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

[Garamond]

My wife and I opted not to conceive, but to adopt 2 neglected inner-city children (one of them with severe PTSD due to abuse. This may be against the teachings, but boy!, it sure feels like the right thing to do, and the ultimate blessing in our lives.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My wife and I opted not to conceive, but to adopt 2 neglected inner-city children (one of them with severe PTSD due to abuse. This may be against the teachings, but boy!, it sure feels like the right thing to do, and the ultimate blessing in our lives.

Congrats on your adoptions!
Just curious because these issues have been debated on this thread. How do you avoid conceiving. And why do you decide biological children are not God’s plan for you as well.

 

[petra22]

Anyone have thoughts or comments on the above?

Just a question… isn’t NFP approved by the Catholic Church???

 

[maryjk]

Just a question… isn’t NFP approved by the Catholic Church???

Yep.

Incredible isn’t it? Yes, it is approved. And yes, there are still people that look down on those that use it.

 

[Rau]

Just a question… isn’t NFP approved by the Catholic Church???

I understand the question, but not what prompts it, or how it relates to my post (to which yours was a response). And yes, it’s approved when the couple have “Just reasons”.

The debate with NFP is not usually about whether it’s “OK” or “Not OK”, but whether the decision to employ it is well-founded (viz a viz church teaching).

This thread started off querying the indefinite use of NFP to avoid pregnancies that had a high probability (25%) of yielding a dreadfully ill child. There was the added question of whether it would be proper to get married with an intention to use NFP indefinitely on account of such a medical condition. Most posters I think saw no problem, a few had reservations, and I think one or two explicitly thought the marriage would not be valid, and that using NFP in this medical circumstance was not Just reason. Some posters argued that the church ought to be more definitive on what is and is not a Just reason, and that it would be important to consult a priest. My post (to which you responded) speculated on how a priest might respond to a couple seeking his assistance in deciding the appropriateness of NFP as a response to a medical circumstance. I concluded there is good reason that the church has to leave the decision to the couple concerned.

So you can see that the substance of the discussion is nuanced, personal, and can’t be reduced to a self-evident, black vs white assessment.

 

[maryjk]

It didn’t take me as long to find this as I thought it would.

I remember reading this a couple of years ago. It it a good reminder of how different situations effect different people.

It is titled, “Why doesn’t the Church just make a list.”

For instance, we could say, “Severe economic instability is a good reason to postpone pregnancy.” But …

Woman A grew up deathly poor, and fully expected to die before she hit age 40.  Her husband is disabled and often out of work, and sometimes they have to scramble for the rent on their tiny house — but this is routine and tolerable for them, and causes no turmoil.  With help from friends and government programs, they are raising happy, healthy children on $25,000 a year.

Woman B grew up wealthy, has always generously endowed Crisis Pregnancy Centers in her town, and always hoped to have a large family of her own.  But a catastrophe struck, she went bankrupt, and has to sell everything and move into a tiny house and live on $25,000 a year.  They’re still reeling from the shock of what their life has become, and are trying to learn how to accept help, rather than giving it.

Woman C lives a tiny house and live on $25,000 a year, which her husband manages thriftily, so no one is deprived.  But she makes him sleep on the couch until he agrees to quit his job at the library  so he can make more money and they can catch up with their fancy friends next door, who go to Rio every March.

Woman D recently quit her high-paying job so she can stay home and have babies.  They now live on her husband’s salary of $25,ooo a year and can hardly wait to fill their tiny new house with children.

patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2011/03/23/why-doesnt-the-church-just-make-a-list/

 

[jmcrae]

Just a question… isn’t NFP approved by the Catholic Church???

“For just reasons.” Yes.

It’s up to the couple to wrestle with their conscience - is Dad’s perpetual unemployment a reason to abstain from sex altogether, so as to avoid Mom losing her job because she’s pregnant again? Or do you just go ahead and get pregnant, and hope God doesn’t mind you taking charity for most of your child’s early life.

That’s a call that only the couple themselves can make.

 

[Memaw]

I understand the question, but not what prompts it, or how it relates to my post (to which yours was a response). And yes, it’s approved when the couple have “Just reasons”.

The debate with NFP is not usually about whether it’s “OK” or “Not OK”, but whether the decision to employ it is well-founded (viz a viz church teaching).

This thread started off querying the indefinite use of NFP to avoid pregnancies that had a high probability (25%) of yielding a dreadfully ill child. There was the added question of whether it would be proper to get married with an intention to use NFP indefinitely on account of such a medical condition. Most posters I think saw no problem, a few had reservations, and I think one or two explicitly thought the marriage would not be valid, and that using NFP in this medical circumstance was not Just reason. Some posters argued that the church ought to be more definitive on what is and is not a Just reason, and that it would be important to consult a priest. My post (to which you responded) speculated on how a priest might respond to a couple seeking his assistance in deciding the appropriateness of NFP as a response to a medical circumstance. I concluded there is good reason that the church has to leave the decision to the couple concerned.

So you can see that the substance of the discussion is nuanced, personal, and can’t be reduced to a self-evident, black vs white assessment.

I only questioned if a marriage would be valid if either or both married with the intent to never have children . That automatically makes the marriage invalid no matter what the reason for it or what they do to prevent children. That is not up to the priest or the couple. If or how many children they adopt doesn’t change that either. The marriage would be invalid from the beginning. Our sympathies do not enter into to this one bit. It’s not up to us. God Bless Memaw

 

[maryjk]

I only questioned if a marriage would be valid if either or both married with the intent to never have children . That automatically makes the marriage invalid no matter what the reason for it or what they do to prevent children. That is not up to the priest or the couple. If or how many children they adopt doesn’t change that either. The marriage would be invalid from the beginning. Our sympathies do not enter into to this one bit. It’s not up to us. God Bless Memaw

But don’t all marriages enjoy the presumption of being valid?

So, unless the couple divorces and applies for a declaration of nullity, they would be considered validly married.

Otherwise older couples that marry, that are past the point of being able to reproduce, would never validly be married. Most of those couples don’t ever “intend” on having children.

 

[Garamond]

Congrats on your adoptions!
Just curious because these issues have been debated on this thread. How do you avoid conceiving. And why do you decide biological children are not God’s plan for you as well.

We are immigrants to the USA with no support network (no parents, aunts, cousins, siblings. Just Monica and I). With our incomes we can only afford 2 children, provide for them shelter, food, education, discipline, family time and security; and still have a rainy-day-fund and savings for retirement.

I don’t know if adopting children in need instead of conceiving our own was part of His plan, but after taking a look at the draconian life that could have been for Ser and Devante, and the hurt they could have caused others (Really! Most people can’t fathom the violent environment they were born into), I can’t imagine God being too upset for being proactive.

By the way, NuvaRing is our preferred method of contraception.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

We are immigrants to the USA with no support network (no parents, aunts, cousins, siblings. Just Monica and I). With our incomes we can only afford 2 children, provide for them shelter, food, education, discipline, family time and security; and still have a rainy-day-fund and savings for retirement.

I don’t know if adopting children in need instead of conceiving our own was part of His plan, but after taking a look at the draconian life that could have been for Ser and Devante, and the hurt they could have caused others (Really! Most people can’t fathom the violent environment they were born into), I can’t imagine God being too upset for being proactive.

By the way, NuvaRing is our preferred method of contraception.

Your profile does not say if you are Catholic. But if you are Catholic you cannot use the nuva ring. Also you might want to educated yourself on the Nuva ring. It can act as an abortifacient. I encourage you to not confuse God’s will with potentially killing children you may conceive. Birth control cannot be a plan of God for you. No matte what good you do in adoption you cannot act contrary to life.

I am grateful for your willingness to adopt. I am saddened by your choice for your family.

 

[Memaw]

But don’t all marriages enjoy the presumption of being valid?

So, unless the couple divorces and applies for a declaration of nullity, they would be considered validly married.

Otherwise older couples that marry, that are past the point of being able to reproduce, would never validly be married. Most of those couples don’t ever “intend” on having children.

Nothing can change an invalid marriage even if the couple is together 100 years and not at all aware of it. They would not be sinning because of their innocence of the situation. But if they knew ahead of time and lied at the time of the wedding that they would be willing to accept the children God wishes to send them, knowing they wouldn’t “if”. That’s what makes the marriage invalid. And they would know it. I would hope that would be explained during the 6 months of preparation. I was under the impression that the 6 months was so the couple could understand the seriousness of entering into a Sacramental Marriage. God Bless, Memaw

 

[maryjk]

Nothing can change an invalid marriage even if the couple is together 100 years and not at all aware of it. They would not be sinning because of their innocence of the situation. **But if they knew ahead of time and lied at the time of the wedding that they would be willing to accept the children **God wishes to send them, knowing they wouldn’t “if”. That’s what makes the marriage invalid. And they would know it. I would hope that would be explained during the 6 months of preparation. I was under the impression that the 6 months was so the couple could understand the seriousness of entering into a Sacramental Marriage. God Bless, Memaw

But a marriage isn’t invalid UNLESS and UNTIL it is investigated.

So, if a couple stays married, never separates, and never has their marriage investigated, they enjoy the assumption that their marriage is valid.

The bolded statement is very different than choosing to never have children. There is a difference between someone never wanting their own children and not willing to accept children.

 

[Memaw]

But a marriage isn’t invalid UNLESS and UNTIL it is investigated.

So, if a couple stays married, never separates, and never has their marriage investigated, they enjoy the assumption that their marriage is valid.

The bolded statement is very different than choosing to never have children. There is a difference between someone never wanting their own children and not willing to accept children.

The marriage would be invalid from the beginning,. But the Church would not be able to say so until investigated but that doesn’t change the situation. If the couple doesn’t know its invalid then they are innocent. but that doesn’t change the situation. It’s not the length of time the couple are together that make a marriage valid. If one knows one is sinning ahead of time I think they could hardly be called innocent of the situation.

Your second paragraph has me completely baffled. Not sure at all how to respond to that. God Bless, Memaw

 

[maryjk]

The marriage would be invalid from the beginning,. But the Church would not be able to say so until investigated but that doesn’t change the situation. If the couple doesn’t know its invalid then they are innocent. but that doesn’t change the situation. It’s not the length of time the couple are together that make a marriage valid. If one knows one is sinning ahead of time I think they could hardly be called innocent of the situation.

Your second paragraph has me completely baffled. Not sure at all how to respond to that. God Bless, Memaw

My point is, only a Tribunal can declare a marriage invalid. So until a tribunal investigates the marriage, it is valid.

We can sit here all day saying this or that marriage is invalid. But our comments hold no water. ONLY the tribunal can make that decision.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My point is, only a Tribunal can declare a marriage invalid. So until a tribunal investigates the marriage, it is valid.

We can sit here all day saying this or that marriage is invalid. But our comments hold no water. ONLY the tribunal can make that decision.

I actually don’t know about the subject here. But I do have a question about what you said. If a person is schizophrenic but does not go t a doctor and get diagnosed. Are they still a schizophrenic? A doctor is in the place of the tribunal in this situation.

 

[Memaw]

My point is, only a Tribunal can declare a marriage invalid. So until a tribunal investigates the marriage, it is valid.

We can sit here all day saying this or that marriage is invalid. But our comments hold no water. ONLY the tribunal can make that decision.

And I am saying that if one knows ahead of time that something makes their marriage invalid even before the marriage takes place, Then it is invalid even if they never have it go thru a tribunal. If a marriage is invalid, that means there is NO marriage in the beginning. The Church cannot annul a valid Sacramental marriage no matter what! I knew a lady that was married in the Church many years ago, and after about 8 years of marriage his first wife showed up on her doorstep. They had never been divorced . Well it didn’t take a tribunal then to say that her marriage was invalid. In fact I don’t think they even had tribunals then. She was innocent in this but her “husband” wasn’t. Had they been together for 25 years before the wife showed up, it still would have been invalid all along. I have worked thru annulments with several friends so I do know a little about this. Thank God we do have the tribunals to check these things out now . Its much quicker than sending them to Rome like they used to have to do. Our comments only “hold water” if they are true. God Bless, Memaw

 

[maryjk]

Canon Law supports my statement that there is a presumption of validity.

catholiccanonlaw.com/Understanding%20Canon%201095.2.pdf

Canon 1060 tells us:
Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, when a doubt
exists the
validity of marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven.
No one must prove the validity of a marriage. Rather, the burden of
proof rests on a
Petitioner to prove invalidity. In the absence of such proof, the validity must be upheld.
Canon Law provides a large number of potential grounds for nullity of ma
rriage. It is beyond
the scope and purpose of this opinion to address them all. I focus on one,
simply because it is
the most used, and most abused, among cases I have been involved with. Peti
tioners claim that
one or both parties were “immature” or “lacked sufficient judgment
” to enter marriage. Canon
1095.2 provides the legal parameters for these allegations.

home.catholicweb.com/FrCharlesIrvin/index.cfm/NewsItem?ID=24620&From=Home

Jesus declared “What God has joined together man must not divide.” Therefore the Catholic Church recognizes ALL marriages to be valid unless and until that presumption is overcome. The discernment process to overcome that presumption of validity is called the annulment process. The Catholic Church would be arrogant and presumptive to recognize as valid only Catholic marriages.
[Note: The only exception is in cases wherein a baptized Catholic married outside the Church. Canon Law requires all Catholics to be married in front of a priest and two witnesses. If the party did not do that the Church does not recognize that attempted marriage. In such cases the person should contact a priest and request a Lack of Form procedure.]

canonlaw.wikispot.org/marriage

MARRIAGE: a COVENANT by which a MAN and a WOMAN establish between themselves a PARTNERSHIP for the whole of life (canon 1057).

ESSENTIAL PROPERTIES: (1) UNITY (FIDEI); (2) INDISSOLUBILITY (SACRAAMENTI) canon 1055; Properties are descriptive.

ELEMENTS: (1) GOOD OF SPOUSES; (2) PROCREATION & EDUCATION of children (canon 1056); Elements are constitutive.

Who can contract: any one not prohibited by law (canon 1058).

Ratified: valid and sacramental marriage (canon 1061).

**Presumption: Consummated Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; contrary must be proven, canon 1060.

**
Putative: an invalid marriage which has been celebrated in good faith by at least one of the parties ,canon 1061§3.

 

[BioNerd]

Nobody is ignoring the great fact that they adopted. Good for them.
The old argument that it is nobodies business a couple and God is defiantly not a pro life or religious view to have. It does matter. As Catholics we believe that sex is both procreative and unitive. This has been taught since the beginning of our faith. Add to the fact that a popular form of ABC has abortifacient qualities and then it gets really demonic.

So I assume you feel the same way about homosexual “marriages” Because your argument would apply to that situation almost perfectly. “hey what does it matter what they do in the bedroom, THEY ADOPTED A CHILD! They need to be recognized in the Catholic Church as married!”

Curious.
Would you feel the same way if the form of ABC they used was abortion. Would you say that because they adopted a child they could kill their own?

It does matter how they avoid. It does matter what the intentions are.

See the thing is…THERE IS NO CHILD THAT IS BEING ABORTED, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHILD THAT HAS BEEN MADE. They chose to take in another child because they are aware of the fact that their gametes may produce a child with needs they decided they cannot handle. And now they’re apparently being selfish according to a bunch of people screaming “if so and so and past generations have done it, why the heck can’t you?!”.

And I could care less if they’re recognized or not by the catholic church because the more I read this discussion the more ludicrous it’s teachings are appearing to be. Marriage is not JUST about popping out kids. Neither should a couples generosity or selfishness be measured by how many and why they’re willing to pop them out. But according to the church rules are rules and at this point I’m starting to realize denominations are just denominations.

And by the way, why do y’all love bring homosexuals into every conversation and topic? You complain about the media this and the media that, yet…

 

[BioNerd]

My wife and I opted not to conceive, but to adopt 2 neglected inner-city children (one of them with severe PTSD due to abuse. This may be against the teachings, but boy!, it sure feels like the right thing to do, and the ultimate blessing in our lives.

GOOD FOR YOU!