Immoral to have children?

[HomeschoolDad]

I’m still waiting for a fertile catholic couple to live out this fantasy of a healthy active sex life and no kids.

I’m not clear as to what extent your comment is intended to be a clever, humorous remark, but I do think it reveals something that may be getting lost in this discussion.

It would have to be very, very rare for a faithful, doctrinally orthodox Catholic couple, adhering to the magisterium, with no grave reasons to avoid having children (“we just don’t want children, we like our life the way it is, and we want to have the joys of marriage unhindered by the responsibilities of raising a family”), to use NFP to try and achieve this end. It is a “contraceptive mentality” in the extreme, even if morally acceptable means are used.

People who want to live this way, usually make very aggressive use of contraceptives, or go ahead and have themselves (one or both partners) permanently sterilized. It’s not a mindset you associate with magisterially loyal, faithful Catholics. It is just the “Catholic thing” for marriage and the begetting of children to be two things that cannot and should not be deliberately separated. This hypothetical couple who is willing to use NFP with the goal of lifelong childlessness, joyfully embraced, with no other reasons than “we just don’t want children”, seems to me to be so far-fetched as to be virtually a “straw man”.

Put another way, if a couple wished to share this goal with fellow Catholics — “we’ve decided not to have any children, and yes, we use NFP — there’s nothing ‘wrong’, neither of us is sick, or gay, or mentally ill, or anything like that, we just like the childfree life” — they would get some very strange looks from these fellow Catholics. For that matter, a couple living a Josephite marriage — assuming they ever shared this fact with anyone — would get some strange looks as well. People generally don’t “get” sexless marriages.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

We struggle in our path to God and so will our children. We are designed in this manner. Light the path, set a good example, do your best and know they will falter. Keep the flashlight handy in case they lose track of the path for a while.

God gives life. It’s not for us to second guess the lives he sends to us.

 

[Rau]

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

I believe if a young couple informed a priest they wish to marry but have a firm intention to not have natural children, the priest would be entitled to decline to marry them. I believe having such a firm intention may result in a marriage being invalid.

 

[EndTimes]

Is it really moral to have biological children? What if,

Yes. (followed by) That’s a What if?..

_

 

[TheLittleLady]

As is stated over and over, a couple, even a sweet couple who are 75 and 82 years old, vow to welcome children lovingly from God.

I need to dig around to find the Vatican document that spells out that just reasons to avoid pregnancy do not have a time limit and may last the entire of marriage. I cannot recall which document that is right now. @1ke do you recall that passage?

 

[1ke]

I need to dig around to find the Vatican document that spells out that just reasons to avoid pregnancy do not have a time limit and may last the entire of marriage. I cannot recall which document that is right now. @1ke do you recall that passage?

It’s paragraph 10 of Humanae Vitae.

a couple, even a sweet couple who are 75 and 82 years old, vow to welcome children lovingly from God.

Actually, they don’t. When a woman is past child bearing, the priest omits that from the marriage rite.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Actually, they don’t. When a woman is past child bearing, the priest omits that from the marriage rite.

Letting myself get hyperbolic, thanks for the correction!

 

[Rau]

I need to dig around to find the Vatican document that spells out that just reasons to avoid pregnancy do not have a time limit and may last the entire of marriage. I cannot recall which document that is right now.

The paragraph in question is not addressing (endorsing) a resolve formed prior to marriage, but one taken in the interests of responsible parenthood by a couple, who for serious reasons… decide “not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time”.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Would you point me to that line in the encyclical, they one that defines the decision must be made after exchange of consent?

 

[1ke]

Would you point me to that line in the encyclical, they one that defines the decision must be made after exchange of consent?

It doesn’t exist.

This is, IMHO, a very technical aspect of the bonum prolis regarding consent and intent.

I had a private discussion via messaging on this topic with a well respected CAF member/canon lawyer. Because it was private I am not inclined to quote/share.

Basically there are two aspects: the ordering of marriage to procreation and raising of offspring and the exchange of the right to conjugal relations per se apt for the procreation.

It’s possible to exclude one or both from marital consent, or neither.

Even if one has a serious reason not to have children indefinitely, it doesn’t mean that the couple necessarily excluded either aspect of the bonum prolis. They can know and accept that marriage is ordered to procreation and know and accept they they are to exchange conjugal rights to procreative martial acts (which acts during the infertile time are). They can mutually agree not to have sex, or have sex during infertile times.

 

[Rau]

Would you point me to that line in the encyclical, they one that defines the decision must be made after exchange of consent?

I can only point you to the text. Do you have access to a copy? There is no hint that the resolve to avoid children can be made prior to marriage. Such an interpretation simply does not fit the words of that encyclical. So if a church position is established on that point, it is not within that encyclical.

 

[Rau]

@1ke I would suggest that the view that one can validly contract a marriage, despite having resolved to avoid children, is a highly debatable conclusion.

It is not difficult to find references that reject that view, not so easy to find any that support it. Do you have any of the latter?

 

[1ke]

I would suggest that the view that one can validly contract a marriage, despite having resolved to avoid children, is a highly debatable conclusion.

It’s not, really. It comes down to the bonum prolis, and what a specific couple does or does not exclude or intend.

It is not difficult to find references that reject that view, not so easy to find any that support it. Do you have any of the latter?

You can read texts on the canons, and the concept of the bonum prolis, if you want to get into it.

Because this deals with consent and intent, it isn’t something you can make a blanket statement about. In contrast, other canons are not subject to interior elements of consent and intent— for example, age.

Someone can say the words at their wedding and not mean them, as evidenced by refusal of access to non-contraceptive conjugal relations in the marriage.

Conversely, a couple can say the words and mean them, and have a serious reason to avoid indefinitely while both understanding and believing marriage is orders to procreation and education of children and by having conjugal relations that are per se apt for the generation of children (i.e. not contraceptive) during the infertile phase of the cycle. Or they can refrain from exercising their right (Josephite marriage) even though they legitimately and validly exchanged the right.

 

[Rau]

The USCCB (so I understand) reviewed Diocesan marriage preparation policies. This is is addressed here:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act.../marriage/marriage-preparation/mpanalysis.cfm

It was noted that all policies incorporated various elements, and these included “Explanation of special circumstances that might need attention”, one of which is listed as:
“4. Moral issues (cohabitation, choosing not to have children, [previous] abortion)”

In walking through the “typical” policy, the following is presented in regard to “choosing not to have children”:

“Choosing not to have children
A decision by the couple or one party to permanently exclude children invalidates a marriage. New Jersey gives ideas for a pastoral response to this issue.”

Note the context is marriage preparation, so this refers to a decision prior to marriage.

 

[Rau]

From (Catholic University publication):
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2209&context=tcl
[Bottom of p86]
“If, for the existence of valid matrimonial consent, it is necessary that the spouses know (based on the principle: nihil volitum praecognitum) that their act gives rise to a partnership ordered to children, then one would have to conclude that a consent to a partnership that is not ordered to children does not constitute a valid marriage. What is essential for a valid marriage, therefore, is the absence of an intention contrary to children.”

 

[1ke]

Not all decisions not to have children for a time or indefinitely are a positive act of the will to exclude children.

These are two different things and you are conflating them.

 

[1ke]

consent, it is necessary that the spouses know (based on the principle: nihil volitum praecognitum) that their act gives rise to a partnership ordered to children

One can know, believe, and accept that marriage is ordered to children and not have children.

As I already stated, the bonum prolis has two parts: knowing that marriage is ordered to procreation and exchange of right to properly ordered conjugal relations.

 

[Rau]

Not all decisions not to have children for a time or indefinitely are a positive act of the will to exclude children.

The scenario I have addressed was stated clearly I think: a couple who prior to marriage have resolved to exclude children/ not to have children - do not Marry validly.

If you are relying on a very particular meaning of “exclude”, can you spell it out?

 

[1ke]

Sure:

Excluding: I don’t ever want to have children because they will interfere with my ability to travel. We are never having kids, ever. Refuses non-contraceptive sex.

Not excluding: I’d like to have children, but my doctor has advised me not to become pregnant due to (insert serious medical issue here). Maybe my condition will change, maybe it won’t. We need to avoid indefinitely until my doctor gives the green light, which may be never. Does not engage in contraception, exchanges the right to properly ordered marital embrace and uses periodic abstinence through NFP.

Neither couple has children during the entirety of the marriage.

 

[po18guy]

How else to produce Saints for heaven?