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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MakingMyWayBack
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
maryjk said:
…

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.
Click to expand...
I guess a post-menopausal woman cannot choose to ‘not have children’, her biology made the choice for her. [As far as I know, it’s established without controversy that menopause is no barrier to catholic marriage.]

But sticking with your thought, I would anticipate that many couples marrying later in life, where the woman is approaching menopause (though not yet there), would take the position that they would seek to avoid children. They may well feel that their age (or that of their spouse) is a determining factor - they may not feel up to the challenge. Or they may feel that the elevated medical risks, associated with age of the woman is a key factor.

It begs the question whether a call to married life - at least for the still fertile - ought to be (“must also be”) a call to parenthood? I personally have not viewed the two as a “job lot”, but interested to hear if anyone has a more developed understanding.
 
maryjk said:
…There is a difference between someone never wanting their own children and not willing to accept children.
Click to expand...
The question in the marriage ceremony is:

*“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” *

I have always viewed this as asking the couple to make a promise about what they would and/or would not do in the event of pregnancy, not prior to that point. Maryjk - is that what you are getting at?
 
Rau said:
The question in the marriage ceremony is:

*“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” *

I have always viewed this as asking the couple to make a promise about what they would and/or would not do in the event of pregnancy, not prior to that point. Maryjk - is that what you are getting at?
Click to expand...
It covers both. Married love must always be open to the procreation of children as God ordained it to be. How WE view things can very well be wrong. It’s not our “view” that’s important here. God Bless, Memaw
 
BioNerd said:
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…:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You dogged the Question. So here it is plain and simple.

If a couple adopts. And the choose to use abortion as a birthcontrol if they get pregnant bilogically. Do they sin? Or does the adoption give them a blank check with regard to other choices in life?

See, this is where you are not following the idea. You are stating that because a couple adopts than then it does not matter what they do to contraception. And it does not matte how they use their future sexuality. I think rather, that your beef is with the Churchs teaching on issues such as contraception and you are distracted by the fact that the couple did something good (adopt) while doing something morally wrong. (not being open to life) You disagree that (not being open to life is wrong) But that is what the Church teaches.

So, my other question is. Following your logic about what you think the Church should teach and do. You must also support homosexual marriage right?
 
BioNerd said:
GOOD FOR YOU! 👍
Click to expand...
For adopting! 👍

Bad for you by choosing to contraception. That cannot be God’s will.

I am curious as to what your theology and denomination teaches about doing something good and then doing something bad. Is that what salvation is? A giant scale that God looks at and balances good with bad? Saving 2 children but killing more than 2 would be bad. But killing just one would be good?

Actually with the NuvaRing that may be quite an adept analogy.
 
Rau said:
The question in the marriage ceremony is:

*“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” *

I have always viewed this as asking the couple to make a promise about what they would and/or would not do in the event of pregnancy, not prior to that point. Maryjk - is that what you are getting at?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Being married in the Church does not mean that you will actively pursue having children. It means that you will accept children that come.

So, let’s take this to the extreme. Say we have a couple that has been told that pregnancy will kill the woman. She has seen dozens of doctors, talked to priests and bishops. And everyone agrees, no biological children. Does that mean they can’t be married in the Church?

Since we already know that couples that cannot have children can be married, then it stands to reason that a couple that CAN have children but for a just reason desires not to procreate , can also be married.
 
maryjk said:
Yes.

Being married in the Church does not mean that you will actively pursue having children. It means that you will accept children that come.

So, let’s take this to the extreme. Say we have a couple that has been told that pregnancy will kill the woman. She has seen dozens of doctors, talked to priests and bishops. And everyone agrees, no biological children. Does that mean they can’t be married in the Church?

Since we already know that couples that cannot have children can be married, then it stands to reason that a couple that CAN have children but for a just reason desires not to procreate , can also be married.
Click to expand...
They have to be able to consummate the marriage in the natural order. They may use NFP but they must be able to preform the act.

It is quite complicated. And before anyone starts shouting Jehosephite Marriage! Let us point out that we are not talking of that here and permission must be given for that anyway. The norm, for marriage is that the couple may preform the marital act.

(Granted this is from Wiki so take it FWIW. I also included the Catholic encyclopedia’s reference to this as well. I quoted Wiki because it was more straightforward.

newadvent.org/cathen/07695a.htm

And from Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment
Physical capacity for consummation lacking.[14] Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates “true semen” into the woman’s vagina. (See [2] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[15] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[16] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”
Click to expand...
and
refusal to have children One of the goods of marriage is children. A man or woman physically capable of fathering or, respectively, conceiving a child but who intends never to have children may not marry in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
They have to be able to consummate the marriage in the natural order. They may use NFP but they must be able to preform the act.
Click to expand...
Right, but that is what we are talking about. Using NFP for the entirety of their marriage.
 
maryjk said:
Right, but that is what we are talking about. Using NFP for the entirety of their marriage.
Click to expand...
For the purposes of the couple in your example then yes. But I am not so sure about the intent to get married with never intending to procreate. I think we are above my pay grade for the answer to that one!

man, I just found the code of cannon law for impediments to marriage and am reading through some of them. They create more questions than answers.

Like Cannon
Canon 1083.1 A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year.
Click to expand...
We might want to rethink keeping that on the books!:eek:
 
Garamond said:
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.
Click to expand...
Happy for you and God bless you both.
 
I would say that after researching some and applying the information to the definition and purpose of marriage (not of today’s world but of the Church) that a couple that never wanted to have children should not get married. Every piece of evidence shows that a vital component to marriage is for procreation. While sterility can (an biblical is) be taken care of biologically or miraculously.

So it is not just any “just reason” a couple can decide to NEVER intend children but still want to get married.
To state that is taking the “Just Reason” reference by the Church and applying it where it does not belong.

The Church obviously (if you look at her cannon law on the subject) places the attempt to procreate as vital importance in deciding weather a couple can marry.

This attitude is also prevalent in other areas not just sexual impediments to marry. It is why there are impediments for relatives to marry as well. And even some political impediments. So the Church is addressing the idea that people should and will get married with the intent to procreate if that is biologically possible.

If the Church was ok with a marriage in which the couple will never intend children or ever consummate the marriage, then there would be no problem with a brother sister marriage.
.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
If the Church was ok with a marriage in which the couple will never intend children or ever consummate the marriage, then there would be no problem with a brother sister marriage…
Click to expand...
If this were true, then couples that had previously had sterilization surgery would not be able to be married. Yet they are.

(Not consummating the marriage is a totally different situation. )
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
If the Church was ok with a marriage in which the couple will never intend children or ever consummate the marriage, then there would be no problem with a brother sister marriage.
.
Click to expand...
Well, you probably can’t draw that conclusion. After all, children might be conceived (quite apart from intentions) and there are good biological reasons to avoid it with certainty. Hence, no close relatives may marry.
 
maryjk said:
If this were true, then couples that had previously had sterilization surgery would not be able to be married.
Click to expand...
I believe that case is ok, because they are not physically capable.

Hoosier daddy found this quote in Wiki listed as invalidating a marriage:

*Refusal to have children: One of the goods of marriage is children. A man or woman physically capable of fathering or, respectively, conceiving a child but who intends never to have children may not marry in the Catholic Church. *

It is not attributed, but I assume it comes from canon law??
 
Rau said:
I believe that case is ok, because they are not physically capable.

Hoosier daddy found this quote in Wiki listed as invalidating a marriage:

*Refusal to have children: One of the goods of marriage is children. A man or woman physically capable of fathering or, respectively, conceiving a child but who intends never to have children may not marry in the Catholic Church. *

It is not attributed, but I assume it comes from canon law??
Click to expand...
With Wiki, it is hard to tell.

The problem is, there is a difference between refusal to have children vs. a plan to not have children.

Take me. I do not plan on having any more children. I use NFP to avoid pregnancy. I plan to do it until I CAN’T have any more children.

So, I plan not to have children. BUT if I got pregnant, I would not have an abortion.

So, I am open to life. But I am not actively planning on more children.
 
maryjk said:
With Wiki, it is hard to tell.

The problem is, there is a difference between refusal to have children vs. a plan to not have children.

Take me. I do not plan on having any more children. I use NFP to avoid pregnancy. I plan to do it until I CAN’T have any more children.

So, I plan not to have children. BUT if I got pregnant, I would not have an abortion.

So, I am open to life. But I am not actively planning on more children.
Click to expand...
Ok, but the point in discussion at the moment is can you have a plan not to have children “ever” and then go and get married validly?

BTW, I do think this question is a bit artificial, except for people who are (say) approaching menopause, who may view age as a Just Reason. Most persons can’t know their mind for many years into the future.
 
Rau said:
Ok, but the point in discussion at the moment is can you have a plan not to have children “ever” and then go and get married validly?

BTW, I do think this question is a bit artificial, except for people who are (say) approaching menopause, who may view age as a Just Reason. Most persons can’t know their mind for many years into the future.
Click to expand...
I think we have to ask ourselve WHY the Church has certain guidlines and aply them to other situations.

Could a couple incapable of marital relations physically or mentally be married in the Church. No. Why is that?

I submit that it is because preforming the act and intending the natural conclusion of that act. Children is fundamental in the Catholic understanding of marriage.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I think we have to ask ourselve WHY the Church has certain guidlines and aply them to other situations.

Could a couple incapable of marital relations physically or mentally be married in the Church. No. Why is that?

I submit that it is because preforming the act and intending the natural conclusion of that act. Children is fundamental in the Catholic understanding of marriage.
Click to expand...
Yet, a distinction is made between couples who are **not capable of intercourse **(these may not marry), and those who are **sterile **(these may marry). Neither is capable of children (through no fault or decision of their own), yet the sterile couple can marry.

So, the intent and ability to beget children may not be “precisely” the correct factor underpinning valid marriage.

By the way, am I right in assuming that these details of Canon Law can change and evolve over time. They don’t sound as though they are part of infallible teaching.
 
Rau said:
Yet, a distinction is made between couples who are **not capable of intercourse **(these may not marry), and those who are **sterile **(these may marry). Neither is capable of children (through no fault or decision of their own), yet the sterile couple can marry.

So, the intent and ability to beget children may not be “precisely” the correct factor underpinning valid marriage.

By the way, am I right in assuming that these details of Canon Law can change and evolve over time. They don’t sound as though they are part of infallible teaching.
Click to expand...
Well I would say INTENT has to be there. While ability does not. Although as we have laid out clearly ability does enter into it. The couple HAS to be able to “have sex”

I think some canon law can change but some is tied and interwoven with infallible teaching. Like incest, or forced marriage. When these are addressed in canon law they are tied to the idea that it is wrong, and one cannot enter into a sacrament against their will.

I certainly hope some can be changed. i.e the one I cited earlier that has the age of consent at 16 for a male and 14 for a girl. I’m not sure how that can be applied morally this day and age.

So here is what we know. A couple has to be capable of preforming the act. A couple must preform the act. And even in a abstinent (Jehosephite) marriage if even one party decides the marriage should change to sexual it should. Couple that with a pro life stance and a moral direction of the Church to have sex in a way that is ordered toward procreation. i.e. Completion of the act in a certain way. If you add all those up together and think about the mind of the Church and how she is directing us, I just cannot imagine the conclusion of a marriage without intending procreation.
Even the elderly are held to the standard of the same moral law with regard to sex. Which is why even the elderly must preform the act to completion the best they can. A post menopausal couple cannot use ABC. Or, and I do not mean to be too graphic here, they cannot complete the act outside of the normative direction of the Church. Procreative law applies to even that situation. So the Church must be onto something about what marriage is supposed to be and why we as souls marry in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top