Childless by Choice Catholics: Is this OK? Opinion Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter HelpingHands
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cynic:
What if you chosse not to marry because you don’t want children? - I mean what if you deliberately stay single, remain celibate, have no relationships because you would just rather not have children. Is this ok? I get the impression that there are two options for catholics, become a priest, or marry and be open to a large family…
Click to expand...
I don’t see anything wrong with that. Marriage has so much to it. We catholics teach that no contraception meaning children are what we are open to. If a marriage exists and the couple will live like brother and sister meaning they will not have sex (don’t know any who do this really) but if marriage has sex in it, then you automatically have it in your mind of minds that reasons and says there is a possibility of children. So I’d say if you for whatevere reason are not open to children (again, this reason is a very real reason) then not marrying is just perfectly alright. Let’s say you may be ready in the future. Or you may not. Children are wonderful and they are also a great big huge responsibility and it’s not just the physical needs but the emotional needs from both the mother and the father in a good marriage.
 
Feanaro's Wife:
Let’s say that a person entered a marriage with the intention of never being open to children… let’s say that makes the marriage invalid…

what then is the status of a marriage where one or both people entered into it with the intent to never be open to children, but then had a change of heart. Does that then become a valid marriage from that point on?

Malia
Click to expand...
Okay, I don’t entirely know how to answer this one. Assuming it was invalid, then it must be fixed somehow, say by “convalidation”. This is sometimes a bigger deal and sometimes it is private. How private, that’s what I don’t know. I think it is possible for just the person with the defective consent to renew the consent, provided the other person still has the consent. But I don’t know if you have to do this renewing or making of consent according to a form with a priest and all or if you can do it sitting at the breakfast table one day. However it gets done, once the convalidation takes place, then the marriage begins right then. There is some other deal that is sort of retroactive, but that is another ball of wax. Here is canon law again:
Can. 1159 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of a defect of consent is convalidated if the party who did not consent now consents, provided that the consent given by the other party perseveres.
Click to expand...
§2. If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret.
Click to expand...
§3. If the defect of consent can be proven, the consent must be given in canonical form.
Click to expand...
If a person is truly concerned that they might be in a bad boat, I’d go talk to a priest quietly and ask him what may need to be done.
 
I said for the various health reasons and/or possibility of genetic defect. Not because I think that is a reason in and of itself, but if the couple has prayerfully discerned that God does not want them to bear children because of these circumstances, “His Will be Done.”
 
40.png
NFPfamily:
If they entered into the marriage with the intention of not being truly open to life, then wouldn’t the marriage be invalid?
Click to expand...
This post contains a description of the extent of “non-openness to children” required to invalidate a marriage. (See section C3.)
 
Hi everyone.
I still haven’t voted on my poll. I just can’t put myself in some else’s shoes, and what would be a reasonable reason to not have children. I can’t imagine not wanting kids. I love babies. I think all married couples should have children, but I’m not sure if it’s a sin not to, although I think it’s sad to see good people with so much to offer not having children.

Have you guys seen ‘The March of the Penguins’? It’s a new release documentary movie about the lives of the Emperor Penguins in Antactica, the harshest climate on earth. It tells the story of the incredible lengths they go to to care for their young in a hostile climate. Those Penguins are absolutely amazing! You have to see it! God’s creation is awe inspiring.

March of the Penguins official site
 
The only way to regulate birth in marriage is thru NFP, but this can only be used for just/serious reasons, and not out of selfishness. From the catechism:
“Married couples should regard it as their **proper mission to transmit human life ** and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”
 
Unfortunatelly I have to be the guy that brings in Sacramental Theology to the discussion.

To not be open to the fertility of marriage at the time of the transmission of the vows will render the sacrament null and invalid. A couple that has that intention of never having children by their own volition at the time of the sacrament cannot enter into that sacrament. This is a necessary portion of the disposition necessary for a valid marriage. A couple that makes this decision and has held this decision up to and in the transmission of the vows is not married as such.

I also noticed that there was a question about remaining single because they don’t want children. That would definatelly signal that that person has a vocation to the single life. Remember, the Church only recognizes two states of living - the single life and the married life. In the single life there are a couple subsets of vocations - Prist for men, religious for men or women, single for men or women. The single life is defined as a person who lives in the world in the single state for the kingdom of God. They offer much to the Church even though sometimes we forget that it is a true vocation.
 
40.png
mosher:
I also noticed that there was a question about remaining single because they don’t want children. **That would definatelly signal that that person has a vocation to the single life. ** Remember, the Church only recognizes two states of living - the single life and the married life. In the single life there are a couple subsets of vocations - Prist for men, religious for men or women, single for men or women. The single life is defined as a person who lives in the world in the single state for the kingdom of God. They offer much to the Church even though sometimes we forget that it is a true vocation.
Click to expand...
I must disagree. A person that remains single because he/she does not want children may be just plain selfish. Note, they remain single because they don’t want children (not because they don’t feel called to marriage, etc.). In other words, they may be avoiding their true vocation (marriage) because they do not want children.
 
40.png
lifeisbeautiful:
I must disagree. A person that remains single because he/she does not want children may be just plain selfish. Note, they remain single because they don’t want children (not because they don’t feel called to marriage, etc.).
Click to expand...
True it could manifest itself as a vice but that is sometimes how a person that is not formed in the faith acts upon their call. It is very interesting to see at times how a call to a particular vocation will manifest itself. God builds (in a sense) to be married or single priest or nun the way we manifest that build can be ordered or disordered. It is our hope to order our person to the good and have a healthy manifestation of our vocation.

A good example is usually persons who are not called to married life will feel a tendancy toward a selfish spirituality in that they don’t want or like to share their faith life and prayer with others whereas it is part of the vocation of marriage to share your prayerlife intimatelly with your spouse. Humans are interesting creatures and do some of the strangest things.
 
40.png
lifeisbeautiful:
I must disagree. A person that remains single because he/she does not want children may be just plain selfish. Note, they remain single because they don’t want children (not because they don’t feel called to marriage, etc.). In other words, they may be avoiding their true vocation (marriage) because they do not want children.
Click to expand...
Your logic does not follow. A person WANTS to be married, but does NOT want children, so that person puts God’s desire first and his own second in staying single. How does this equate to selfish? Sounds like this person is the opposite of selfish.

If it were the person’s true vocation to be married, the person would be called to married life. If a person does not want the responsibilities of a marriage, but does want the priveleges, THIS person is being selfish.

A person who wants the sex and comfort that comes with a marriage but is not willing to invite God into the marriage because the person doesn’t want to be bothered with having children to feed and clean and clothe, that person is being selfish and holding part of him/herself back from his/her spouse and from God.

A person who is not called to the family life (which, while wonderful, is also a sacrifice) is not a person truly called to the married life. A person who has no desire to do such things can do other things pleasing to God.

I think the definition and purpose of marriage is important here. It is not for the fulfillment of joy in oneself. I’m not a catechism person. Can someone find the pertinent section and post the Catholic understanding of what a marriage is, please?
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
Your logic does not follow. A person WANTS to be married, but does NOT want children, so that person puts God’s desire first and his own second in staying single. How does this equate to selfish? Sounds like this person is the opposite of selfish.

If it were the person’s true vocation to be married, the person would be called to married life. If a person does not want the responsibilities of a marriage, but does want the priveleges, THIS person is being selfish.

A person who wants the sex and comfort that comes with a marriage but is not willing to invite God into the marriage because the person doesn’t want to be bothered with having children to feed and clean and clothe, that person is being selfish and holding part of him/herself back from his/her spouse and from God.

A person who is not called to the family life (which, while wonderful, is also a sacrifice) is not a person truly called to the married life. A person who has no desire to do such things can do other things pleasing to God.

I think the definition and purpose of marriage is important here. It is not for the fulfillment of joy in oneself. I’m not a catechism person. Can someone find the pertinent section and post the Catholic understanding of what a marriage is, please?
Click to expand...
Actually, you misread. A person may have the vocation to marriage, but not want to marry because then they would have to accept children that may come. Let me give you an example: A woman has a career that requires much traveling etc meets a man and thinks her vocation is to marry him. She decides not to because she does not want to be “tied down” to a family; she does not want the sacrifices involved in having one and they are both Catholic and they know that with marriage you have to be open to life. She decides to not marry. She is not doing what God wants, she is doing what she wants, being selfish.

Also, I didn’t understand what you said. If a person wants to marry, but does **not want ** children, how is staying single putting God’s desire first? If God desires them to be married, they are not doing what He desires. Their wants are independent of His desires.
 
OK, I get it. Your point is that the person is called to married life but selfishly wants to omit children from the marriage, so she doesn’t marry (which was God’s will) so that she can avoid children (which was her own). I can see how you say that is selfish.

My point was that a person wants to get married (her will) but does not want children (God’s will in a marriage), so knowing that she could not please God within a marriage, she instead puts her will aside and remains single, where she can serve the Lord and do God’s will. I would say this is not selfish.

So it really boils down to the intentions of the person. I think God can use a person wherever the person is if the person is open to doing God’s will. God’s will is an openness to life in marriage. If a person is not open to life, I would not say it is God’s will that the person be married. Instead, I would think it wiser for the person to remain single where she is free to do what it is she is capable of doing to please the Lord.

In your example, the person does not seem open to doing God’s will in the single or the married life. Her selfishness is not a problem in just one arena, but is pervasive of her entire worldview. In my example, the person is open to doing God’s will but is not open to parenthood, so by putting her own desires aside to make sure she properly gives the Lord the glory he is due, she is the antithesis of selfish.
 
Ok, but the person in your example should not choose single life just because they don’t want children. They should choose single life because they feel its their vocation (if it is). Whether or not they want children does not play a role. I can’t think of a good (moral) reason why someone would not want children. Children are a gift from God, who would not want a gift?
 
40.png
lifeisbeautiful:
Ok, but the person in your example should not choose single life just because they don’t want children. They should choose single life because they feel its their vocation (if it is). Whether or not they want children does not play a role. I can’t think of a good (moral) reason why someone would not want children. Children are a gift from God, who would not want a gift?
Click to expand...
Those called to the single life in many cases do not want children. By this I mean that they do not want to raise children. They cannot see themselves being a father or mother in that way but perhaps in another way.
 
I know a girl I went to school with and has decided to live a single, chaste life, she doesn’t plan on marrying at this time or ever and she is terrified of being a parent, she was severly abused and molested as a child and this even after 15 years of therapy, has basically taken over her life. She is such a fragile person, I know, that at this time in her life, she should not marry and have kids, she has way too many issues. She is Catholic and she has no desire to be a nun, she is scared of men because of what happened to her and she has a horrible time trusting anyone.
So, in some cases, I think, in her case, making the statement she does not want to marry or have kids, it is not because she is selfish, she knows that she is very unstable, she has tried to take her life many years ago, she knows, she can’t give herself to a man or kids, she would not be able to deal with it, she can sometimes hardly take care of herself.
I can’t believe in that type of situation, it could be immoral that she has no desire to marry or have kids. I think she would rather be dead than have relations with a man. It is very sad and when I think of what she has been through, I get literally sick. 😦
 
Please note that I said “should not choose single life **just because ** they don’t want children.” Your friend doesn’t want to marry right now, period. Even if she knew children were not going to come through marriage, she still wouldn’t get married (from what I read), so children are not the sole reason for her remaining single, which is what I was referring to.
 
40.png
mosher:
Those called to the single life in many cases do not want children. By this I mean that they do not want to raise children. They cannot see themselves being a father or mother in that way but perhaps in another way.
Click to expand...
Once again, I said: “should not choose single life **just because ** they don’t want children.” A person is basing their decision of being single or married on the fact that they do not want children. You are saying that some people that are called to be single do not see themselves as parents. That does not mean that that was the reason they chose to be single. I would hope it was because they realized it was their vocation, either because they realized it early on, or as the years passed.
 
40.png
lifeisbeautiful:
Once again, I said: “should not choose single life **just because ** they don’t want children.” A person is basing their decision of being single or married on the fact that they do not want children. You are saying that some people that are called to be single do not see themselves as parents. That does not mean that that was the reason they chose to be single. I would hope it was because they realized it was their vocation, either because they realized it early on, or as the years passed.
Click to expand...
Of course, however, the center piece of my statement is that sometimes a vocation or the sense of a vocation other than marriage can manifest itself in very odd ways and then it is our response to order that to the good.
 
There seems to be some lack of clarity (at least in my mind) about the meaning of the phrase “open to life”. Does being open to life allow a couple to not want children, but understand that being married creates the potential for children, and though they may pursue legitimate means to reduce the possibility of conception, they would lovingly accept any conception that does occur despite their efforts to the contrary?
 
What’s the difference between the childless couple and the couple that “chooses” to only have one, two, three kids? If you “plan” on the amount of children you “want” could this be considered the same? Not to open a can of worms…just thinking aloud…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top