Getting married and intending not to have children

[SpiritMeadow]

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

I understand that. The Church interprets God’s wish and institutes marriage rules accordingly. However that has nothing to do with my statement. My problem is with “our” culture unless the poster was referring to all of recorded time. Our is then correct, since there was no necessary bond between children and marriage worldwide historically. It is not a recent invention. Augustine has a child with his mistress whom he lived with for years, such was “customary” in the pagan world of his time.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.

What you have said is true. However, I posit this: For many reasons a person might conclude that they were unsuited for parenting. (They might have been severely abused as a child, they may have been essentially unparented themselves and feel ill equipped.) The Church says such a person shall not marry given that determination.

But…does not marriage mean a great deal more than simple sexual behavior? What about companionship? Most people who have a good marriage will tell you its the knowing there is someone you can count on, tell anything too, trust, know you will always be supported, and a whole plethora of things that are available in this special intimacy.

I accept that this person cannot marry, but I find it difficult to believe that such a person couldn’t find another similar person and reside within one household chastely.

In fact, as I understand things, when a couple has married civililly unknowing that it isn’t recognized within the Church, they are recommended to live chastely until the matter is rectified. they ar not told to separate because others “might talk”.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

In fact, as I understand things, when a couple has married civililly unknowing that it isn’t recognized within the Church, they are recommended to live chastely until the matter is rectified. they ar not told to separate because others “might talk”.

As I understand things, they are required to separate, unless there is a compelling reason (e.g., children) not to.

 

[Yaholo]

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.

I want to start by saying AMEN to heather_rose!

As a more recent convert to Catholicism, I did not know about this requirement till I read this post. I think this is great and only furthers my respect for the Church. I often say that Shakespeare destroyed love. Everyday we see how the purely emotional drama of infatuation we now call “love” fails over and over. Marriage was always meant to be of the heart AND mind. Keeping procreation as an essential pillar of marriage does so much to preserve the full blessings and divine purpose of it.

Separating sex from procreation, and worse, procreation from family, has created a kind of insanity in our culture today. People are running around trying to fulfill themselves with shallow dramatized relationships that have consistency of manic-depressive fits. When all “love” is consists of an hormonal rush, then we reduce ourselves to animals living soley on chemical stimulous. God’s divine plan for marriage and family may not always be fun or “romantic”, but it makes us better people and gives true fulfulling intimacy.

 

[IrishJoe]

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…

One could argue that it’s a form of control

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.

to me that seems illogical. Hmm if i go outside in a hoodie and baseball cap people will think I’m a drug dealer so I better not wear those clothes…

It’s not my fault what other people think, everyone has free will or are the church really trying to pull a Pullman and deny that to people as well ? I don’t think they are but for some people life is black and white defined by the Church and there is no point in having free will if the church tells you what to do and what not to do. In reality its a lot different.
If people are Chastly co-habiting then that’s their business, its between them and God and no one else.

 

[kentuckyliz]

The sacrament of marriage is not valid if:

1. the marriage is never consummated. Hence, the impotent or “living chaste” (no sex, a Josephite marriage) may be able to “get married” in the Church but the sacrament is not valid and the marriage bond would be easily annulled. There would be no challenge to the bond unless one spouse wanted to divorce and remarry in the Church. It would be presumed valid until the tribunal meets and decides. (I had an aunt and uncle with a Josephite marriage, but they weren’t Catholic or particularly religious, and they never separated or divorced, so the validity of the sacrament never came into question.)
2. there is never any sex that is not artificially contracepted. My bff got married a couple years ago, and she’s sterilized, but the openness to children is in the vows, and they both kind of smirked through that, and I thought, well, if it doesn’t work out, it would be easy to get an annulment, they never had uncontracepted sex. I didn’t say anything but if she ever needs that particular guidance, I know enough to guide her.
3. It would be hard for most infertile people to know that they are infertile before marriage, if they are good Catholics, except in unusual medical circumstances (like a young woman I know who had a hysterectomy in her college years, due to disease). Of course, one cannot deceive one’s partner about the infertility, that would damage consent. But they should still be open to children, through step-parenting or adoption or fostering, if possible. Some infertile couples don’t become parents and accept their crosses and use their time and resources to serve others in different ways.

Chemo has forced me into menopause, so I am infertile, and I don’t plan to marry, but if I did, I certainly would be honest about my fertility status. (Most devout Catholic men are interested in having their own personal fertility goddesses, so my market value is zero or close to it.) I don’t see myself as a mother (hello, I’m 42, would have done that by now if it were in the cards for me) but if it were important to my mate, I might could be talked into stepparenting or adoption, as long as there’s team parenting going on. I don’t really see any of that happening, as I am happily permasingle and discerned at a young age that marriage and childbearing weren’t my vocation. I’ve turned down proposals. I can’t see the point of getting married if you aren’t going to have children–there’s no direction or development in the family. It might be different for older people past childbearing age who seek companionship. But I think, why bother? You can have lots of companionship without marriage. I have tons of friends. I just don’t get people’s compulsions about marriage. Some people are clearly not suitable for it. There’s lots of men who marry and keep dating (others) after marriage. That’s the biggest complaint I’m hearing from 20-something married women. I mean, if you’re going to get married, quit dating other people. If you’re not ready to do that, don’t get married. It’s a sham.

 

[He_Man]

One could argue that it’s a form of control

A tradition rooted in 2000 years of history is actually a ploy to control people? I’d love to hear the “argument” for that, please go ahead.

No one is forcing people to get married in the Church. I don’t hear people whining about having to shirts and pants in restaraunts. How dare they coerce and control people like that!

 

[heather_rose]

to me that seems illogical. Hmm if i go outside in a hoodie and baseball cap people will think I’m a drug dealer so I better not wear those clothes…

It’s not my fault what other people think, everyone has free will or are the church really trying to pull a Pullman and deny that to people as well ? I don’t think they are but for some people life is black and white defined by the Church and there is no point in having free will if the church tells you what to do and what not to do. In reality its a lot different.
If people are Chastly co-habiting then that’s their business, its between them and God and no one else.

Pardon me if I don’t pick and choose what rules to follow and what rules not to follow. Be wary of the argument that you are trying to use (and unsuccessfully, I might add) that you are not responsible for what other people think. For the most part, yes, people will think whatever they want to think. But to say that we have no responsibility at all for the impression that we give is not sound.

I also think there is a great difference between putting on a hoodie and moving in together. It’s the difference between a fleeting thought and an almost-sure thing. People today associate co-habitation with sex, and 95% of the time, they’re right.

It’s like painting a rainbow across your forehead, and walking around San Francisco holding hands with your best friend of the same sex and trying to tell people that you are not homosexual. You may just like rainbows, you may have a very close relationship with your best friend, and San Francisco is just a great place to hang out, but no one else will believe you. And if no one will believe you, what happens when you see someone engaging in that harmful lifestyle and you try to encourage them to change, I doubt you’d get a warm reception. You would be viewed as a hypocrite.

No. I would say that chastely co-habiting, no matter how good the intentions, would also be a dangerous temptation. Try asking your priest what he would advise in this situation. Do you think you’d get encouragement? I doubt it. Also, if you really do love each other, you would honor each other’s reputation, because as Proverbs 22:1 says,

A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver or gold.

Why take the chance? It is foolish and rebellious to take such a risk of a sullied reputation and the temptation of sex.

 

[kentuckyliz]

In grad school I shared a house with three men, but I just responded to a roommate wanted ad, and I was never there, it was just a crash pad, we were all grad students or young career people, very busy and never home. There wasn’t a friendship or relationship, just a roommate situation. I don’t think anyone thought I was a hoor or sleeping with any of them. But I guess that would be more difficult if I were just living with one guy instead of three! I mean, if people made assumptions about me living with three men, well, honey, I would have been too tired for grad school. Ridiculous.

I wouldn’t “chastely cohabit” in a relationship situation because I have young nieces and nephews and wouldn’t want to normalize immoral behavior for them. Because they wouldn’t necessarily “buy” that it’s chaste. I have to set a moral example for those young ones growing up in a far crazier world than I did. (The aforementioned living with three guys happened before any nieces or nephews were born, there was no scandal.)

All this shacking up really leaves moral young people looking for same-sex platonic roomates up a creek. Everybody’s shacking up with their bf or gf and that’s considered normal and acceptable. People are so numb to sin nowadays.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

**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. **

to me that seems illogical. Hmm if i go outside in a hoodie and baseball cap people will think I’m a drug dealer so I better not wear those clothes…

It’s not my fault what other people think, everyone has free will or are the church really trying to pull a Pullman and deny that to people as well ? I don’t think they are but for some people life is black and white defined by the Church and there is no point in having free will if the church tells you what to do and what not to do. In reality its a lot different.
If people are Chastly co-habiting then that’s their business, its between them and God and no one else.

I strongly disagree with what you are claiming here. I think you misunderstand the Catholic meaning of “scandal.” It has nothing to do with whether “people talk”; it has everything to do with giving bad example and leading others to sin.

Let me give you a hypothetical example. A teenager or young adult, not extremely well catechized, sees people around her she knows and respects (classmates, relatives, etc.), who she assumes are practicing Catholics or good Christians, and notices that some of these couples are living together without being married. She figures, “I know they are nice people, I can’t imagine them committing a serious sin. It must be okay to live together without being married. I love my boyfriend, I guess it’s okay if I do it too.” These classmates and relatives have led her to sin, and they are responsible for her sin. If people are “chastely” cohabiting (I wonder how possible that is, see pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=128 ), they give the appearance to many people that they are sexually active (unless they wear t-shirts saying, “CHASTELY CO-HABITING” ), and this is giving a bad example to others. It has nothing to do with others being nosy, or judgmental, or not minding their own business. The human mind naturally makes some assumptions based on prior experience; it’s unavoidable.

Another (real-life) example: Not long ago I was at a holiday family gathering where all the relatives — adults, young adults, teens, young children — were staying in the same house (sleeping bags, air mattresses, you name it — we have a big family). I noticed that an unmarried young adult relative was sleeping in the same room with his fiancee. Now, I as a parent was very upset. What kind of message was that sending to my daughters? Or to the young children who were guests there? Since these were family members, and their behavior was allowed by their parents who were our hosts (no, I don’t know what was or was not happening behind closed doors, but I can guess what everyone might have thought), I think the young people present were getting the message that it was an acceptable thing to do. This could ultimately figure into the decisions those young people will make some day.

He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.” (Luke 17:1–2)

 

[IrishJoe]

I also think there is a great difference between putting on a hoodie and moving in together. It’s the difference between a fleeting thought and an almost-sure thing. People today associate co-habitation with sex, and 95% of the time, they’re right.

Almost sure ? or sure ? you cannot be almost sure. its like being half Catholic.

and if they are 95% right there is the 1 in 20 situations where they are not.

It’s like painting a rainbow across your forehead, and walking around San Francisco holding hands with your best friend of the same sex and trying to tell people that you are not homosexual. You may just like rainbows, you may have a very close relationship with your best friend, and San Francisco is just a great place to hang out, but no one else will believe you. And if no one will believe you, what happens when you see someone engaging in that harmful lifestyle and you try to encourage them to change, I doubt you’d get a warm reception. You would be viewed as a hypocrite.

Why ? Persoally my favourite color is purple and my computer and most of the things I own have butterflies on them. I’m not gay though and no one see’s me as such.
Addionally I do think the church are the last people to be preaching about hypocracy.

I’m really not liking this forum. Everything is oh so black and white . Though that’s what happens when you live in a Ivory tower.

 

[heather_rose]

Almost sure ? or sure ? you cannot be almost sure. its like being half Catholic.

Of course you can be almost sure. You can be almost sure a lot more often than absolutely sure.

and if they are 95% right there is the 1 in 20 situations where they are not.

1 in 20 is still a conservative estimate, and the point is that it’s a very high percentage.

Addionally I do think the church are the last people to be preaching about hypocracy.

I’m really not liking this forum. Everything is oh so black and white . Though that’s what happens when you live in a Ivory tower.

It’s so nice to see someone practicing what they preach! It’s your prerogative to not like this forum, but if you would kindly stop insulting the rest of us, I’m almost sure I’m not the only one who’d appreciate it.

 

[TMC]

People today associate co-habitation with sex, and 95% of the time, they’re right.

I think this depends on the situation - if we are talking about co-habitation of romantic couples, yes the assumption is that they are having sex. If we are talking about co-habitation of opposite sex individuals that are not a “couple”, I think that is very common and does not imply that they are having sex.

But I don’t agree that this amounts to “scandal” which Aquinas defined as “a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin.” Living together chastly is not “evil in itself.” I suppose it could “occasion another’s spiritual ruin,” but it seems unlikely.

This part of the conversations originated with a question about whether a person that the Church says cannot be married may find and live chastely with someone they love. I say its no one’s business and if people insist on uncharitable beliefs about that couple that is their problem. Let’s sum up - if a person is not called to orders and the Church forbids this person marriage for some reason, we believe they must be alone their entire lives because some people may frown on them. Seems like a big price for them to pay for our uncharitable thoughts.

 

[He_Man]

Almost sure ? or sure ? you cannot be almost sure. its like being half Catholic.

and if they are 95% right there is the 1 in 20 situations where they are not.

Why ? Persoally my favourite color is purple and my computer and most of the things I own have butterflies on them. I’m not gay though and no one see’s me as such.
Addionally I do think the church are the last people to be preaching about hypocracy.

I’m really not liking this forum. Everything is oh so black and white . Though that’s what happens when you live in a Ivory tower.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think this depends on the situation - if we are talking about co-habitation of romantic couples, yes the assumption is that they are having sex. If we are talking about co-habitation of opposite sex individuals that are not a “couple”, I think that is very common and does not imply that they are having sex.

But I don’t agree that this amounts to “scandal” which Aquinas defined as “a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin.” Living together chastly is not “evil in itself.” I suppose it could “occasion another’s spiritual ruin,” but it seems unlikely.

This part of the conversations originated with a question about whether a person that the Church says cannot be married may find and live chastely with someone they love. I say its no one’s business and if people insist on uncharitable beliefs about that couple that is their problem. Let’s sum up - if a person is not called to orders and the Church forbids this person marriage for some reason, we believe they must be alone their entire lives because some people may frown on them. Seems like a big price for them to pay for our uncharitable thoughts.

agreed, and under the “giving others the occasion for sin” the poster who had 3 male roomates in college would be not one whit different than the couple in love who remained chaste in their cohabitation. they are both allowing an appearance to be put forth that might appear to some to be unholy.

I have yet to see where the Church would condemn this. Only people’s opinions. I would feel very very sorry for anyone placed in such an untenable position and who feels they must face a life alone as their only alternative. But then, I guess that is why some folks join convents and monesteries.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Excuse me, but I am the poster who shared a house with three male roommates in graduate school. And would refuse to shack up with a romantic partner, chaste or not, because that would be scandalous and a bad example to my nieces and nephews.

Anyone unfamiliar with my living situation wouldn’t concern themselves with it; anyone who knew it knew it was merely a crash pad for a group of young graduate students and career people who were poor and just starting out in life and who were working hard and never home. We weren’t even friends, no hanging out, no meals together, nothing. We all had our own rooms. It was cheap living for salad days. No one would have construed anything differently about our situation. It wasn’t even as fun and glamorous as “Three’s Company.” Out of the two living arrangements available to me, it was the safer and less scandalous one available. The other was to live out in the country with one really weird male artist guy…gave me the creeps and looked to be a weird situation. My housing choice was correct.

The next year I was living with a whole bunch of people! Even more! Did that make me an even bigger hoor? No, I had a residential job at a boarding school. heh heh heh

I would never live with a cohab and give scandal!!!

 

[IrishJoe]

Don’t you mean “I’m really not liking the Catholic Church. Everything is oh so black and white . Though that’s what happens when you live in a Ivory tower.”

If I didn’t like the Catholic Church I wouldn’t be in it. But just because I’m in it doent entitle me to pontificate and look down on lesser people who aren’t as Catholic as I am as you seem to convey.

This forum isn’t making up rules. People here are citing sources and pointing out 2000 year old teachings in many cases.

I never realized that Aquinas was 2000 years old. Or I don’t recall the scandal elements being put together until much later by an established church. Additionally the church by simple mathematics cannot be 2000 years old. It is 2007. Jesus was ~33 when he died. now if he began his ministry at 30 and had even said then to Peter then that would make the church 1970 years old. Honestly at this rate Islam or even protestantism is looking good as at least the Muslims or protestants I talk to aren’t as pretentious as catholics that I know.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If I didn’t like the Catholic Church I wouldn’t be in it. But just because I’m in it doent entitle me to pontificate and look down on lesser people who aren’t as Catholic as I am as you seem to convey.

Perhaps you don’t think the rest of us are making the connection, but earlier in this thread you made a strong suggestion that it wasn’t the business of the church to regulate the meaning of marriage for its members, then suggested that doing so was “controlling”, and dropped in a jab at NFP along the way. Throw in a bit of hairsplitting over ~25 years over an ~2000 year time period while glossing over what was in the Old Testament about marriage in order to do that hairsplitting in the first place, and you’ve put yourself on the wrong soapbox to complain about other people pontificating…

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Excuse me, but I am the poster who shared a house with three male roommates in graduate school. And would refuse to shack up with a romantic partner, chaste or not, because that would be scandalous and a bad example to my nieces and nephews.

Anyone unfamiliar with my living situation wouldn’t concern themselves with it; anyone who knew it knew it was merely a crash pad for a group of young graduate students and career people who were poor and just starting out in life and who were working hard and never home. We weren’t even friends, no hanging out, no meals together, nothing. We all had our own rooms. It was cheap living for salad days. No one would have construed anything differently about our situation. It wasn’t even as fun and glamorous as “Three’s Company.” Out of the two living arrangements available to me, it was the safer and less scandalous one available. The other was to live out in the country with one really weird male artist guy…gave me the creeps and looked to be a weird situation. My housing choice was correct.

The next year I was living with a whole bunch of people! Even more! Did that make me an even bigger hoor? No, I had a residential job at a boarding school. heh heh heh

I would never live with a cohab and give scandal!!!

You miss the point completely. I’m sure all your friends and family did know exactly what was up in the crash pad. However to strangers your still the woman who goes in a house at night with 3 men and doesnt come out till the morning. That would appear as scandalous as the hypothetical I posited.

I make absolutely no inference from your choice. I have no basis nor right to judge you.

 

[He_Man]

If I didn’t like the Catholic Church I wouldn’t be in it. But just because I’m in it doent entitle me to pontificate and look down on lesser people who aren’t as Catholic as I am as you seem to convey.

Who is looking down? Abiding by rules is not looking down. Don’t be mad because people explain the truth of what the Church teaches.

Are we to assume the legal systems looks down citizens because they have laws?? People who come to a site to discuss Church teaching need to do so with thicker skin, instead of whining about the Church being full of meanies.

No one is being mean, they are simply explaining what we teach. If that is offensive, why are you here?

I never realized that Aquinas was 2000 years old. Or I don’t recall the scandal elements being put together until much later by an established church. Additionally the church by simple mathematics cannot be 2000 years old. It is 2007. Jesus was ~33 when he died. now if he began his ministry at 30 and had even said then to Peter then that would make the church 1970 years old. Honestly at this rate Islam or even protestantism is looking good as at least the Muslims or protestants I talk to aren’t as pretentious as catholics that I know.

Most Catholics also don’t damn you to hell, or cut your head off for being rule breaker. You need to talk to more people. If you honestly think Catholics are more pretentious, you don’t know many Catholics. And now you base a Church not on its teachings, but on its people? If so, you’ll be changing Churches a lot. What does the truth of what the RCC teaches have to do with whether or not you like your neighbor?

If anything the Catholic Church has a higher number of people who arent taking their faith seriously; that would be counter to pretentiousness, by definition.

And you rcomment about the Church’s age is straight out of a “I don’t have a good answer” text book. And quite laughable.

If you are going to be literal in these discussions (2000 versus 1970), go debate elsewhere and stop wasting people’s time. It is petty and very childish. There are plenty of sites where you can win debates on technicalities. If that’s what you want, you clearly don’t want to learn or care about the truth anyway.