Catholic couple doesn't want kids

[JohnStrachan]

How is it possible for the RC church to permit a marriage in the church when the parties involved are resolutely opposed to having children?

I have a colleague at work who is childless by choice with his spouse and they were married in the church about 10 years ago. He told me they were clear with the priest from the very beginning that they were not open to having children and yet the were permitted a church wedding. I’m at a loss to explain why this would have been permitted.

Any ideas?

 

[edward_george1]

Exchanging consent while intending to exclude any of the goods of marriage, of which fruitfulness is one, invalidates the marriage. If a couple manifested the desire not to have children, they shouldn’t be allowed to be married. The couple you mention was misled by their priest if the marriage was indeed allowed to proceed with them excluding the intention to have children.

It’s not permitted. But it happens because people, even priests, do stupid things. That’s hardly an indictment of the whole Church or its teachings and laws.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Phemie]

That happened in my parish when a priest who was here for a month or so, while we were between Pastors, witnessed a marriage where a couple answered “No” when they were asked the question about children during the ceremony. The wedding continued and afterwards the priest said to the seminarian who was assisting him, “I’ve never had that happen before and I wasn’t sure what to do. Seemed simpler to continue.”

 

[jzea1992]

What if one spouse was infertile and didn’t know it until after marriage but then other spouse was fertile and really wanted biological children?

 

[JulianN]

That’s different. It’s not an intention against children. It’s just biology.

 

[jzea1992]

Thanks

 

[Vico]

…
He told me they were clear with the priest from the very beginning that they were not open to having children and yet the were permitted a church wedding…

The couple are not required to have children and must not have the will to refuse conjugal relations when justly requested, but if pregnancy results, then the will must be to accept it. See St. Pope Pius XII:

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Allocution to Midwives | EWTN

 

[edward_george1]

I think if you will go back and read my post in its entirety, you will see that I was quite careful not to, as you say, “paint with a broad brush,” and made sure to include the following wording:

If a couple manifested the desire not to have children, they shouldn’t be allowed to be married

thus anticipating the concern you so charitably express. This is something of which I am well aware, given the frequency with which I make use of the Canons pertaining to marriage, not only in idle discussion on internet forums, but also in interviewing couples under oath to ascertain their suitability for marriage per this and other canons, performing marriage preparation, so as to inform them of their obligations when rendering consent, and of course, performing the marriage ceremony, wherein matters pertaining to consent are front and center.

So thank you for your kind correction, but I’m not sure it’s warranted.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[edward_george1]

Actually, you’re incorrect in your interpretation. If someone doesn’t believe, in principle, in one of the goods of marriage, that doesn’t vitiate consent. It only does insofar as they apply it to the marriage they are presently embarking upon.

So if one believes generally that marriage is not permanent, this does not necessarily vitiate his consent. But if one believes that the marriage he is entering into is not permanent, then the marriage is invalid. It is not the belief in principle, it is rather what one intends vis-à-vis the consent he renders at the time of the marriage.

But what do I know. I only studied Canon Law under a former Vatican curial official who now teaches at one of the best Canon Law faculties in the world. Clearly he couldn’t have known what he was talking about when he taught that.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[jack63]

But what do I know. I only studied Canon Law under a former Vatican curial official who now teaches at one of the best Canon Law faculties in the world. Clearly he couldn’t have known what he was talking about when he taught that.

Father, remind me never to get into a “debate” with you about Canon law!

 

[cmscms]

He told me they were clear with the priest from the very beginning that they were not open to having children and yet the were permitted a church wedding. I’m at a loss to explain why this would have been permitted.

Any ideas?

My first idea is your colleague is lying. So many non-practicing Catholics will spread lies about the Catholic faith to justify their sins. I told a woman at work that Catholic don’t have pre-marital sex and she said ‘I am catholic and I did’. She obviously just couldn’t care less that she sins

Sounds like your colleague is just trying to soothe his guilt

 

[Gorgias]

My first idea is your colleague is lying.

My first thought was that his impression was that he said actually meant “we will never consent to having children in this marriage”, but that it was either less explicit or definitive than he intended it to be; or, that the cleric who interviewed him and his spouse asked a follow up question to clarify their intent and they answered in a way that met with his approval.

But hey, I’m charitable that way…

 

[Fauken]

Maybe he realized there are 7 billion people already, and pondered how sustainable the planet will be with many more.

I’m sorry, I missed the part where Jesus said immorality is good when situation X, Y, and/or Z comes up.

Time the Vatican faced the most pressing problems, including overpopulation and changed their whole “sex is only good for procreative reasons” policy, if they want anyone around to welcome you know who.

You mean like promoting celibacy as a wonderful calling and having more people enter religious life/the priesthood?

 

[CRV]

Maybe he realized there are 7 billion people already, and pondered how sustainable the planet will be with many more.

I apparently have no more “likes” left, so I couldn’t like your post, but I did want to say I agree with you.

@Loggis
Overpopulation …not that old horse again…
Contraception and abortion ensure this won’t happen, then add in wars, famines, accidents, murders, diseases without cures, epidemics - most simple one is the flu. Surprising how many people die from the flu/complications each year. Oh, I forgot, catastrophes too - fires, floods, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, earthquakes, mudslides…

 

[JimG]

The most pressing problem in the western nations on the immediate horizon is declining total fertility rates and the population decline.

 

[JohnStrachan]

The most pressing problem in the western nations on the immediate horizon is declining total fertility rates and the population decline

In fact, demographers expect peak world population by 2045 and a sharp decline thereafter. As Africa moves from third world to second/first world status and fertility rates drop, the world’s population will tumble. Many western nations with low rates of natural increase and limited immigration will see their populations shrink and - in turn - create economic cliffs as they lack the tax base to support themselves. Most notably, Japan, Italy and Russia will be confounded by this result. China too - yes the country that imposed a draconian one child policy - will face a demographic time bomb as it will lack the population base to feed itself, care for its elderly and generate wealth. Even today, the population imbalance that heavily weighs in favour of males has left 30-40 million men frustrated as they lack life partners. Oh the mess we create for ourselves when we meddle with nature.

 

[Anicette]

Completely agree. The fertility rates droped very quickly. Population increase because of of a longer life. But quickly the population will stop to grow and finally will decreased. Possibily more quickly than we think because of natural disaters and population moving.

Some countries still face a demographic winter…

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I try not to judge the actions of others.

 

[Mary888]

He told me they were clear with the priest from the very beginning that they were not open to having children and yet the were permitted a church wedding. I’m at a loss to explain why this would have been permitted.

Why do you put yourself under stress as a third party over what this couple does? I find it tacky that they boast and discuss such things with strangers. Plus there is a lot we don’t know about their discussion with the priest…
What if after they said they don’t want kids, the priest then asked them “but should they happen, you keep them, right?” And then they said “ok, we will, but they won’t happen.” And so the priest took their theoretical agreement as an openmindness towards kids?
It’s between God and them what they do now and HOW they prevent kids from happening. Don’t let them lure you into the telenovela of their own intimacy, methinks. There is most likely quite a lot you don’t know, including the possibility of a lie to mask their sorrow for not having kids. People are complex creatures…