Catholics that say they'd never have any biological children for this reason

[Heliotropium]

My sister has always said, she would be hesitant to have children, because of fear that something would be wrong. She said that if she were to want to have a child, she’d have and make her husband have a blood test first before they started trying to conceive, which she did, and it turns out that they’re both carriers of Tay-Sachs…I guess I would be too since she is? So glad my husband must not be, or we got lucky, because our boys are completely healthy, but when both parents are carriers, there’s a 25% chance that their children will have it, and it’s…awful. My sister said, because of that, she will never even chance it, because she doesn’t think she could handle it, and if she got pregnant, she could never abort, but she doesn’t want to go through that. However, last year, her and her husband adopted an adorable, healthy, little girl from Thailand, they’re wonderful parents and my niece is very doted on. What is your opinion and the churches position on choosing adoption instead of having your children biologically?

Just to be clear my comments have nothing to do with your sister.

A few things that struck me were the words “luck” and “chance”. These things are not Christian concepts since we believe in a God that ordains! And this truth is a great thing for use to understand because it leads to another truth and that is that God will always supply the means and graces for us to comply with whatever He wills to send us. How many times are we told “be not afraid”?

Plus who better than Blessed Mother could understand the fear of bringing a child into the world who would be destined to suffer. I wonder if she thought of Isaiah “For I am the Lord, your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says to you, Do not fear; I will help you.” --Isaiah 41:13?

God bless.

 

[Rau]

Maybe I am wrong here, I just want something clarified. I thought if a family decides not to have more children AT ALL then even NFP goes out the window ans only abstinence was allowed. I thought we could not use NFP as “long term birth control” but just SPACING children when there is just need. Please correct me if I am wrong. I was just unaware a husband and wife were allowed to stop having kids indefinitely without abstinence. In fact I thought a marriage was only valid if both spouses agreed to have children regardless of any risk. I ask because my GF and I might consider marriage.

I believe what you state is incorrect. Parents may have just reason to limit their family size. They are not required to cease all sex at that point. Also parents may decide to avoid pregnancy “this month”. And make that choice repeatedly from that point on.

 

[Rau]

Anytime you have a child, you are gambling that they might suffer. They might suffer illness or depression. They might turn away from God completely and suffer eternal damnation. The idea of letting fear dictate whether or not you will obey God is not compatible with what we say we believe.

As far as I can see, a child with Tay-Sachs is pretty much blessed with a direct flight to sainthood. I know we aren’t supposed to presume that sort of thing, but logically speaking, and assuming a Baptism is performed, I don’t see any loopholes by which a such a child can meet any fate BUT eternity with God. The parents can seek comfort that there will be a saint in heaven praying for them and for their siblings on earth, intercessing their way out of calamnities that they never even knew were looming over their head.

On the other hand, denying that child their short life on earth is also denying them Eternal Life in heaven. Being closed to all life is also denying the lives of other children who may be born healthy and grow to live blessed lives as well.

Is this what we believe or isn’t it? God has an eternal plan for every human soul he creates. Certainly that includes the innocents who die in infancy. If we truely believe what we say we believe, then I don’t think the OP’s, sister’s mindset is compatible with Catholicism because it’s based in fear rather than faith.

PS- Adoption and procreation are not mutually exclusive and so the benefits of adoption are not relevant to the discussion.

You appear to be making a case that parents have a duty to produce as many children as possible, as to do otherwise is to deny those children (notwithstanding the fact that they don’t exist at this point) the opportunity to be with God.

I would readily sympathize with parents who, in light of genetic factors leading to large probabilities of terrible medical conditions, elect to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

I don’t know about my sister’s sex life, nor do I want to know or consider it my business.

When a couple gets married they make a vow to God that they will accept children willingly. She shouldn’t worry so much. She should just trust in the lord. She has shaky faith.

 

[Allegra]

You appear to be making a case that parents have a duty to produce as many children as possible, as to do otherwise is to deny those children (notwithstanding the fact that they don’t exist at this point) the opportunity to be with God.

I would readily sympathize with parents who, in light of genetic factors leading to large probabilities of terrible medical conditions, elect to avoid pregnancy.

I haven’t said anything about number of children. The OP is proposing the mindset of intentionally attempting to marry sacramentally with the firm intention of never having any children at all. The question is whether or not this belief is in line with Church teaching and morality, not whether or not we can sympathize. Of course most people would sypathize with someone in that situation. That doesn’t indicate it is the right thing to do.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

If a couple goes to a priest and asks to be married and then tells the priest that they don’t want children he won’t marry them.

 

[Memaw]

I haven’t said anything about number of children. The OP is proposing the mindset of intentionally attempting to marry sacramentally with the firm intention of never having any children at all. The question is whether or not this belief is in line with Church teaching and morality, not whether or not we can sympathize. Of course most people would sypathize with someone in that situation. That doesn’t indicate it is the right thing to do.

If a couple, or even one of them, enters into a Sacramental Marriage with the mindset of NEVER having any children, no matter what the reason, then the marriage is invalid and can be annulled. God Bless, memaw

 

[severus68]

If a couple, or even one of them, enters into a Sacramental Marriage with the mindset of NEVER having any children, no matter what the reason, then the marriage is invalid and can be annulled. God Bless, memaw

Yes, but surely, someone has to apply for it to be annulled. What if the couple want to remain married? Who other than God really knows what is in the hearts and minds of people.

 

[Memaw]

Yes, but surely, someone has to apply for it to be annulled. What if the couple want to remain married? Who other than God really knows what is in the hearts and minds of people.

Whether they ever apply for an annulment or not, its still invalid. What good does it do for us to fool ourselves? I’m still a thief, whether I get caught or not. God Bless. Memaw

 

[ExpectedIrony]

If a couple goes to a priest and asks to be married and then tells the priest that they don’t want children he won’t marry them.

My understanding is at the point of being married, they didn’t have their blood tests that showed they were carriers, they obviously wanted children or they wouldn’t have wanted to start trying to conceive. Now, they do have a child, just not one they created themselves.

 

[ExpectedIrony]

If a couple, or even one of them, enters into a Sacramental Marriage with the mindset of NEVER having any children, no matter what the reason, then the marriage is invalid and can be annulled. God Bless, memaw

The OP didn’t say they entered marriage having the intentions of “NEVER” having children, obviously they did or they wouldn’t have wanted to try to conceive. They do have a child, no matter if OPs sister gave birth to her or not.

 

[MarieHellen]

By the way that this is going, they might as well just send their daughter back, and get an annulment.

 

[Allegra]

The OP didn’t say they entered marriage having the intentions of “NEVER” having children, obviously they did or they wouldn’t have wanted to try to conceive. They do have a child, no matter if OPs sister gave birth to her or not.

This is incorrect. If you look at the original post, you’ll see that the OP’s sister decided well before she was married that she would not be open to life if her husband was a gene carrier for Tay-Sachs. This decision was conciously made prior to marriage, at least on her part. It doesn’t say what the husband thinks.

 

[Sneaux]

By the way that this is going, they might as well just send their daughter back, and get an annulment.

I can’t tell if this is sarcastic or not…lol!

 

[Rau]

If a couple, or even one of them, enters into a Sacramental Marriage with the mindset of NEVER having any children, no matter what the reason, then the marriage is invalid and can be annulled. God Bless, memaw

I understand the parents desire children. Acting rationally, their decision may be to avoid pregnancy pending a medical advance that can cure their defective genetic makeup or cure the (potentially ill) child. Should said medical treatment not arrive, then the (valid) marriage may produce no children.

In my view, a 25% risk of an horrendously ill child is a just reason to use NFP. Each parent needs to judge what level of risk constitutes just reasons.

Adoption is a wonderful decision, it gives a great gift to a child actually in need.

 

[Memaw]

I understand the parents desire children. Acting rationally, their decision may be to avoid pregnancy pending a medical advance that can cure their defective genetic makeup or cure the (potentially ill) child. Should said medical treatment not arrive, then the (valid) marriage may produce no children.

In my view, a 25% risk of an horrendously ill child is a just reason to use NFP. Each parent needs to judge what level of risk constitutes just reasons.

Adoption is a wonderful decision, it gives a great gift to a child actually in need.

Thank goodness the Church doesn’t go by our view. Desiring children and marrying with the intentions of never having them still invalidates the marriage. I’m sure that when they exchanged their wedding vows they promised to accept the children God sends them. Were they not truthful about that? God Bless, Memaw

 

[Atticus_Sparrow]

As someone with muscular dystrophy these topics get me angry, Especially when phrases like "quality of life’ and other cloak phrases are bandied about. I say ‘cloak’ because they are a way of de-legitimatizing my life or personhood. I’ve experienced it plenty of times, usually from humanists.

So you’re the parent of a child with a disability? It isn’t the end of the world. And excuse me, but just because you donated a sperm or an egg doesn’t give you the right to tell me that my life is not worth living. I’ve gone to college, received degrees, been around the world and married a loving woman. I thank God for my life. It maybe difficult at times, but everyone has a cross. Just because your child has a disability does not mean their future is set in stone.

Be honest. This isn’t about the would-be child. It’s that you don’t really wish to be bothered and have to have a seemingly perfect life. What if you had a healthy child and then something terrible happened that left him/her permanently physically or mentally disabled? It can and does happen. Still wouldn’t want to be bothered? Euthanize them, perhaps?

Do I need extra help at mundane tasks? Certainly. I’ve seen terrible reactions from people. But you know what else? I’ve also seen remarkable kindness, love and selflessness. As much I hate my disability it has also allowed me to see the spirit of Christ move people and that can be a beautiful gift as well.

 

[ExpectedIrony]

As someone with muscular dystrophy these topics get me angry, Especially when phrases like "quality of life’ and other cloak phrases are bandied about. I say ‘cloak’ because they are a way of de-legitimatizing my life or personhood. I’ve experienced it plenty of times, usually from humanists.

So you’re the parent of a child with a disability? It isn’t the end of the world. And excuse me, but just because you donated a sperm or an egg doesn’t give you the right to tell me that my life is not worth living. I’ve gone to college, received degrees, been around the world and married a loving woman. I thank God for my life. It maybe difficult at times, but everyone has a cross. Just because your child has a disability does not mean their future is set in stone.

Be honest. This isn’t about the would-be child. It’s that you don’t really wish to be bothered and have to have a seemingly perfect life. What if you had a healthy child and then something terrible happened that left him/her permanently physically or mentally disabled? It can and does happen. Still wouldn’t want to be bothered? Euthanize them, perhaps?

Do I need extra help at mundane tasks? Certainly. I’ve seen terrible reactions from people. But you know what else? I’ve also seen remarkable kindness, love and selflessness. As much I hate my disability it has also allowed me to see the spirit of Christ move people and that can be a beautiful gift as well.

Not having a child…well…not conceiving a child, one that doesn’t even exist is a complete stranger to their parents, you can’t compare a non-existent child, to one who was born healthy, then developed a disability, that’s like saying you’d never have a fat wife or a bald husband before you were even married. When you really love someone, you deal with it. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with not wanting to take a risk with something like Tay-Sachs. You can’t say 'This isn’t about the child, it’s that you don’t want to be bothered." when really, we know nothing about this couple besides what the OP has said…they don’t seem terrible like some of you here are trying to make it sound like they are just because they prefer not to have a child with a disease that miserable for EVERYONE.

 

[Rau]

Thank goodness the Church doesn’t go by our view. Desiring children and marrying with the intentions of never having them still invalidates the marriage. I’m sure that when they exchanged their wedding vows they promised to accept the children God sends them. Were they not truthful about that? God Bless, Memaw

Your assertion that they “intend to never have children” falsely characterises the situation, despite what the couple may have expressed. In reality, it is evidently their intention to have children as soon as the circumstances permit. The couple would appear to have just cause to use NFP.

 

[JM3]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality… the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159