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

[PatriceA]

If it makes you happy, enjoy.

When you say ‘there is no discord’ you mean I am supposed study Church’s teaching till I align my conscience according to it. Right?
Denying my own, condemning myself in the first place?
If your conscience tells you never question the Magisterium then you have to do it but if you think that there is no discord it does not mean everybody else has to have the same opinion.

You can certainly have a different opinion, BUT, that doesn’t mean you can receive a Sacrament (in this case Matrimony) and make any vows you don’t believe in. If you don’t believe you can be open to life, a vow made in the Sacrament of Matrimony, then don’t get married in the Catholic Church. Its that simple. You do not enter into a covenant believing in only part of the promises. Its either all or none.

 

[benedictus2]

If it makes you happy, enjoy.

When you say ‘there is no discord’ you mean I am supposed study Church’s teaching till I align my conscience according to it. Right?

If you abide by the Church’s teaching then there will be no discord because the Church will never teach you anything that will go against the Will of God. Our conscience is nothing more than that inner voice God implanted in us that shows us how to conforms our wills to His.

In this current age of the dictatorship of relativism, it is of great urgency that we learn to discern the trutths of God.

You shoul read that quote that I lifted from the source you gave. Conscience is not merely personal preference or bias or private judgment.

Denying my own, condemning myself in the first place?

Why would you condemn yourself? Only God condemns. What we need to do is find what God will and not merely follow our own distorted and depraved wills.

If your conscience tells you never question the Magisterium then you have to do it but if you think that there is no discord it does not mean everybody else has to have the same opinion.

Here is where your error lies. Conscience is not opinion. If your conscience tells you to do something that is in direct contrast to what the Magisterium teaches, it very, very, very highly likely that that is not really your conscience speaking - rather it is your rationalization to avoid acknowledging that what you are about to do is evil. So you lie to yourself and tell yourself that this is what your conscience is telling you to do.

 

[twoangels]

I want to get married, but I don’t want children.

By definition then, you do not want to be married then. What you want are the benefits to yourself of marriage: the companionship, the support, the sexual activity, maybe the dogs, without the responsibilities and duties. Marriage is a vocation. Its not a solution for loneliness.

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative.”
“Because of this secondary purpose, married couples have a right to engage in intercourse even when pregnancy is not a possible result.”
(These statements were not sequential so pretend it says procreative and unitive. In other words unitive is the secondary purpose.)

I don’t know where you’re getting the quote that the unitive aspect of sex is secondary to the procreative. I think whoever told you that is trying to come up with their own mixed up understanding of what the Church teaches. The unitive and procreative purposes of sex are both equally important. The thing is, it is just as disordered to suppress the procreative aspect of sex as it would be to suppress the unitive purpose of sex.

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? 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?

He doesn’t give us the ability to decide when children are conceived. All we can do is have sex or abstain from sex. The process of conception is completely an involuntary act. Conception is not intercourse, it is fertilization. The Church simply states that the connection between sex and conception cannot be divided. We have to understand that even when we are infertile, sexual acts are oriented toward procreation.

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

You could also ask: Why does God permit married couples to fall out of love? Why does he caused married people to fall in love with people who are not their spouses? I’d recommend reading “Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar”.

“The language of the body that is meant to express self-gift becomes mixed with another message, a contrary message—namely, the refusal to give oneself entirely.”
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?

That is true. If you approach NFP the way the world approaches contraceptives, NFP becomes a total refusal rather than a partial refusal. Some traditionalists Catholics therefore embrace the Church’s teachings against contraceptives, but reject NFP for the same reasons because they see NFP as the same as contraceptives.

But the difference is like this. Two brothers went to confession with plans on asking the priest two seemingly similiar questions. The first brother went into the confession and asked if it was ok to work on his homework while he was praying. The confessor told him “No, you should give yourself fully to your daily devotions to God and pray without distraction.” The second brother asked the same priest if it was ok to pray while he was doing his homework. The priest said “Absolutely. We should try to make every daily action of our lives a prayer and never put God on the sidelines.” What the priest advised in both occassions is correct. Praying while doing chores and doing chores while praying may look identical but they are two different things. The difference is subtle.

 

[Castello]

You could also ask: Why does God permit married couples to fall out of love? Why does he caused married people to fall in love with people who are not their spouses? I’d recommend reading “Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar”.

.

Free will.

Marriage can be perfectly valid and sacramental and no one “be in love”. Falling in and out of love is a term for the waxing and waning of romance/attraction.

Marriage that is based on something so transient as being “in love” is not going to last.

 

[twoangels]

Free will.

Marriage can be perfectly valid and sacramental and no one “be in love”. Falling in and out of love is a term for the waxing and waning of romance/attraction.

Marriage that is based on something so transient as being “in love” is not going to last.

??? Was it not clear that my question was rhetorical?

 

[Leegal]

You can certainly have a different opinion, BUT, that doesn’t mean you can receive a Sacrament (in this case Matrimony) and make any vows you don’t believe in. If you don’t believe you can be open to life, a vow made in the Sacrament of Matrimony, then don’t get married in the Catholic Church. Its that simple. You do not enter into a covenant believing in only part of the promises. Its either all or none.

Exactly. If you hold something back while receiving the sacrament you have not acted in good faith. In this case - the sacrament of marriage.

If the OP enters into a Catholic ceremony of marriage he will not have a valid Catholic marriage (which seems important to him) no matter the outward appearance of it being in Church, before a priest. He would have withheld the fact that he and his spouse do not intend to have children. If he is honest and tells the priest that fact during the interview (and the question will come up), the priest will refuse to marry them. So, the only way would be to lie – and that invalidates the sacrament.

 

[Leegal]

That’s not correct:

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/CONSC.TXT

I read this. My interpretation is “right” conscience is that it’s a “voice”, not a preference. To form that “right” conscience, one must first examine and study the Church’s teaching with a “ready and respecful allegiance of mind.” I take this to mean, you cannot reject something unless you have studied it with an open mind to the teaching – open to the possibility the teaching or the Church is Christ’s actual teaching, before negating or rejecting it. I think it begins with the proposition that the Church is correct before being proven wrong. As we know, it’s impossible to prove a negative.

It’s not a search for rejection, but being completely open to the teaching and still being unable to accept it. This tells me that a lot more study is required by Vatican II. It’s not enough to have the reasons why one does not accept a Church’s teaching, unless you are first open to the fact that the teaching is true and you are under obligation to research many sources, but after much study you still cannot accept the teaching. I also read that abortion is not one of these topics that one can study and decide for themselves. On this issue, the Catholic Church does not leave it to conscience.

Also, on other matters it’s important not to confuse conscience with “personal preference” – very easy to do.

My personal preference may to live with someone outside of marriage, but if after careful examination of everything that the Church teaches (with an open heart and mind to the Church), if I should then find that the teachings, Scripture, and by prayer, and counsel my mind begins to understand or accept even some part of the Church’s teachings (and the reasons for it), my preference cannot substitute for right or good conscience no matter how practical the argument might be for living together before marriage.

If this study leads to doubt of the preference (our presumed "conscience), then it was not right conscience that made me think that living together outside of marriage was my conscience. If one keeps an open mind to the study, I think it would become evident what is the right conscience and what is a preference. The deeper the study, the more obvious the distinction.

I wonder if people realize this, and then take the time to study an issue as required by before deciding that the decision is one of right conscience and not just a preference – easily mistaking their conscience for preference?

As to “conscience” – it also speaks to rejecting the secular despite the fact that things may be man’s law – such as Roe v. Wade or that it’s become generally acceptable for people to live together before marriage. A right conscience can reject (as some doctors have refused to perform abortions), man’s law or generally accepted societal practices.

 

[benedictus2]

By definition then, you do not want to be married then. What you want are the benefits to yourself of marriage: the companionship, the support, the sexual activity, maybe the dogs, without the responsibilities and duties. Marriage is a vocation. Its not a solution for loneliness.

I don’t know where you’re getting the quote that the unitive aspect of sex is secondary to the procreative. I think whoever told you that is trying to come up with their own mixed up understanding of what the Church teaches. The unitive and procreative purposes of sex are both equally important. The thing is, it is just as disordered to suppress the procreative aspect of sex as it would be to suppress the unitive purpose of sex.

He doesn’t give us the ability to decide when children are conceived. All we can do is have sex or abstain from sex. The process of conception is completely an involuntary act. Conception is not intercourse, it is fertilization. The Church simply states that the connection between sex and conception cannot be divided. We have to understand that even when we are infertile, sexual acts are oriented toward procreation.

You could also ask: Why does God permit married couples to fall out of love? Why does he caused married people to fall in love with people who are not their spouses? I’d recommend reading “Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar”.

That is true. If you approach NFP the way the world approaches contraceptives, NFP becomes a total refusal rather than a partial refusal. Some traditionalists Catholics therefore embrace the Church’s teachings against contraceptives, but reject NFP for the same reasons because they see NFP as the same as contraceptives.

But the difference is like this. Two brothers went to confession with plans on asking the priest two seemingly similiar questions. The first brother went into the confession and asked if it was ok to work on his homework while he was praying. The confessor told him “No, you should give yourself fully to your daily devotions to God and pray without distraction.” The second brother asked the same priest if it was ok to pray while he was doing his homework. The priest said “Absolutely. We should try to make every daily action of our lives a prayer and never put God on the sidelines.” What the priest advised in both occassions is correct. Praying while doing chores and doing chores while praying may look identical but they are two different things. The difference is subtle.

What a beautiful, lucid, well thought out reply! :clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[benedictus2]

I read this. My interpretation is “right” conscience is that it’s a “voice”, not a preference. .

And that in a nutshell is what Jaanoski missed. Which makes me think he did not read the entire article at all or maybe failed to understand it.

 

[Calliso]

By definition then, you do not want to be married then. What you want are the benefits to yourself of marriage: the companionship, the support, the sexual activity, maybe the dogs, without the responsibilities and duties. Marriage is a vocation. Its not a solution for loneliness.

.

Thought I would just address this. Ithink it is unfair to basically say that someone doesn;t want the responsiblities of marriage just because they want to get married but donlt want kids. There is far more work to marriage then having kids. Anybody that goes into marriage deciding to not have kids thinking that this will make things a piece of cake is a fool plain and simple. People donlt just get married as a solution for loneliness either. Well the smart ones donlt because they realize that there are much easier solutions. I mean why not just have a boyfriend or girlfriend instead? I mean if things start to fall apart then its easy to break apart. Not so with a marriage.

Of course people who go into marriage deciding beforehand to not have any kids are probably the vast minority anyway. But still I do feel for those that feel split between two things. Where on one hand they found “the one” and people would say that they are called to marriage and on the other they donlt want kids which then would make people say they are called to the single and maybe even religious life. I mean you have to pick one or the other but either way you are probably going to feel something is wrong. There is no middle ground.

 

[Jaaanosik]

If you abide by the Church’s teaching then there will be no discord because the Church will never teach you anything that will go against the Will of God. Our conscience is nothing more than that inner voice God implanted in us that shows us how to conforms our wills to His.

In this current age of the dictatorship of relativism, it is of great urgency that we learn to discern the trutths of God.

You shoul read that quote that I lifted from the source you gave. Conscience is not merely personal preference or bias or private judgment.

Why would you condemn yourself? Only God condemns. What we need to do is find what God will and not merely follow our own distorted and depraved wills.

Here is where your error lies. Conscience is not opinion. If your conscience tells you to do something that is in direct contrast to what the Magisterium teaches, it very, very, very highly likely that that is not really your conscience speaking - rather it is your rationalization to avoid acknowledging that what you are about to do is evil. So you lie to yourself and tell yourself that this is what your conscience is telling you to do.

All I am trying to say is that without well informed conscience there would not be the Magisterium.
When you have well informed conscience on one side and the Magisterium on the other you are supposed to follow the conscience.

Maybe we should take it to another thread.

 

[Jaaanosik]

…
Why would you condemn yourself? Only God condemns.
…

I thought this is clear. I guess not.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

[Jaaanosik]

And that in a nutshell is what Jaanoski missed. Which makes me think he did not read the entire article at all or maybe failed to understand it.

I mentioned it before and each time when I say conscience I have in mind “informed conscience”. A conscience without guilt. A conscience that is not ignorant.
That conscience is supposed to be followed not the Magisterium.

The Magisterium stands on this conscience. The Magisterium is a sum of opinions and statements made by Church’s teachers, popes, bishops, priests and even laymen that have/had “informed conscience” and they followed it.

They did it and we are called to do it as well.

… and this is what the Magisterium teaches.

 

[benedictus2]

All I am trying to say is that without well informed conscience there would not be the Magisterium.
When you have well informed conscience on one side and the Magisterium on the other you are supposed to follow the conscience.

Maybe we should take it to another thread.

Huh?

How can one have a well informed conscience and be against the magisterium? If that is so, then this informed conscience is not informed. It is a product of one’s wishes and preferences.

To say that an informed (and thus presumably correct) conscience and against the magisterium would be to say that the Magisterium is wrong. Which is ludicrous.

Example: After much soul searching I have decided to kill the baby in my womb. I have spoken to some priests who said it is okay once we take in my financial circumstances and besides I really don’t feel I can look after a baby right now. I have sought to inform my conscience but believed only those that will affirm my choice. Should I then follow my conscience? Is that really an informed conscience.

It is highly unlikely that your consience will be rightly formed if it tells you to do contrary to what the magisterium teaches because the Church has been promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit on matters such as this.

 

[benedictus2]

I mentioned it before and each time when I say conscience I have in mind “informed conscience”. A conscience without guilt.

A conscience without guilt???!!!

Do you think habitual sinners feel guilt? Habitual sinners no longer feel guilt about what they do. They have rationalized away their culpability. Absence of guilt feelings is not a sign that the conscience is clear.

A conscience that is not ignorant.

A conscience that is not ignorant is one that has been formed by magisterial teaching.

That conscience is supposed to be followed not the Magisterium.

If the conscience goes against the magisterium then it is highly doubtful that the conscience is not ignorant and that the conscience is well formed.

The Magisterium stands on this conscience. The Magisterium is a sum of opinions and statements made by Church’s teachers, popes, bishops, priests and even laymen that have/had “informed conscience” and they followed it.

And if your conscience goes against magisterial teaching, it is highly doubtful that is well formed.

 

[PRmerger]

A conscience without guilt???!!!

Yes–that is one peculiar conscience. It certainly wouldn’t be doing what it’s supposed to do.

Just like a body without the ability to feel pain. That would be a nightmare!

Guilt is there to let our conscience know we’re doing wrong. Just like pain is there to let our bodies know we’re doing something dangerous. (Like touching a hot stove.)

 

[PatriceA]

Yes–that is one peculiar conscience. It certainly wouldn’t be doing what it’s supposed to do.

Just like a body without the ability to feel pain. That would be a nightmare!

Guilt is there to let our conscience know we’re doing wrong. Just like pain is there to let our bodies know we’re doing something dangerous. (Like touching a hot stove.)

Isn’t lack of guilt actually one of the symptoms of a sociopath?

 

[Jaaanosik]

A conscience without guilt???!!!

Do you think habitual sinners feel guilt? Habitual sinners no longer feel guilt about what they do. They have rationalized away their culpability. Absence of guilt feelings is not a sign that the conscience is clear.

A conscience that is not ignorant is one that has been formed by magisterial teaching.

If the conscience goes against the magisterium then it is highly doubtful that the conscience is not ignorant and that the conscience is well formed.

And if your conscience goes against magisterial teaching, it is highly doubtful that is well formed.

Yes, I agree, it’s highly doubtful but still that’s how it is. If it happens you are bind to side with your conscience. That’s how it was, well, from the beginning of the Church. (Rom 14:23).
That’s the only way the Magisterium can protect itself from any mistakes.

Having said that, any time you make a decision and you act you are supposed to listen to your conscience because:

• the conscience is aligned with the Magisterium and you don’t feel any guilt/pain
• the conscience tells you the Magisterium teaches something and you are about to go against it and you know you are wrong, you will feel a guilt
• the conscience tells you that you don’t know or you are not sure what the Magisterium teaches and you don’t have any other choice
• the last case is that special one where we both agree it should not happen but if it does and your informed conscience tells you something you are bind to side with it.

 

[benedictus2]

Yes, I agree, it’s highly doubtful but still that’s how it is. If it happens you are bind to side with your conscience. That’s how it was, well, from the beginning of the Church. (Rom 14:23).

You are misrepresenting what Paul is saying. You have this terrible habit of taking a sentences and verses out of context. Please read the entire Rom 14 so that you will know what it is about.

That’s the only way the Magisterium can protect itself from any mistakes.

Wrong. The magisterium does not protect itself from making mistakes. The Holy Spirit does that.

Having said that, any time you make a decision and you act you are supposed to listen to your conscience because:

• the conscience is aligned with the Magisterium and you don’t feel any guilt/pain
• the conscience tells you the Magisterium teaches something and you are about to go against it and you know you are wrong, you will feel a guilt
• the conscience tells you that you don’t know or you are not sure what the Magisterium teaches and you don’t have any other choice
• the last case is that special one where we both agree it should not happen but if it does and your informed conscience tells you something you are bind to side with it.

And in the last case, if it is a badly formed conscience then no. If your conscience tells you it is okay to commit adutery, then you are following it to perdition.

 

[Jaaanosik]

You are misrepresenting what Paul is saying. You have this terrible habit of taking a sentences and verses out of context. Please read the entire Rom 14 so that you will know what it is about.

Wrong. The magisterium does not protect itself from making mistakes. The Holy Spirit does that.

And in the last case, if it is a badly formed conscience then no. If your conscience tells you it is okay to commit adutery, then you are following it to perdition.

What I said is what the Church teaches. It’s your choice how you deal with it.
Good luck!