Invalid marriage without children?

[camerong]

I’ll bow to your Catholic background in the matter of the Church’s marriage-related teachings, but your figures don’t really imply that laxity on contraception contributes to divorce, though it may well correlate with it. It seems reasonable that Catholic couples who flout or submit to the Church’s teachings on contraception are likelier to take a parallel tack with other family issues, including divorce. Doesn’t mean that A caused B, nor that the non-contracepting couples are necessarily happier.

And forgive my nitpicking, but by definition, shouldn’t “Catholics who follow the teaching of the Church” have a divorce rate of 0%?

Studies show that couples who practice NFP have a divorce rate of less than 1 percent.
See, e.g., physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36/

It really does not matter whether this is because the sort of people who practice NFP are very unlikely to get divorced (only correlation), or whether NFP causes people to be less likely to be divorced (causation). In either way, if a couple becomes the sort of people who practice NFP (most obviously, by practicing NFP), the evidence indicates their chances of later obtaining a divorce are greatly diminished.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;6083168:

I’ll bow to your Catholic background in the matter of the Church’s marriage-related teachings, but your figures don’t really imply that laxity on contraception contributes to

divorce, though it may well correlate with it. It seems reasonable that Catholic couples who flout or submit to the Church’s teachings on contraception are likelier to take a parallel tack with other family issues, including divorce. Doesn’t mean that A caused B, nor that the non-contracepting couples are necessarily happier.

And forgive my nitpicking, but by definition, shouldn’t “Catholics who follow the teaching of the Church” have a divorce rate of 0%?

Contraception is not the only sin against marriage. We take vows to honor, love, respect and obey our spouses.

Outside of marriage the contraception mentality in society contributes to the sexual degradation of the person and society. The libertine attitude towards sex in our time is only possible as a result of the pill. The guy who invented it wants the government to force all woman to have their eggs surgically removed and stored, to be reimplanted when they want to conceive. The whole thing is diabolical.

Statistics say that couples who engage in sex before marriage, live together, etc., have a much higher rate of divorce than those who do not. This social behavior is also made possible by the pill. In our day people marry much older than in earlier times. Many men try and avoid it altogether. The cause is so called sexual freedom. The cause of that is the chemicals that make contraception possible, human pesticides, abortifacients.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Le Cracquere;6083239:

Contraception is not the only sin against marriage. We take vows to honor, love, respect and obey our spouses.

Outside of marriage the contraception mentality in society contributes to the sexual degradation of the person and society. The libertine attitude towards sex in our time is only possible as a result of the pill. The guy who invented it wants the government to force all woman to have their eggs surgically removed and stored, to be reimplanted when they want to conceive. The whole thing is diabolical.

Statistics say that couples who engage in sex before marriage, live together, etc., have a much higher rate of divorce than those who do not. This social behavior is also made possible by the pill. In our day people marry much older than in earlier times. Many men try and avoid it altogether. The cause is so called sexual freedom. The cause of that is the chemicals that make contraception possible, human pesticides, abortifacients.

Well, a fellow who already held Catholic views probably wouldn’t be inclined to disagree with your moral arguments, so well put there. W/r/t your statistics, though, I’m still not convinced that I succeeded in getting across the whole correlation/causation thing from earlier. In fact, the last half of your latest post is largely devoted to undocumented factoids that, even if 100% true, imply zilch about whether any one of them is causing any other of them.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;6083469:

Well, a fellow who already held Catholic views probably wouldn’t be inclined to disagree with your moral arguments, so well put there. W/r/t your statistics, though, I’m still not convinced that I succeeded in getting across the whole correlation/causation thing from earlier. In fact, the last half of your latest post is largely devoted to undocumented factoids that, even if 100% true, imply zilch about whether any one of them is causing any other of them.

You are correct. One event following another does not prove causality. Putting your hand on a hot stove and screaming in pain does not prove the stove burned you. Smoking cigarettes for twentyfive years and dying of lung cancer proves nothing even if 10% of smokers get cancer. You are absolutely correct. Ask the tobacco companies.

What we do know is that everything that happens is caused. AIDS is caused. Breast cancer is caused. Social ills are caused.

Here is another factoid for you. Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical and spoke of the consequences that would come to pass if artificial contraception were widely adopted in society. He said it would cause an increase in divorce rates, fatherless families, many children and women would be abandoned and in poverty, sexual perversion woud increase and sexually transmitted disease would increase, if I recall. I may have left something out. Those things have all happened, but there is no proof of the cause. Take your chances.

 

[Alindawyl]

To say that the transmission of life, the creation of an immortal person is an impediment to salvation of a married couple is nonsense. Marriage is for family. That is its primary purpose, the purpose sex, in God’s design. The Church teaches that using NFP to completely avoid having children is evil.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Nowhere did I say that one could use NFP with the intent to never have children. That is clearly wrong. I merely said that it may be possible a couple will find themselves never called to have children. The question must be asked honestly every cycle. Having the answer be no each time the question arises is not the same thing as deciding in advance that the answer will be no and not bothering to even ask the question.

If that situation was not possible, then we would have to judge all couples with no children who have been married for a time as either sterile or actively denying life. I refuse to make either presumption about a childless couple and will charitably assume unless proven otherwise that they are not being called to have a child.

That also is nonsense. Couples could use NFP for their entire lives never intending to have children. All they have to do is wait a few days. It is not that difficult.

My statement was within the context of a couple deciding whether or not they think they are called to have a child at that time, not a couple having decided in advance that they will never have children and will always abstain during the fertile time of the woman’s cycle. If every month you honestly ask each other “Do we think God is calling us to have a child now?” and the answer is no, then a willingness to abstain should be no cross to bear. When you begin to view abstaining as a burden, or to strongly question your motives as being selfish, then maybe God is trying to tell you something.

 

[grandfather]

If that situation was not possible, then we would have to judge all couples with no children who have been married for a time as either sterile or actively denying life. I refuse to make either presumption about a childless couple and will charitably assume unless proven otherwise that they are not being called to have a child.

 

[diggerdomer]

Please pardon me if I’ve misunderstood. So, a Protestant couple that gets married, intending to have no children, is validly married in the Catholic Church’s view?

Perhaps. If the validity were in question an investigation would have to determine whether or not their intent to have no children met the Catholic understanding of an impediment that would result in a decision of nullity. Validity is presumed unless clearly shown otherwise.

 

[grandfather]

Perhaps. If the validity were in question an investigation would have to determine whether or not their intent to have no children met the Catholic understanding of an impediment that would result in a decision of nullity. Validity is presumed unless clearly shown otherwise.

I have a friend who was married as a Lutheran. She and her husband were lawyers. Their intent was to never have children. They divorced and she remarried again as a Protestant and later converted to the Catholic faith. She applied for an annulment of the first marriage on the grounds that they married with both agreeing to never have children. They never once had maritial relations without contracepting. The ex-husband testified that all this was true. On those grounds the annulment was granted.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Le Cracquere;6083813:

You are correct. One event following another does not prove causality. Putting your hand on a hot stove and screaming in pain does not prove the stove burned you. Smoking cigarettes for twentyfive years and dying of lung cancer proves nothing even if 10% of smokers get cancer. You are absolutely correct. Ask the tobacco companies.

What we do know is that everything that happens is caused. AIDS is caused. Breast cancer is caused. Social ills are caused.

Here is another factoid for you. Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical and spoke of the consequences that would come to pass if artificial contraception were widely adopted in society. He said it would cause an increase in divorce rates, fatherless families, many children and women would be abandoned and in poverty, sexual perversion woud increase and sexually transmitted disease would increase, if I recall. I may have left something out. Those things have all happened, but there is no proof of the cause. Take your chances.

Good answer! All the same, I’m not convinced that these modern pathologies wouldn’t exist on much the same scale even if contraception hadn’t been widely adopted or didn’t exist. If the Pope wrote that encyclical in the mid-'60s, an awful lot of noxious things were happening all at the same time. Maybe they were all the direct fallout of that nefarious First Cause, contraception, but to my unenlightened eye it looks more like one societal change among others of the same period—sometimes cause, sometimes effect, sometimes concomitant. Good luck getting a disinterested observer to regard it as the horse dragging all those carts.

 

[grandfather]

grandfather;6084057:

Good luck getting a disinterested observer to regard it as the horse dragging all those carts.

Rather than the analogy or metaphor of a horse dragging many carts it is more like independent dominoes falling, a chain reaction. Sometimes a falling domino can hit more than one other.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

According to usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml, in order for a marriage to be valid, a couple must be “open to children”.

It is my understanding that:

1. to be “open to children”, you cannot use any form of birth control (even NFP unless you have a very good reason like not having enough money).
2. couples that are invalidly married are committing a mortal sin every time they have sex

I know plenty of Catholics who openly use birth control pills or are probably using birth control due to their lack of children. Are these couples validly married? Should they be allowed to receive communion?

Unless they have used Contraception for every sexual act from the first sexual act after the wedding and intentionally decide to never have children. Then no they could be validly Married, and simply committing Mortal sin with each act. Reception of Holy Communion should not take place if one is aware of un-repented Mortal sin, Sacramental Confession would be necessary first.