Getting married and intending not to have children

[Journeyman]

Can a man and woman of child-bearing age get married in the Catholic Church while knowing that they intend on not having children simply because they do not want children to get in the way of their lives?

 

[1ke]

Yes, a permanent intention against children could be an impediment to a valid marriage.

 

[Rems07]

It’s interesting that I found this question. I posted a similar question twice and didn’t get a response… but I found another linke with a similar answer…what I understand is that you must be open to children for the validity of marriage to take place…a couple can practice Natural Family Planning, but being open to children. In the response that I found, it was recommended by the apologist that the couple should really look at if marriage is their true calling because of the desire not to have children, since that is the fruit of a sacramental marriage.
But as long as the couple is open to it if it should happen, without preventing it artificially, I believe it is acceptable. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[IrishAm]

May I suggest that the hypothetical couple in question not advertise their plan to not EVER have children. Many a couple with such a plan changed their minds as life unfolded; and no one ever lets them forget it.

 

[baltobetsy]

May I suggest that the hypothetical couple in question not advertise their plan to not EVER have children. Many a couple with such a plan changed their minds as life unfolded; and no one ever lets them forget it.

And the children themselves might take offense as well.

Betsy

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Can a man and woman of child-bearing age get married in the Catholic Church while knowing that they intend on not having children simply because they do not want children to get in the way of their lives?

No the Marriage would be invalid from the start. Most Pastors or bishops would not permit the celebration of the Marriage under these conditions.

 

[puzzleannie]

Can a man and woman of child-bearing age get married in the Catholic Church while knowing that they intend on not having children simply because they do not want children to get in the way of their lives?

no they cannot contract a valid marriage with this stated or implicit intention to deliberately avoid having children.

 

[Journeyman]

No the Marriage would be invalid from the start. Most Pastors or bishops would not permit the celebration of the Marriage under these conditions.

Br. Rich and Puzzleannie,

Are there Church documents that state this? Can you post a link, if possible? Thanks!

 

[ChristianWAB]

This is a very interesting question because I never thought there was any rule in place that Catholics who get married and are of child-bearing age must be open to life.

Granted, my wife and I got married, practiced NFP and were ALWAYS open to the possibility of life. One fateful night, we relaxed our NFP and, lo and behold, we now have a beautiful daughter whom I wouldn’t trade for anything in the world.

But frankly, we’re not planning on having anymore children for at least a couple of years. So, are we out of the woods because we have a child whom we love or do we always have to be open to life, even if that means living in abject poverty with 11 kids that we can’t feed?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

This is a very interesting question because I never thought there was any rule in place that Catholics who get married and are of child-bearing age must be open to life.

It’s one of the central “rules”. And it has nothing to do with childbearing age; this applies to all married couples. even those of a certain age or those that are dealing with infertility.

Granted, my wife and I got married, practiced NFP and were ALWAYS open to the possibility of life. One fateful night, we relaxed our NFP and, lo and behold, we now have a beautiful daughter whom I wouldn’t trade for anything in the world.

Congratulations!

But frankly, we’re not planning on having anymore children for at least a couple of years. So, are we out of the woods because we have a child whom we love or do we always have to be open to life, even if that means living in abject poverty with 11 kids that we can’t feed?

The reasons for choosing not to have more children is what you have to discern prayerfully, and ideally with a faithful priest. I suggest that last part since you weren’t aware of church teaching on this.

Yes, you always have to be open to life. It would be contrary to God’s design for marriage and family and a sin.

And no, it doesn’t mean you have to have 11 kids or live in abject poverty. Why do people always go there when it comes to this subject?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Br. Rich and Puzzleannie,

Are there Church documents that state this? Can you post a link, if possible? Thanks!

I have below a few items taken from the current edition of Canon law. The short story is that someone entering marriage with an intent (rather than an inability) to never have children has aligned themselves against an essential property of the meaning of marriage from the start.

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

Canon 1055.1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptised, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.

**Canon 1096.1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

****Canon 1101.2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly.

**

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So two people who loved each other but for whatever reason did not want to raise children cannot marry but can live together as long as the relationship remains chaste?

 

[chevalier]

To the canons above let’s add 1066:

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

 

[TMC]

Doesn’t the Church marry old people, sterile people, impotent people, and others that either cannot perform the act or cannot reproduce (e.g the infirm)? How does that fit into this policy?

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Doesn’t the Church marry old people, sterile people, impotent people, and others that either cannot perform the act or cannot reproduce (e.g the infirm)? How does that fit into this policy?

impotence would be a hindrance to getting married in the church.
sterile people…usually dont know they are sterile before marriage.
old people can still have sex hence they are open to life (you never know)

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Doesn’t the Church marry old people, sterile people, impotent people, and others that either cannot perform the act or cannot reproduce (e.g the infirm)? How does that fit into this policy?

To a great degree, it is intent that matters once you get past the rare cases where a couple was never capable of completing the act from day one and never will be. The impact of actual impotence is mentioned in that same summary of canon law I linked. After a couple is sacramentally married, a later change in ability doesn’t undo the bond.

 

[TMC]

To a great degree, it is intent that matters once you get past the rare cases where a couple was never capable of completing the act from day one and never will be. The impact of actual impotence is mentioned in that same summary of canon law I linked. After a couple is sacramentally married, a later change in ability doesn’t undo the bond.

I see it, thanks. My read is that physically incapable of performing - no marriage, physically incapable of having children - marriage OK. Not sure why this is but it I think that is the rule.

Possibly off topic question - I have always heard that inability of one spouse to have children is a reason for an anullment, but based on this requirement, it seems like that would not be true, because that would not invalidate the marriage unless there was deception on that point.

 

[IrishJoe]

It’s interesting that I found this question. I posted a similar question twice and didn’t get a response… but I found another linke with a similar answer…what I understand is that you must be open to children for the validity of marriage to take place…a couple can practice Natural Family Planning, but being open to children

what i find difficult if that NFP is oh so pefect and accurate then what is the difference, it’s all the same. Arguably different methods but the effect is the same.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Doesn’t the Church marry old people, sterile people, impotent people, and others that either cannot perform the act or cannot reproduce (e.g the infirm)? How does that fit into this policy?

Yes the Church will Marry those advanced in age, those who are medically unable to have children. as long as they are able to have intercourse and are open to children. It will not allow a Marriage of someone who is impotent or mentally or physically unable for some other reason to have normal intercourse.

 

[mdgspencer]

I know of a woman who got an annulment when she got evidence that her husband intended not to have children when he got married. She wrote to him about her getting an annulment and he replied angrily that he had intended not to have children, providing without realizing it just the evidence she needed. Now she has been happily married in the Church for decades with someone else.
I also heard a story when I was young (I don’t know if this was true or not) about couples in Italy signing a statement before they were married that they intended not to have children, so that they could get an annulment if they later desired one.