Husband and I not having sex because we don't want children.

[lynnanine]

In case some of you haven’t noticed, the topic post contained an urgent plea for advice. The poster did not intend to create a forum for debate on peripheral issues. Let’s be polite and stay on topic. Thanks.

Oops! My apologies for my part in it.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

In case some of you haven’t noticed, the topic post contained an urgent plea for advice. The poster did not intend to create a forum for debate on peripheral issues. Let’s be polite and stay on topic. Thanks.

I’m actually not sure what advice the couple is looking for. So far from what the OP has posted:

• They converted to Catholicism
• They are abstaining from sex completely
• They don’t not want children, but will deal with it if they do
• They feel more Holy by abstaining

Quite frankly, I don’t see an issue between the couple. The only issue I see is that other people think they should be having sex. That is up to no one but the couple. It is most certainly possible that they are not meant to have children. That decision is up to them.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Seems silly to be married and be abstinence from marital relations. What’s the point of being married?

I personally would not refer to situation as silly, otherwise it would imply Josephite marriages are silly. They’re the ones that are married and get to decide that.

Again, since the intent is to prevent pregnancy through abstinence, just as any method of birth control, then I would say it is sinful.

There is no requirement that a married couple have sex or have children. Abstaining completely from sex is never sinful, provided of course both spouses agree.

The issue with NFP and sinfulness deals with having sex, not abstaining, because the Church does not teach abstaining is sinful. The Church does teach that having sexual relations while separating the procreative aspect from it is sinful. That is simply not possible if the couple simply abstains completely, with both parties agreeing.

If they don’t want to have sex or children, seems like both should enter into religious service. Seems more appropriate since our Church now holds that you have to be celibate to be a priest, nun, brother, etc.

To each their own. However, it does not follow that not having sex means someone is fit for religious service.

 

[Peebo]

I’m actually not sure what advice the couple is looking for. So far from what the OP has posted:

• They converted to Catholicism
• They are abstaining from sex completely
• They don’t not want children, but will deal with it if they do
• They feel more Holy by abstaining

Quite frankly, I don’t see an issue between the couple. The only issue I see is that other people think they should be having sex. That is up to no one but the couple. It is most certainly possible that they are not meant to have children. That decision is up to them.

:thumbsup:Amen

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m actually not sure what advice the couple is looking for. So far from what the OP has posted:

• They converted to Catholicism
• They are abstaining from sex completely
• They don’t not want children, but will deal with it if they do
• They feel more Holy by abstaining

Quite frankly, I don’t see an issue between the couple. The only issue I see is that other people think they should be having sex. That is up to no one but the couple. It is most certainly possible that they are not meant to have children. That decision is up to them.

OP - I guess I am just asking if there are others like us, who now find themselves incapable of sex and who live with their spouses like brothers and sisters? My husband and I love each other very much and often pray that we can leave together as we are quite inseparable.

If I’m intuiting rightly, the OP by virtue of the emoticons, is feeling sad(or annoyed) and confused about their situation. So in asking if there are others who live out their Catholic marriages in this way, she wants to find comfort and understanding in her own situation. She mentions not liking children based on the ones they know and of being afraid of giving birth. Those things could be impacting on her decision to not have sex after feeling the ‘freedom’ of contracepting up until recently… rather than her decision to be celibate for purely godly reasons. That is worth discerning carefully because sex serves to safeguard marriage in a unitive way. They could be damaging the marriage without that element doing its work.

I’ve personally never come across this sort of situation in my life or heard of anyone living this way. Teresa of Avila’s parents had chosen not to have sex when they got married for reasons of wanting to be more saintly in every way, but their Priest in no uncertain terms told them that they should be having sex as a married couple and what a saintly result that produced!

There is now lots of good material on the thread for her to sift through, especially the fact that this type of situation is pretty rare as a free choice of couples and that they should seek good spiritual direction in discerning their situation.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well trying to respond and work.

So let me try to be brief. The crisis in the Church is in several areas.

First, we have immoral people in the Church leadership.

Second, the Church is not addressing any human needs like the Protestant churches do for their membership.

Three we as members have no say on our Church and parishes. Our money has been wasted paying off the claims of the people sexually abused.

Four, our schools are for the rich. The average family can no longer afford a Catholic education for their children.

Five, the Church is doing nothing to rid itself of so-called Catholic politicians who openly promote and support the killing of children through abortion. Should Ted Kennedy really have been given a Catholic funeral? Seems like he and the others like him should be excommunicated.

Six, our clergy are few and unavailable for the Catholic faithful.

There are a few more, but I think that pretty much sums it up.

In that case, the Church has been “in crisis” on and off essentially since the conversion of Constantine. The difference is in how it is being handled by the faithful. It is being handled worse than ever.

I won’t go over what you said point by point. Suffice it to say that the average Catholic parish puts themselves out to educate the average Catholic child more than the average Catholic parents do, based on what the average Catholic student has learned at home and does at home. The average Catholic priest, when he teaches the faith bluntly and plainly, can expect to be vilified for it, not thanked, let alone given the respect due to his pastoral office. The average Catholic priest puts himself out FAR more than the average Catholic parishioner does, and (worse yet) average Catholics not only do not encourage their children to become priests and monks and nuns and sisters and friars, but as often as not actively discourages them–and then still complains that we don’t have enough priests!

This is a change since my childhood, and yes it is a crisis. I just don’t think the nature of the actual crisis is what people most commonly think it is.

As for denying Ted Kennedy a Catholic funeral–*really? *Is denying the liturgy of the Church to Ted Kennedy really that high on your complaint list? You do realize that the shouts from the other side of the boat is that the Church is “too judgmental” and not compassionate enough? I’m in favor on erring on the side of publicly praying for the dead, to be blunt about it. At any rate, the Church is in what I would call a “no win” situation on this one, which is why it would be a disaster if the “members of the faithful” had a mob vote on how the Church ought to be lead.

Laypeople ran the Boy Scouts, by the way, and it didn’t keep them from getting sued. Don’t jump on the Blame-the-Clergy Bandwagon, how about?

Alas, we divert the thread. Suffice it to say on that note that the OP couple should not concern themselves that they can’t please everyone on what they decide to do about this matter. It is impossible. Get a spiritual director, and satisfy the teachings of the Church. Ignore everybody else, and have peace.

 

[Corki]

I’m actually not sure what advice the couple is looking for. So far from what the OP has posted:

• They converted to Catholicism
• They are abstaining from sex completely
• They don’t not want children, but will deal with it if they do
• They feel more Holy by abstaining

Quite frankly, I don’t see an issue between the couple. The only issue I see is that other people think they should be having sex. That is up to no one but the couple. It is most certainly possible that they are not meant to have children. That decision is up to them.

It’s not entirely up to the couple. To plan to permanently exclude children from a marriage would call into question the validity BUT they weren’t Catholic when they married. This should have been addressed in RCIA since upon Baptism, their natural marriage became Sacramental.

However, if they wish to refrain from sexual relations and feel they are becoming closer to God through this abstinence, the best course of action would be to request permission for a Josephite marriage.

 

[Ms_Manners]

So in asking if there are others who live out their Catholic marriages in this way, she wants to find comfort and understanding in her own situation.

We are also in this kind of situation at the moment, but in our case it is temporary.

I am unemployed and we are not doing well at all, we really can’t afford a mistake in calculations at the moment, so we decided to abstain for a while.
We do want children and we will use other methods when things improve a little.
It is a decision we made together, and we are dealing with it like we do with all other aspects of reduced income.
We have other ways of expressing our feelings. There are some things we avoid to reduce temptation. Generally we try not to dwell on things we can’t do.

I did try talking to a priest about this. The only answer I got was that it was for us to decide how to handle it and I couldn’t even get an answer to the “is it a sin” part. He just kept repeating that it was up to us to think about this and come to an answer that works for us.

 

[Laurent_LUG]

A bit off-topic:

Living alone for the purpose of being alone is selfish.

I do have my mom & sisters and friends , and they are ALWAYS welcome !!
But … when they’re leaving , i’m back alone and really enjoy it
Social contacts are necessary , but for me out on “the Streets” , is close enough !!
Is that really wrong or selfish ??

btw: Since i moved from home , i lived for a short while with a woman ,
but i was glad she left , we had nothing in common , and also
i realized , partnership or having kids are not my way of life !!
Is that really wrong or selfish ??

Sometimes the people who aren’t where we are have a fresh perspective, right?

Well , thanks i really appreciate that

On-Topic:
Anyway , i really hope the couple can or will find a solution for their problem !!

 

[TCEL]

dluna, you should talk with a priest. I’m not qualified to give you advice regarding your scenario. All I can do is recommend learning one of the NFP methods strictly for gynecological health purposes, if you haven’t already. Not that it’s necessary, but I think you mentioned somewhere that you hadn’t been to a doctor or had a PAP in a while. In my case, charting my cycle helped the NFP doctor realize I had hypothyroidism. Chances are you have nothing to worry about, but it doesn’t hurt to learn. At the very least, I learned something and came to appreciate both God and my body better.

 

[EasterJoy]

dluna, you should talk with a priest. I’m not qualified to give you advice regarding your scenario. All I can do is recommend learning one of the NFP methods strictly for gynecological health purposes, if you haven’t already. Not that it’s necessary, but I think you mentioned somewhere that you hadn’t been to a doctor or had a PAP in a while. In my case, charting my cycle helped the NFP doctor realize I had hypothyroidism. Chances are you have nothing to worry about, but it doesn’t hurt to learn. At the very least, I learned something and came to appreciate both God and my body better.

There are many useful reasons for wanting to know one’s cycle other than avoiding pregnancy, this is a very good point! If NFP is ever wanted, either to avoid pregnancy or to try to increase chances of achieving it, a good self-history will be wanted, but that history can have other uses, too.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

It’s not entirely up to the couple.

It actually is. There is no requirement the couple has sex, and the Church cannot require them to do so.

To plan to permanently exclude children from a marriage would call into question the validity BUT they weren’t Catholic when they married.

Having sex and children are not a requirement of marriage. And there is nothing wrong with with the couple abstaining completely should they both agree. The Church does not teach the abstaining is sinful. The issue of validity comes up if, and only if, the couple civilly divorces and a spouse challenges the validity based on this point. And even then it has to be demonstrated this existed at the time of marriage, not after…none of which even seems to be relevant to the OP.

This should have been addressed in RCIA since upon Baptism, their natural marriage became Sacramental.

The OP did not give enough information for us to determine if the marriage was sacramental or not (or at least I did not see it).

However, if they wish to refrain from sexual relations and feel they are becoming closer to God through this abstinence, the best course of action would be to request permission for a Josephite marriage.

Josephite marriages are discussed before marriage, not after the marriage has been consummated.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It actually is. There is no requirement the couple has sex, and the Church cannot require them to do so.

Having sex and children are not a requirement of marriage. And there is nothing wrong with with the couple abstaining completely should they both agree. The Church does not teach the abstaining is sinful. The issue of validity comes up if, and only if, the couple civilly divorces and a spouse challenges the validity based on this point. And even then it has to be demonstrated this existed at the time of marriage, not after…none of which even seems to be relevant to the OP.

The OP did not give enough information for us to determine if the marriage was sacramental or not (or at least I did not see it).

Josephite marriages are discussed before marriage, not after the marriage has been consummated.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment

Excepting Josephite marriages there IS a requirement to have sex. If you intend to not or cannot, the Church will not marry you.

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.

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.”

I believe, even in Josephite marriages, when one person wishes consummation the other is obliged.

Hence the marital “debt”

If the Church will not marry someone who cannot perform the act physically then why on earth would you think we are not mandated to fulfil the sacrament of marriage through the unity of sex?
It must be UNITIVE.
Joined as one… Etc.

I think the writing is on the wall here.

 

[Corki]

It actually is. There is no requirement the couple has sex, and the Church cannot require them to do so.

Having sex and children are not a requirement of marriage.

Sex is required to make a marriage undissolvable. Having children is not a requirement but a permanent intention to avoid children is grounds for nullity.

And there is nothing wrong with with the couple abstaining completely should they both agree. The Church does not teach the abstaining is sinful. The issue of validity comes up if, and only if, the couple civilly divorces and a spouse challenges the validity based on this point. And even then it has to be demonstrated this existed at the time of marriage, not after…none of which even seems to be relevant to the OP.

OR if one spouse decides that he/she no longer wishes to remain continent.

The OP did not give enough information for us to determine if the marriage was sacramental or not (or at least I did not see it).

If they were both baptized into the Church after they were married, the marriage became Sacramental at that point.

Josephite marriages are discussed before marriage, not after the marriage has been consummated.

Yes, they should be but it seems that there were somethings left out of the OPs RCIA program which is where any pre-marital issues of a Catholic nature would have been addressed.

 

[EasterJoy]

The OP did not give enough information for us to determine if the marriage was sacramental or not (or at least I did not see it).

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2.** For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.**

 

[dluna]

If they were both baptized into the Church after they were married, the marriage became Sacramental at that point.

Yes, they should be but it seems that there were somethings left out of the OPs RCIA program which is where any pre-marital issues of a Catholic nature would have been addressed.

We believe our marriage became Sacramental after baptism. We didn’t believe so much that we would not be having sex without contraceptives i.e. condom. We knew it was wrong but I, personally, didn’t think of it as GRAVE. In fact we had sex with condom once about a month after baptism. My husband felt horrible, went to confession. I didn’t think it was so horrible, and waited till I felt it was horrible enough to confess. Eventually we both felt it was totally wrong and decided to abstain from sex since we both didn’t want children or contraceptives. I had an issue with porn and masturbation as well even after baptism. I struggled every night and eventually stopped a few months after baptism. The temptation IS still around but I just don’t even feel like going there any more because I know it hurts God.

(edit) Now we have progressed to the stage where we felt like nothing excites as much in life. The life we thought that was fairly good was in fact pointless, until we had a relationship with God. God took away my lust, and both our greed. We used to spend so much on fine dining, good food, and food was the first thing on our minds when we awoke. We over-ordered all the time, gluttons, you get it. We feel like we are free from these wants now. God took them away, and while being thankful, somehow we also didn’t feel like sex anymore. But yes, what a few of you mentioned is valid - the fear of children did keep us away too from each other.

 

[EasterJoy]

We believe our marriage became Sacramental after baptism. We didn’t believe so much that we would not be having sex without contraceptives i.e. condom. We knew it was wrong but I, personally, didn’t think of it as GRAVE. In fact we had sex with condom once about a month after baptism. My husband felt horrible, went to confession. I didn’t think it was so horrible, and waited till I felt it was horrible enough to confess. Eventually we both felt it was totally wrong and decided to abstain from sex since we both didn’t want children or contraceptives. I had an issue with porn and masturbation as well even after baptism. I struggled every night and eventually stopped a few months after baptism. The temptation IS still around but I just don’t even feel like going there any more because I know it hurts God.

(edit) Now we have progressed to the stage where we felt like nothing excites as much in life. The life we thought that was fairly good was in fact pointless, until we had a relationship with God. God took away my lust, and both our greed. We used to spend so much on fine dining, good food, and food was the first thing on our minds when we awoke. We over-ordered all the time, gluttons, you get it. We feel like we are free from these wants now. God took them away, and while being thankful, somehow we also didn’t feel like sex anymore. But yes, what a few of you mentioned is valid - the fear of children did keep us away too from each other.

You can sort this out with a spiritual director. If nothing else, you’ll be more focused on the positive reasons for what you are doing, and you can find some strategies for working on your attitudes towards children. Maybe you’ll keep up the same choices with regards to sex, but as you know the same actions can have a totally different meaning when your understanding changes.

The sexless marriage also carries some very real temptations, and these can come on without warning and with a vengeance. You are very new Catholics. Don’t go this alone. Get some guidance. Even the religious professionals get guidance, because they’ve charted a radical course. You would be wise to do the same.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment

Excepting Josephite marriages there IS a requirement to have sex. If you intend to not or cannot, the Church will not marry you.

Wikipedia does not trump canon law. There is no requirement for the couple to have sex, and the marriage is valid without consummation. Since the couple has already had sex, none of this is relevant anyway.

I believe, even in Josephite marriages, when one person wishes consummation the other is obliged.

Hence the marital “debt”

Since both spouses have agreed not to have sex (after consummation, BTW), this point is irrelevant.

If the Church will not marry someone who cannot perform the act physically then why on earth would you think we are not mandated to fulfil the sacrament of marriage through the unity of sex?

The couple has already had sex. The point is irrelevant.

 

[Rau]

Condoms are 100% effective unless they break.

The reason people object to NFP is that is the all about timing right? So when the mood strikes timing may not be on your side. With something like a condom, you don’t have to be concerned.

Since it is the intent that results in a sin, if a condom is sinful as to prevent pregnancy, then so to is NFP - because in both cases, the intent is to prevent pregnancy - just the method is different.

I don’t see how either one is different as to giving yourself fully to your spouse.

The answer to your question is simple and straughtforward, but it is a subject for a separate thread.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Wikipedia does not trump canon law. There is no requirement for the couple to have sex, and the marriage is valid without consummation. Since the couple has already had sex, none of this is relevant anyway.

Since both spouses have agreed not to have sex (after consummation, BTW), this point is irrelevant.

The couple has already had sex. The point is irrelevant.

No, your assertion is that the Church does not require a couple to have sex. They do by the fact that to intend to NOT have sex or the inability to have sex is an IMPEDIMENT to marriage.

If you do not like the sources feel free to post your own. Wiki is not always reliable but here it is true. As others have posted cannon law as well.

All you have posted is your opinion as fact.

If you think Wiki is wrong, perhaps you have a duty to correct it.

The Church is quite clear on this. I wonder where you are finding the confusion?