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

  • Thread starter Thread starter dluna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dluna said:
We don’t like children. Before RCIA and witnessing the mighty hand of the Lord, we hated them to the core. We live in a country where children are raised as ill mannered brats and where the education level and standard of living are very, very high.

After accepting Christ, our hearts have been thawed to actually not hate them but we still do not want children because of lifestyle reasons (selfish reasons - we want our time to ourselves and would rather serve God in other ways.)
Click to expand...
I can empathize. I’m not really fond of children myself and have no desire to have children and do the whole child raising thing. That being said, I do experience a strong joy in the assisting with the spiritual well-being of other people’s well-behaved children. I wanted to start a Children of Mary sodality in the parish, and had our priest’s blessing, but the parish council poo-pooed it because it wasn’t “inclusive” (it was only for the girls because the boys had the Knights of the Altar altar serving). I am called to be a spiritual mother and am giving my life entirely to Jesus so I can dedicate my life to the salvation of souls and the sanctification of priests.

Unfortunately for you guys, you are already married, which complicates matters. There is the Josephite Marriage, but there is the requirement that abstaining from marital relations be a mutual agreement, and should one spouse decide later on that they no longer want to live such a marriage, the other spouse is obliged to render the marital debt, the moral theologians say. You would need to talk to a priest about the specifics. It’s more of a traditional thing, not really talked about in more contemporary Catholic circles, so you may need to talk to a priest from the FSSP or one who is more familiar with the Church’s less known traditions.
 
“What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’” John 3, 6-7

“Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Romans 8, 12-13
 
Rau said:
In general, it would be quite unnatural to avoid intimacy indefinitely in marriage. To enter a marriage with that intent would be to misunderstand the nature of marriage.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. It’s Catechism of the Catholic Church # 2332, too.
 
edlinked said:
“What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’” John 3, 6-7

“Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.” Romans 8, 12-13
Click to expand...
I hope you are not offering that as a commentary on the merits or place of sexual intimacy in marriage!
 
If sexual intimacy is confused explicitly for love, and intercourse is confused for love, to some extent i am.
 
“3 The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.” 4 He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”” Matthew 4, 3-4

“13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again;14 but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”” John 4, 13-14
 
edlinked said:
If sexual intimacy is confused explicitly for love, and intercourse is confused for love, to some extent i am.
Click to expand...
Let us accept as a principle that married people love each other, unless the context in debate requires the reverse. If the provisos you mention are pertinent to a post, they should be made at the time. Your biblical quotes, used in isolation, ought not be read as some form of opposition to sexual intimacy in marriage.
 
Its true, I am sorry but as posts are read in columns then I was kind of replying to the post above, that sexual intercourse is not a debt for solely intercourse or pleasure from the flesh.

The truth is that married people don’t necessarily love each other if they think that sexual intimacy and intercourse are love. Because then they do not know Who Love is.
 
Rau said:
The end result is not immoral. It is not immoral to avoid conception, as a moment’s thought makes clear. Therefore, the question of morality attaches to the means! Eg. Onanism.
Click to expand...
Please, define means.
I’m not defending. I’ve asked you now several times, and in various ways, whether Saint Augustine’s writings and that of other saints are the same thing as Church teaching.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. The Church’s teaching on the sexuality stands on the Church’s Fathers.
 
Rau said:
Would you say the same of Onanism instead of condom? Surely you see that, in so far as means are concerned, condoms and Onanism are similar, whereas not having sex is a distinct means?

On another point, at what point in history did it become known that women become barren with age?
Click to expand...
They have sex during an infertile period. The NFP couples do not want to procreate at that time.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
No. That is not true and you need to stop claiming that. Just because some parts of the reproductive system were discovered 200 years ago in no way means that women and men had no idea about infertile and fertile times. 🤷

Do you really think for the whole of human history, fertile times and women’s cycles were not known? That sex was a crapshoot?
Click to expand...
Please, show me a quote of the Church’s Fathers mentioning fertile/infertile periods, explaining the inner workings of procreation.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
You keep claiming “the fathers” and then cherry pick your quotes. To have an understanding of “the Fathers” and the Church in human history requires more than that.

You keep trying to make a point without overtly making the point. Can you just say what it is that you are trying to claim? Are you anti NFP? Or anti ABC? Or Pro ABC? We can have a better, more honest discussion if all the cards are on the table, rather than trying to weaken Church Dogma by claiming ignorance of some of the wisest minds on earth.
Click to expand...
The question stands. Where they ignorant, as not knowing how the procreation works or not?
 
Vico said:
It is a fact that pregnancy just occurs naturally only when there are proper conjugal acts. Therefore conjugal act whenever is occurs may result in conception. The intention may be to reduce the chance to almost nothing, but it remains a fact that it is a proper act for reproduction. However it is not known now, nor was it ever known, that conception will certainly not occur, except through abstinence.

Couples using condoms are not having marital relations in a proper way, so that is unnatural vice. This is different matter.
Click to expand...
Please define unnatural.
There was knowledge of periods lengths, and there was belief on what was the most fertile period in ancient times. It is not know if there was certain knowledge of fertile period. One wrong view was that it was just before and after menses. The most accurate was the Jewish rule, 12 days after mikva. Some women have shorter periods and so were unable to conceive if they followed the rule strictly.
Click to expand...
If the Fathers knew about the periods I guess they would mentioned them because they are important part of the human sexuality. Don’t you think?
 
Rau said:
As in do the ends justify the means. Thus, means and ends are not the same .

That is news to me.

And you’ve not responded to most of my post.
Click to expand...
But what are those means. Do you mean the moral object of an act?
What is the moral object of sex during the interfile period?

What part I missed?
 
Jaaanosik said:
Please define unnatural.

If the Fathers knew about the periods I guess they would mentioned them because they are important part of the human sexuality. Don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Unnatural means not natural. Natural in this context means the joining of the sexual organs in coitus without any barrier. The barrier prevents fluid transfer which is required for consummation.

To the second, No. Because of what St. Paul 1 Cor 7, is not directed to preventing sin when tempted. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
 
Vico said:
Unnatural means not natural. Natural in this context means the joining of the sexual organs in coitus without any barrier. The barrier prevents fluid transfer which is required for consummation.

To the second, No. Because of what St. Paul 1 Cor 7, is not directed to preventing sin when tempted. 5 Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
Click to expand...
The natural way of transportation is walking.
I guess you walk everywhere and you don’t use car. It seems using car is unnatural.

I don’t understand your second part how it relates to Fathers and them mentioning the periods.
 
Rau said:
In general, it would be quite unnatural to avoid intimacy indefinitely in marriage. To enter a marriage with that intent would be to misunderstand the nature of marriage.
Click to expand...
Mary was married to Joseph, and they never were intimate. But then, Mary was special, and chosen to remain a Virgin.

My view then, I suppose, would be if you are to remain a faithful Catholic, but know you never want children, then you just can’t get married.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top