Immoral to have children?

[TheLittleLady]

Where are you getting it, that a couple could choose to do this? Has the Church ever allowed this?

The Church does not prohibit people using moral means to avoid pregnancy.

Have you ever read anything from official documents (not private opinions) that say every married person must have biological children.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I was not blessed with children due to biological reasons. I can’t afford to adopt, so I will die lonely in my old age.

I was not blessed with children either. One does not have to be lonely in their old age if one doesn’t happen to have children.

Furthermore, there are plenty of parents who did have children who do not get to see their children in their old age because the child has predeceased them or has otherwise separated himself/ herself from the parent in some way. Even when a parent and child have a good relationship, the child needs to go off and live his or her own life apart from the parent, and can’t just hang around keeping parent from being lonely. A child is not some insurance against loneliness.

Take responsibility for your own life and if you’re lonely, go out and get involved in some activities where you’ll make contact with people…perhaps even other childless older people so you can keep each other company.

 

[Gab123]

Is it really moral to have biological children? What if, though we put forth our best effort, our child or grandchild grows up to turn away from God? Such a risk is terrifying, and it is well documented in the Bible of this happening. I don’t see how I could be a better parent than Noah, Abraham, Jacob, etc, who have plenty of descendants that turned away from God and will pay an eternal price for it. The idea of having a child just for them to end up in hell makes me wonder if we should have children at all.

Reminds me of the parable of the talents, of the one who was afraid of doing anything with the talent, and because of that cowardice they themselves were punished.

Obviously those who are bad parents and do not pass on the faith or pray for their children will be held responsible for their own damnation and that of their children.

But God gives us plenty of grace, in overflowing measures and plenty of promises for those who keep His will. Look up the 12 Promises of the Sacred Heart, or The 15 Promises of the Rosary.

Only the wicked and the cowardly and the lazy and those who never pray are on the road to hell…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Where are you getting it, that a couple could choose to do this? Has the Church ever allowed this?

I don’t have an official Church teaching (i.e., something from the magisterium) that says married people must attempt to have biological children, if they are capable of conceiving. I do know that refusal to have children is a ground for declaration of nullity. Physical inability to have children does not nullify a marriage.

I would even go so far as to say that a couple could, in an individual case, resolve to use moral means, as you put it, to avoid ever having children even if they are not sterile — grave eugenic reasons (i.e., if they had a child, the child could be foreseen to have massive problems), grave psychological reasons (one of the spouses could be mentally incapable of properly caring for a child), and so on.

Yet in these cases, if the spouses are not going to have a Josephite marriage, they would have to accept that, however remote the likelihood might be (if moral means are used with maximum caution), a child might be conceived and born. What then? I would seriously have to question whether a couple in these circumstances is called to marry in the first place, or whether they should reconsider and remain single. Catholics blithely throw around the phrase “maybe you’re not called to marriage”. Perhaps this would be a case of that.

Again, I would welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut of a priest, or lay person thoroughly schooled in sacramental theology, to tell us

• whether a married couple, who do not know themselves to be infertile before the marriage, must resolve to attempt to have at least one biological child, to contract a sacramentally valid marriage
• and if not, why not, and what exceptions there would be to this

It is one of those things that is “just understood”, that fertile married people enter into valid Catholic marriages with the intention of having at least one child. Prior to the last few decades, for a couple to say “we’re not ever going to have any children” would have been seen as grotesque and very, very selfish. (Admittedly, the intention of adopting foster and orphaned children, in lieu of having one’s own biological children, would not be in the least bit selfish.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t have an official Church teaching (i.e., something from the magisterium) that says married people must attempt to have biological children, if they are capable of conceiving.

So, all this that you’re writing is basically just your opinion then.

There is no teaching of the church that a married couple, whether they know they’re fertile or not, “must resolve to attempt to have at least one biological child, to contract a sacramentally valid marriage.” None.

If there was, then Josephite marriages could not be presumed valid. All marriages are presumed valid, and that would include Josephite ones.

Furthermore, if married couples had to “resolve to attempt to have at least one biological child”, then the Church would be basically ordering the couple to have sexual relations. The Church does not do this.

Married couples are expected to not engage in any form of contraception prohibited by the Church, and to welcome any children God might choose to send them. That’s it.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I do know that refusal to have children is a ground for declaration of nullity.

Not quite, it is a “permanent intention against children”.

This is a difficult grounds to prove. For instance, if one’s spouse says no to children, then divorces you and goes on to have kids in another relationship, it is not possible to prove the permanent intention.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So, all this that you’re writing is basically just your opinion then.

No, it is backed up by 45 years of “just understood, based on what I have heard from any priest or theologian who has spoken on the subject”. Put another way, I have never heard a priest or theologian, who otherwise teaches and believes in accord with the magisterium (as opposed to modern-day “disciples of conscience”, e.g., priests who counsel against Humanae vitae), say “if you just want to get married, but not have children, even though you are physically capable of conceiving, well, that’s just fine, you go right ahead and do that, just be sure to use NFP and welcome any children who are conceived in spite of your use of NFP”.

Married couples are expected to not engage in any form of contraception prohibited by the Church, and to welcome any children God might choose to send them. That’s it.

I think it goes further than that, but again, all I have to offer is 45 years of “just understood…”. Does a couple contemplating this sort of “deliberately childless marriage” take the same marriage vows as everyone else? Or do they have the priest to omit that portion of the vows, similar to the way it is omitted for elderly people who are past their childbearing years?

Again, I would welcome the (name removed by moderator)ut of any priests who might be reading this, @edward_george1, @InThePew, others? Two questions, basically:

• Is it sinful for a couple permanently to exclude children, using moral means, when they do not know themselves to be infertile?
• Can a sacramental marriage be validly confected if a couple is of this mindset?

CAF needs to have a “Father Moderator” to resolve such issues. I don’t understand why CAF doesn’t already have one.

I do know that refusal to have children is a ground for declaration of nullity.

So you are saying that it has to be permanent under all circumstances, not just “I do not intend to have children with this spouse in this marriage”? (Lest anyone accuse me of constructing an “escape hatch” from one’s contemplated marriage, I am referring to one’s being left a widow/er and going on to contract a second marriage.)

 

[TheLittleLady]

I am referring to one’s being left a widow/er and going on to contract a second marriage

In that case, the Tribunal would not be involved.

Contact your Diocese Marriage Tribunal and ask them what goes into proving a “permanent intention against children” marriage invalidity. It is not as simple as “he would not consent to kids until after he turned 35, so, I left him”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

CAF needs to have a “Father Moderator” to resolve such issues. I don’t understand why CAF doesn’t already have one.

While it’s fine for you to ask priests to weigh in on the question, please also respect the fact that there are non-clergy on this forum who likely have some knowledge in this area.

Furthermore, when priests do express their positions on the forum, many times I have seen members here continue to argue with the priest because they still believe they are correct even after the priest speaks to the issue. Having a “Father Moderator” would thus solve nothing.

Also, you’re always free to discuss any question you have here with your own priest.

 

[Fauken]

Physical inability to have children does not nullify a marriage.

Define “physical inability”. Impotence, as an example, does in fact nullify a marriage. From the Code of Canon Law:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P3Y.HTM

“Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

While it’s fine for you to ask priests to weigh in on the question, please also respect the fact that there are non-clergy on this forum who likely have some knowledge in this area.

I do respect that, but I tend to be of the “old school”, where you go to the priest, he answers your question, and that’s that, end of story. As long as the priest is faithful to the magisterium, that takes care of the issue. Issues where the magisterium has not spoken, or where orthodox (small letter “o”) theologians differ, are fair game for discussion.

Also, you’re always free to discuss any question you have here with your own priest.

Yes, but that does not help the other readers. I do not come on CAF just to ask questions to benefit only myself, but to raise issues and raise consciousness where others might be helped, have their errors corrected, or have their doubts resolved.

Physical inability to have children does not nullify a marriage.

Not having the physical capability to conceive or to cause conception, regardless of ability to perform the marital act. Examples: involuntary male sterilization, hysterectomy, removal of ovaries. Those things are not impotence.

 

[Fauken]

Not having the physical capability to conceive or to cause conception, regardless of ability to perform the marital act. Examples: involuntary male sterilization, hysterectomy, removal of ovaries. Those things are not impotence.

They’re not, but impotency is a physical inability, hence why I asked for clarification.

 

[Stacysa]

@Gab123 this is my favorite opinion on this thread! It is a lot like the parable of the talents, I never thought of it that way. God wants us to do our best to raise children who can go out into the world to be his representatives, rather than be so afraid of having a child who falls away from the faith that we don’t have any, and at the end of the day only having ourselves to offer back to him. It’s just like the parable!

 

[Inquiry]

Impotency nullifies the marriage because it is the physical inability to partake in the marital act, not because it is the physical inability to have children. That someone who is impotent to that degree cannot have children is largely immaterial in this context.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I am referring to one’s being left a widow/er and going on to contract a second marriage

Obviously the tribunal wouldn’t be concerned with people being left widowed.

As far as asking the tribunal, I have no need to do that. When I get time, I’ll look it up. I certainly didn’t have any intention to exclude children — far from it! — and I don’t believe my wife did either. I doubt the tribunal would speak to abstractions such as this. To hear them tell it, they are overworked as it is, and I am all in favor of the new annulment protocols where the bishop himself sits down, reads the evidence and documentation, and makes a decision. That’s part of his job.

I have reflected this afternoon on how far afield this discussion has gone, from the clear Biblical mandate, at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, to “be fruitful and multiply”. I have also reflected, time and again, that two of the very first themes in the Bible, surround having children, and being told what to eat and what not to eat. Something to ponder.

A nonbeliever could well argue that the God of the Bible tends to micromanage our lives from time to time — I would respond “yes, and He has made us for His glory!”.

 

[InThePew]

• Is it sinful for a couple permanently to exclude children, using moral means, when they do not know themselves to be infertile?

Yes. procreation is a natural purpose of marriage. To inhibit this in any way is sinful since it goes against the natural order of things and this includes even objectively moral methods like NFP if used for immoral ends.

• Can a sacramental marriage be validly confected if a couple is of this mindset?

For a sacramental marriage to be valid that couple have to be open to the generation of human life. That doesn’t mean that they’re expected to start having kids as soon as their married but total opposition (at the time of marriage) would be a ground for nullity. If a couple said to me they didn’t want to have kids, my next question would usually be “so what would you do if you found out you were pregnant?” and take it from there.

 

[QwertyGirl]

If a couple said to me they didn’t want to have kids, my next question would usually be “so what would you do if you found out you were pregnant?” and take it from there.

The Catholics I know would answer that they would accept them as a gift from God and love them and raise them accordingly, as Catholics.

I have known three Catholic couples who have gotten married with the hopes of not having to cross that bridge. I am not knowledgable with regards to the conversations they had with their priests before they married, but they are honest people. They made no point of hiding the fact from family and friends that they weren’t really too interested in having kids. I am willing to assume they were honest with their priest, as well.

Of the three couple I know like this, one wound up having two kids and are now divorced. The other two didn’t have any but are still married over 25 years.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes. procreation is a natural purpose of marriage. To inhibit this in any way is sinful since it goes against the natural order of things and this includes even objectively moral methods like NFP if used for immoral ends.

Then what about Josephite marriages? You seem to be saying they are immoral.
Yet we have saints and beati who were in them.
From what I’ve read about one beati, he was advised to enter into the marriage by his spiritual director.

Are you saying that a couple is required to have sex at certain times to try to conceive a child or else they’re sinning?
Because that is what Homeschool Dad was arguing. That if a couple entered a marriage and didn’t have sex and try to conceive, it was somehow sinful, wrong, invalid, etc.

I was never taught that there was a requirement for a Catholic couple to have X amount of sex at Y times of the month in order to avoid sin.

Your advice here is very confusing. Could you please clarify it?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

• Is it sinful for a couple permanently to exclude children, using moral means, when they do not know themselves to be infertile?

Thank you, Father ITP.

Please note, whoever reads this, that I deliberately referred to moral means (i.e., NFP), to present a best-case scenario, where the deliberate, positive, total intention to avoid having biological children for the duration of the marriage is the only thing that is “wrong” with the scenario.

Keep in mind, too, that the decision — be it sinful, or be it not sinful, to avoid having children for the entire duration of the marriage, and to use only moral means to avoid it — is something that could have only been seriously contemplated within the past 20 years or so. NFP has been refined, and technology employed to track the natural cycles and physical manifestations (all of which is “natural” — glass thermometers, pencils, and paper are also “technology”), to make conception next to impossible if a couple is willing to use it carefully and meticulously. Some say NFP can be misused sinfully, others say (if I am understanding them correctly) that NFP can be used under any circumstances, for a duration and for reasons of the couple’s choosing, without any sin whatsoever. I think it is high time for the teaching Church to address this — perhaps in an encyclical that could serve as an addendum of sorts to Humanae vitae — but I, by myself, cannot make that happen.

I would be very inspired to think that “the guys in Rome” read CAF and take it to heart — to my mind this is exactly the kind of apostolate called for in Apostolicam actuositatem — but quite frankly, I wouldn’t get my hopes up. They’ve got bigger fish to fry these days.

 

[Mrchatsworth]

This whole forum is opinion no matter what someone quotes.