drive (lust) are less clear, but the concept isn’t inconsistent. Your lack of desire to exercise or eat your vegetables or have kids, doesn’t mean it’s ok.

Why does He want to deny us from unifying our love because we don’t want children?

It is not the sexual act or the unity that is itself sinful. It is the avoidance of having children that is sinful. There is no desire to deny the sexual act. There is sin when you deny having children.

How could He possibly think a sexless, [and bound to be] frustrated marriage is better than a happy, contraceptive-using, childless-by-choice couple? Are people who don’t want children not allowed to marry?

People who don’t plan on having sex are also not supposed to get married.

I don’t see how denying my partner the gift of my body because it is a fertile time of my cycle is preferable to using contraception. Isn’t better to give MOST of myself than NONE of myself? It seems to me that NFP is in fact SUGGESTING that you refuse to give oneself - partially or entirely! What do you think?

I would suggest that this is the wrong way to even consider the problem–you are both making the decision on contraception. It’s marriage after all–it’s not supposed to be a case of you having to fulfill or deny some obligation to your companion. Again comparing it to food–if he always wants fast food, sometimes you gotta say no.

NFP is about moderation. NFP is also not allowed to avoid having children completely. The Church did not originally allow NFP, but eventually decided that since it involved cooperating with your natural biology it was not necessarily sinful to employ the technique. However, NFP can still be sinful.

How does completely abstaining from not only intercourse, but all sexually pleasing acts, embodies the marital covenant, but giving one’s body for the unitive act alone does not at least contribute to (even if it isn’t the embodiment of) the love that God gave us for each other?

You’re supposed to have sex and children if you’re married.

Why did He say chastity/abstinence is a virtue but then also say be fruitful and multiply? People who are abstinent are choosing not to receive His gift, and that is not a sin, in fact it is a virtue, so why is choosing not to receive his gift, but not be abstinent a sin?

Temperance is the answer to your paradox. Also chastity is the virtue, not abstinence. Chastity only means abstinence when you’re not married. Any time you receive such gifts, you are to receive them wholly as intended. Not with your own conditions.

One last question. It’s completely hypothetical. Are there any circumstances where contraception (not NFP, I mean the Pill or condoms or whatever) or sterilization would be approved?

There may be medical reasons, for example if you had two ectopic pregnancies, you’d probably end up sterile without it being sinful. But that’s not an approval–that’s something out of your control.

IF the couple agreed to adopt or foster a child?

I’m fairly sure a priest doesn’t have the authority to OK the marriage. The issue of adoption and of sex are orthogonal. And you can’t barter one for the other.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these topics and I’d like to hear how you deal when your desires conflict with your beliefs.

Sorry the answers are short, I’m only allowed 6000 characters. I’m hoping you’ll read more into what I wrote.

I think everyone has to decide how they’re going to live their life, and follow their conscience to the best of their ability. This includes what your conscience tells you about following the Church (and to always seek to build a better conscience).

I would say most people have felt the Church’s teachings on sex are questionable at some point in their lives. The only thing you have to decide is how you’re going to approach it, how honestly you’re seeking the truth, and if you have enough humility to consider something may be true even if you don’t understand it. In the end, the choice is literally your God-given right.

 

[catharina]

Because you’re not the one setting it aside. You are simply being subjected to reality. Your attitude toward being open to having children should be the same, when it isn’t possible.

You’re not required to want or have kids (or get married). So I really don’t see the inconsistency.

God does not forbid you to express your sexual desire, just as God does not forbid you to eat cake. But you are forbidden to eat only cake (gluttony) and exclude exercise or work (sloth) for obvious reasons. Maybe the reasons for the restrictions on your sexual drive (lust) are less clear, but the concept isn’t inconsistent. Your lack of desire to exercise or eat your vegetables or have kids, doesn’t mean it’s ok.

It is not the sexual act or the unity that is itself sinful. It is the avoidance of having children that is sinful. There is no desire to deny the sexual act. There is sin when you deny having children.

People who don’t plan on having sex are also not supposed to get married.

I would suggest that this is the wrong way to even consider the problem–you are both making the decision on contraception. It’s marriage after all–it’s not supposed to be a case of you having to fulfill or deny some obligation to your companion. Again comparing it to food–if he always wants fast food, sometimes you gotta say no.

NFP is about moderation. NFP is also not allowed to avoid having children completely. The Church did not originally allow NFP, but eventually decided that since it involved cooperating with your natural biology it was not necessarily sinful to employ the technique. However, NFP can still be sinful.

You’re supposed to have sex and children if you’re married.

Temperance is the answer to your paradox. Also chastity is the virtue, not abstinence. Chastity only means abstinence when you’re not married. Any time you receive such gifts, you are to receive them wholly as intended. Not with your own conditions.

There may be medical reasons, for example if you had two ectopic pregnancies, you’d probably end up sterile without it being sinful.

I’m fairly sure a priest doesn’t have the authority to OK the marriage. The issue of adoption and of sex are orthogonal. And you can’t barter one for the other.

Sorry the answers are short, I’m only allowed 6000 characters. I’m hoping you’ll read more into what I wrote.

I think everyone has to decide how they’re going to live their life, and follow their conscience to the best of their ability. This includes what your conscience tells you about following the Church (and to always seek to build a better conscience).

I would say most people have felt the Church’s teachings on sex are questionable at some point in their lives. The only thing you have to decide is how you’re going to approach it, how honestly you’re seeking the truth, and if you have enough humility to consider something may be true even if you don’t understand it. In the end, the choice is literally your God-given right.

Impressive post.
Welcome to CA.

 

[copperblade]

Impressive post.
Welcome to CA.

Thanks, I’m reading some other posts and starting to think mine might have just been repetitive

 

[copperblade]

1. kids are annoying to me
2. i love dogs. any mothering instinct i have is expressed through taking care of my dog

No. 1 sets a precedent for personal desire based on how you feel about kids. If you think about it, this desire does not equate to any moral obligation.

No. 2 really doesn’t seem to have any bearing on the situation except for you being able to have companionship and exercise your mothering instinct. Dogs are obviously less annoying than people of any age because dogs are simpler. A fish is even less potentially annoying than a dog. And a book even less.

1. i think it’s narcisstic to want one’s own children when there are so many out there who already who need parents. (like, what, your genes are so awesome, you think you’re better than them?)
2. on the subject of genes…mine suck. my mom passed on her slow metabolism, frizzy hair, and bad skin to me. those characteristics of mine have caused me a lot of anguish. I know those problems pale in comparison to others but that doesn’t make me like them any more! anyway, why would i purposely bring a child into the world who will most likely be as miserable as me with their physical appearance?

How do you know your child will feel the same way (other than the possibility that you might impart that attitude to them)? Serious question, but rhetorical–only something I’d ask myself. If it were me, I’d be careful about my own opinion about the hand dealt to me. Frankly I think no. 4 is the source of most of the personal objections, with no. 1 contributing. No. 3 I think just follows naturally from 1 and 4.

I have a friend who has mild cerebral palsy. He isn’t Catholic, and I really don’t know the details of his intentions on having kids. But I do know he feels at least somewhat similar to you, and it’s understandable. Because of how you feel about your situation, it may lessen your culpability for sin. However the Church would still consider using contraception sinful at least up until no. 4.

1. i take several medications. they cannot be taken while pregnant. I have tried stopping each of these medications individually under my doctor’s direction and every single time the symptoms returned within a few days. (although i was on like 9 and now I’m only on like 6 bc 3 I was able to stop without the return of symptoms). in other words, either my baby would come out deformed or damaged, or I would spend the entire pregnancy very very sick. not to mention, the illness is genetic, and could likely be passed on to this poor kid.

You would definitely have to talk to a priest and/or your bishop to get guidance in a situation like this. That’s part of their job, and I doubt it would be a quick answer. I do not believe this is a clear-cut case of you having to drop all your medications so you can be married. While on medication you would have to consider your moral obligation to having sex at all. I don’t see how you could count on contraception or even sterilization working unless the sterilization was drastic.

Passing the genes onto your child is really just an extension of no. 4 again…

 

[benedictus2]

I think you should speak for yourself - none of my cousins are monkeys!

Note to self: Never ever try to get to know Plinkos family or invite them over to dinner. Banana prices are at an all time high and I rather like to keep them for myself

 

[benedictus2]

Because you’re not the one setting it aside. You are simply being subjected to reality. Your attitude toward being open to having children should be the same, when it isn’t possible.
v
v
v

I would say most people have felt the Church’s teachings on sex are questionable at some point in their lives. The only thing you have to decide is how you’re going to approach it, how honestly you’re seeking the truth, and if you have enough humility to consider something may be true even if you don’t understand it. In the end, the choice is literally your God-given right.

No. 1 sets a precedent for personal desire based on how you feel about kids. If you think about it, this desire does not equate to any moral obligation.
v
v
v

You would definitely have to talk to a priest and/or your bishop to get guidance in a situation like this. That’s part of their job, and I doubt it would be a quick answer. I do not believe this is a clear-cut case of you having to drop all your medications so you can be married. While on medication you would have to consider your moral obligation to having sex at all. I don’t see how you could count on contraception or even sterilization working unless the sterilization was drastic.

Passing the genes onto your child is really just an extension of no. 4 again…

Two excellent, well thought-out posts.!

Keep it coming!

 

[benedictus2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGZYT50Bow4
lifewithoutlimbs.org/mediaroom/india-evangelism

Thank you very much for these links.

 

[benedictus2]

That’s really well said. Put in a way not quite like others have. That perfectly articulated an explanation on why someone would choose to be Catholic even though it is such a restrictive religion.

Properly understood it is the most freeing religion because it is grounded on Truth. Truth really does set us free. It is the lies the enslave us and most people don’t even know how utterly imprisoned they are.

Study it and you will come to the same conclusion.

 

[benedictus2]

Sorry…I meant “A man”…not “this man”…I was kinda fired up when I was typing.

If everything in the Bible was “correct” then why has it been rewritten, edited, added too and subtracted from over the year. The Bible is a book of FAITH!!! If it was a true history book then it would be taught in Public Schools instead of having been banned

Can you tell me where and when the Bible was edited, added to and subtracted from over the years.

Can you also tell me what was edited out or in and what was added and subtracted?