Getting married and intending not to have children

[Phemie]

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.

It could become a reason for an annulment if the condition was known but not revealed – because then it would come down to consent.

For example if the guy had had a vasectomy (yeah, I know, good Catholic men don’t) and didn’t reveal it before the wedding the marriage could be declared invalid. That could happen if the woman had had every intention of having children and would have opted not to marry him if she’d known of the situation. IOW, she didn’t have full knowledge of the situation so wasn’t able to give consent.

 

[peary]

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?

**I have known several couples who got married with no intention of ever having children. After several years, one or the other or both desired to have children. Some could not; some adopted; others did. Those that disagreed with each other usually got divorced. **

 

[AndyF]

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

(See Catechism)

AndyF

 

[PhilotheaZ]

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?

Not necessarily true.

First, if by the words “who loved each other” you include sexual attraction, living together would be an occasion of sin.

Second, by living together, they might give scandal, i.e., allowing others to assume they are sexually active outside marriage, and tacitly giving the impression that they think this is acceptable.

 

[IrishJoe]

surely its no one else’s business and we shouldn’t judge ?

 

[heather_rose]

surely its no one else’s business and we shouldn’t judge ?

1 Thess. 5:22 “From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.”

I think that’s clear enough. But you’re right–we shouldn’t judge, but people do. I can’t imagine the damage done to my witness as a Christian if I and my boyfriend decided that we wanted to move in together. Even if we were remaining personally chaste, everyone would assume that we were not, and our witness would be ruined because no one would believe us.

As for couples who “love each other” but don’t want children… I would say that this is another example of the sad illusion of “love” that most couples labor under. But I’m sure that that is a question for a different thread… hmm… perhaps I should ask, just to see what sort of response I get.

 

[marci]

I can’t remember what was the exact wording during my own ceramony, but I was recently at a catholic wedding and the priest specifically asked the couple if they would accept children from God. I do remember that was something our priest asked us during our marriage prep, but I can’t recall if he asked us during the ceramony.

 

[TMC]

1 Thess. 5:22 “From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.”

I think that’s clear enough. But you’re right–we shouldn’t judge, but people do. I can’t imagine the damage done to my witness as a Christian if I and my boyfriend decided that we wanted to move in together. Even if we were remaining personally chaste, everyone would assume that we were not, and our witness would be ruined because no one would believe us.

As for couples who “love each other” but don’t want children… I would say that this is another example of the sad illusion of “love” that most couples labor under. But I’m sure that that is a question for a different thread… hmm… perhaps I should ask, just to see what sort of response I get.

OK, I’ll bite. What is this “sad illusion of love.” Can the love that men and women have for each other only be expressed through their children? Must they want children to be in love? Or are you saying that not wanting children is selfish? I may be able to agree with the last, (maybe) but not the others. I know some very loving childless couples.

 

[heather_rose]

OK, I’ll bite. What is this “sad illusion of love.” Can the love that men and women have for each other only be expressed through their children? Must they want children to be in love? Or are you saying that not wanting children is selfish? I may be able to agree with the last, (maybe) but not the others. I know some very loving childless couples.

Hmm… through my own fault, I’ve been misunderstood. I apologize for the annoyingly vague and tantalizing statement.

What I mean by the “sad illusion of love” is that most couples I see today seem to have a corrupted view of love. It is more than a feeling of intense affection, which is why the couples around me feel the need to get married. I hear “I’m in love, so I’m going to get married.” I have also heard, with some shock, that marriage is “when you get to have moral sex.”

The problem in a nutshell, I guess (I’m horrible in nutshells!) is that disconnecting sex from children is dangerous. Choosing to have sex is something that should be linked to the idea of children. But our culture has severed these ideas, leading to my “sad illusion of love” as being an emotional and physical affection and attraction. Am I making any sense? I mean no offense, and I hope I haven’t given any.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

surely its no one else’s business and we shouldn’t judge ?

To an extent, but then it seems rather odd for someone who rejects the Catholic understanding of marriage to approach the Catholic Church to bless their marriage.

 

[TMC]

Hmm… through my own fault, I’ve been misunderstood. I apologize for the annoyingly vague and tantalizing statement.

What I mean by the “sad illusion of love” is that most couples I see today seem to have a corrupted view of love. It is more than a feeling of intense affection, which is why the couples around me feel the need to get married. I hear “I’m in love, so I’m going to get married.” I have also heard, with some shock, that marriage is “when you get to have moral sex.”

The problem in a nutshell, I guess (I’m horrible in nutshells!) is that disconnecting sex from children is dangerous. Choosing to have sex is something that should be linked to the idea of children. But our culture has severed these ideas, leading to my “sad illusion of love” as being an emotional and physical affection and attraction. Am I making any sense? I mean no offense, and I hope I haven’t given any.

I am very difficult to offend, but I can’t imagine even the thinner skinned would find anything you said offensive.

I agree that the common understanding of the Church’s teaching is that sex must be connected to having children. I think it is slightly more accurate to say that the Church teaches that sex must be objectively open to procreation, even if subjectively disconnected from the possibilty of having children. I struggle with understanding how that works for the infertile, but that is probably a topic for another thread, as well.

 

[heather_rose]

I agree that the common understanding of the Church’s teaching is that sex must be connected to having children. I think it is slightly more accurate to say that the Church teaches that sex must be objectively open to procreation, even if subjectively disconnected from the possibilty of having children. I struggle with understanding how that works for the infertile, but that is probably a topic for another thread, as well.

Oh, the limits of language! I agree with your statement about the Church’s teaching. However, I must say that such things are incredibly difficult to explain to the girls I interact with. Let me be clearer: I am a converted Catholic attending a very Protestant and pro-contraceptive university. How would you suggest explaining to these girls the true meaning of the Church’s teaching, without twisting it as I did?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Not necessarily true.

First, if by the words “who loved each other” you include sexual attraction, living together would be an occasion of sin.

**Not if they lived chastely. And of course people are sexually attracted to all kinds of people who don’t live with them, so I don’t see the prohibition simply because they are living in the same house. **

Second, by living together, they might give scandal, i.e., allowing others to assume they are sexually active outside marriage, and tacitly giving the impression that they think this is acceptable.

**So are you giving me some cite or just your opinion? Based on the rules as I’ve seen them expressed, they can’t marry, but as long as they are chaste, they may co-habit. What it looks like to outsiders would not seem to be the point. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1 Thess. 5:22 “From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves.”

I think that’s clear enough. But you’re right–we shouldn’t judge, but people do. I can’t imagine the damage done to my witness as a Christian if I and my boyfriend decided that we wanted to move in together. Even if we were remaining personally chaste, everyone would assume that we were not, and our witness would be ruined because no one would believe us.

**But it would appear that the judgers are the one’s acting sinfully wouldn’t you agree? **

As for couples who “love each other” but don’t want children… I would say that this is another example of the sad illusion of “love” that most couples labor under. But I’m sure that that is a question for a different thread… hmm… perhaps I should ask, just to see what sort of response I get.

yes, I would agree. It seems that the rest of the world does define love much differently than the church.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Hmm… through my own fault, I’ve been misunderstood. I apologize for the annoyingly vague and tantalizing statement.

What I mean by the “sad illusion of love” is that most couples I see today seem to have a corrupted view of love. It is more than a feeling of intense affection, which is why the couples around me feel the need to get married. I hear “I’m in love, so I’m going to get married.” I have also heard, with some shock, that marriage is “when you get to have moral sex.”

**Yes I agree that the feeling that people “have to get married” certainly does help increase the incidence of divorce. **

The problem in a nutshell, I guess (I’m horrible in nutshells!) is that disconnecting sex from children is dangerous. Choosing to have sex is something that should be linked to the idea of children. But our culture has severed these ideas, leading to my “sad illusion of love” as being an emotional and physical affection and attraction. Am I making any sense? I mean no offense, and I hope I haven’t given any.

**Has “our” culture severed children from marriage or did the Church create the bond? I in no way mean to dispute the Church, for its teachings are clear, but I’m wondering who created the problem here. **

 

[He_Man]

surely its no one else’s business and we shouldn’t judge ?

Since the Church is marrying them, IT IS the Church’s business. You want a Catholic wedding, you play by The CATHOLIC CHURCH’S rules. Go start your own Church if you want to make the rules you want; that was worked so well for about 35,000 other Christian denominations.

And do a search on NFP on here; the differences between NFP and ABC are stark, and vast, and have been spoken upon on here numerous times every day. You can find a number of topics to answer your questions.

 

[He_Man]

yes, I would agree. It seems that the rest of the world does define love much differently than the church.

There is only one definition of love. What others choose to make up is irrelevant.

I can define a telephone as an object I use to eat food on, but that doesn’t make it a plate, does it?

 

[davidv]

**Has “our” culture severed children from marriage or did the Church create the bond? I in no way mean to dispute the Church, for its teachings are clear, but I’m wondering who created the problem here. **

God created the bond of marraige, not the Church. The Church is bound to uphold the truth. The “problem” is created by sinful humans.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There is only one definition of love. What others choose to make up is irrelevant.

I can define a telephone as an object I use to eat food on, but that doesn’t make it a plate, does it?

Well I certainly like a poster who sees the world as only black and white…And what is that definition by the way?

 

[Hartmeister]

OK, I’ll bite. What is this “sad illusion of love.” Can the love that men and women have for each other only be expressed through their children? Must they want children to be in love? Or are you saying that not wanting children is selfish? I may be able to agree with the last, (maybe) but not the others. I know some very loving childless couples.

In some way all love that we have for fellow creatures is a lesser love that we have for God. We are made on this earth to know, love and serve God. We learn about God by going to Church, reading sacred scriptures and teachings of the Church. We love God by going to Church, receiving Holy Communion in a state free of sin and praying to God. We serve God by discerning his will on how we should live our life.

If we love God, we should love every gift even those that are unexpected and unwanted (at the time) like children our for some. We serve God by figuring out his will in our lives.

If I did not like children and know not want any children of my own I would come to the conclusion before marriage that either:

1. my emotions about children are wrong and likely to change once I have become married
2. I should not marry since I may be not a proper parent

I think the key is discernment. Is the reason that I love this other person selfish and almost obsessive? Is it God will that I become married to this person? Will I become closer to God by marrying this person or will I grow farther apart?

I think that many people marry just out of loneliness, fear that if this person leaves me I will not find another. The problem is that any person I marry will only be with me for a short period of time while I plan on spending my life with God for eternity.