Is it acceptable to have a Catholic marriage and not have children?

[johnsmith2025]

Hi everyone,
I was wondering, is it okay to be Catholic and married, and not have children?

Let’s say a Catholic couple decides they want to be married, but they don’t necessarily want children ( not intentionally anyway ), and they are just happy to be a Catholic married couple without children.
Would this be alright? Can they just have a healthy Catholic marriage without being obligated to have children?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=658738

 

[AskSeekKnock]

No one is obligated to HAVE children - otherwise infertile couples would be in a real bind! However a Catholic couple is obligated to be OPEN to children - i.e. to allow God a say and prayerfully consider His will as to whether or not they ought to have children.

 

[Irishmom2]

John, I clicked the link to your other post, and so you are asking this as a hypothetical question? I don’t think that have to want children, but need to be open to them if and when they do come.

The reason I am writing though is that if you are interested in finding a wife, I think you may have a problem finding one that wants to get married and not have children. If this is your intention, you had better discuss this beforehand. I also should caution you though–if you think right now that you will never want children, you may be in for a surprise. Once you find the right person, and it may even be after you are married for a bit, you may actually want children.

 

[Schieffelin]

You’re not supposed to go into the marriage with the intention of not having children.

You are allowed to avoid pregnancy through NFP (not artificial birth control or barriers) if you and your spouse have prayerfully discerned a grave reason to avoid at that time. The discernment process has to take place throughout your entire marriage. You’re not supposed to totally slam the door at any one point in time.

 

[Corki]

Hi everyone,
I was wondering, is it okay to be Catholic and married, and not have children?

Let’s say a Catholic couple decides they want to be married, but they don’t necessarily want children ( not intentionally anyway ), and they are just happy to be a Catholic married couple without children.
Would this be alright? Can they just have a healthy Catholic marriage without being obligated to have children?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=658738

1. In a Catholic wedding, the spouses promise to welcome children lovingly from God.
2. In order to do anything to avoid getting pregnant (such as complete continence or NFP) the couple needs a just reason. “Doesn’t want children” is probably not a just reason all by itself. The question would be “why”? For example, not wanting children because one of the spouses has a disability and would have trouble caring for children would probably be a just reason.
3. If the couple either has a just reason or is not blessed with children, they can certainly still have a healthy Catholic marriage.

 

[1ke]

A permanent intention against children at the time of the exchange of vows is an impediment to a valid marriage. The priest should discover this during the premarriage counseling. He could not knowingly marry a couple with a peremanent intention against children.

That is not the same thing as a couple who marries validly with no intention against children and is then unable to have any for whatever reason. Such a marriage is valid.

 

[whm]

Hi everyone,
I was wondering, is it okay to be Catholic and married, and not have children?

Let’s say a Catholic couple decides they want to be married, but they don’t necessarily want children ( not intentionally anyway ), and they are just happy to be a Catholic married couple without children.
Would this be alright? Can they just have a healthy Catholic marriage without being obligated to have children?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=658738

If you are having sexual relations with your spouse, you need to be open to the possibility of children. This includes using NFP, under which there is always a chance of a pregnancy and which requires prayerful discernment and justified reasons to use. If you mutually agree to stop having sexual relation (presumably after the consummation), there is no requirement that you have to have relations.

 

[moon1234]

A permanent intention against children at the time of the exchange of vows is an impediment to a valid marriage. The priest should discover this during the premarriage counseling. He could not knowingly marry a couple with a peremanent intention against children.

That is not the same thing as a couple who marries validly with no intention against children and is then unable to have any for whatever reason. Such a marriage is valid.

In the first scenerio if this was hidden from one spouse it would be grounds for declaring the marraige null and the duped spouse left free to marry someone else. Being open to having children is a REQUIREMENT for marraige.

Say your spouse to be is ok NOW with not having children. Two years later she comes to you and says “I want a child”. You say nope, you agreed to not to. You response would be grounds for a declaration of nullity as you impose an impediment to the marraige vows.

 

[chevalier]

In the first scenerio if this was hidden from one spouse it would be grounds for declaring the marraige null and the duped spouse left free to marry someone else. Being open to having children is a REQUIREMENT for marraige.

Say your spouse to be is ok NOW with not having children. Two years later she comes to you and says “I want a child”. You say nope, you agreed to not to. You response would be grounds for a declaration of nullity as you impose an impediment to the marraige vows.

Yup, that’s true. Basically, the rights exchanged in the sacrament need to be more important than the agreement made between the spouses not to use such rights. This could lead to invalidity on the grounds of exclusion of progeny (subtype of simulation under can. 1101 §2). This should, obviously, go back to the date of the wedding, it can’t be the effect of changing mind after it without some kind of root in events prior to the wedding. This may actually be difficult to differentiate (for example when the spouses intended to make only an agreement as to the exercise of the rights but later one of them wanted to take the rights back, then this shouldn’t cause nullity unless resulting from a psychic inability ever to become open).

Also, an aversion to children or something similarly important and hidden from the intended spouse “maliciously” in order to obtain consent could be a ground of nullity under fraud (can. 1098). Since disclosure is required for a free mutual gift, marriage can be invalid if the bride or groom “maliciously” hides even something he or she isn’t at fault for being stuck with (e.g. infertility), as long as some kind of fraud is taking place with the non-disclosure.

 

[TrueLight]

Yup, that’s true. Basically, the rights exchanged in the sacrament need to be more important than the agreement made between the spouses not to use such rights.

So any couple who makes a secret pact with each other to use NFP forever or until menopause (for older women), BEWARE.

This can be used as fodder for an annulment later on.

 

[chevalier]

So any couple who makes a secret pact with each other to use NFP forever or until menopause (for older women), BEWARE.

This can be used as fodder for an annulment later on.

Actually, a secret pact to use NFP forever could be very problematic. There is no direct answer in canon law for that. Ecclesiastic judges faced with such a situation would have a lot of thinking to do. I suppose it wouldn’t make marriage invalid if the couple really exchanged the mutual right to call off the pact unilaterally but they never recalled it, and if there were no intention not to accept the children that will be born anyway. But we’d be getting somewhat close to simulation.

 

[TrueLight]

Actually, a secret pact to use NFP forever could be very problematic. There is no direct answer in canon law for that. Ecclesiastic judges faced with such a situation would have a lot of thinking to do. I suppose it wouldn’t make marriage invalid if the couple really exchanged the mutual right to call off the pact unilaterally but they never recalled it, and if there were no intention not to accept the children that will be born anyway. But we’d be getting somewhat close to simulation.

Hmm.

Could one say during premarital counseling that one plans to use NFP until menopause? Would that be considered not open to life, since some say that with NFP, there is always a chance of pregnancy anyway?

 

[chevalier]

Hmm.

Could one say during premarital counseling that one plans to use NFP until menopause? Would that be considered not open to life, since some says that with NFP, there is always a chance of pregnancy anyway?

I’ve never been involved with any form of premarital counselling but I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody called on canon 1066 and prevented the ceremony.

 

[Corki]

Hmm.

Could one say during premarital counseling that one plans to use NFP until menopause? Would that be considered not open to life, since some say that with NFP, there is always a chance of pregnancy anyway?

I think it would be something that the priest would need to explore and determine what was behind it. For example, if the wife has a medical condition that would make becoming pregnant life-threatening, she could very well have an legitimate intent to use NFP until menopause or until medicine comes up with a cure for her condidtion.

 

[1ke]

Hmm.

Could one say during premarital counseling that one plans to use NFP until menopause? Would that be considered not open to life, since some say that with NFP, there is always a chance of pregnancy anyway?

It isn’t the method used including NFP, contraception, sterilization or abstaining. It is the actual permanent intention against children that is the impediment. They are rejecting one of the three essential properties of marriage, and therefore cannot form valid intent and consent.

 

[Guernica]

So any couple who makes a secret pact with each other to use NFP forever or until menopause (for older women), BEWARE.

This can be used as fodder for an annulment later on.

Why would a couple who decided to use NFP forever have to BEWARE of an annulment?

If the two of them never have children, how can any outsider know it’s not the result of primary infertility? (And who on earth would be rude, nosy, and intrusive enough to actually ask?)

The only reason anyone would ever look into the couple’s NFP use is if the two of them divorced, and then asked the Catholic church for an annulment. Unless this theoretical couple did this themselves, there would be no reason for anyone to initiate an annulment.

Annulments are not initiated by third parties without the consent of the married couple. There is no team of special fertility-inquisition priests out there auditing Catholic couples’ use of NFP and forcibly annulling their marriages if they don’t use it “right.”

So the notion of having to “BEWARE!!1!!” of any dire repercussions from NFP use is absurd. Even if this couple was to make a secret pact to use NFP until menopause, it’s between the two of them.

It may be grounds for an annulment, but if they don’t take it upon themselves to seek an annulment, there’s no need to BEWARE an annulment.

Just to clarify.

 

[PatriceA]

Why would a couple who decided to use NFP forever have to BEWARE of an annulment?

If the two of them never have children, how can any outsider know it’s not the result of primary infertility? (And who on earth would be rude, nosy, and intrusive enough to actually ask?)

The only reason anyone would ever look into the couple’s NFP use is if the two of them divorced, and then asked the Catholic church for an annulment. Unless this theoretical couple did this themselves, there would be no reason for anyone to initiate an annulment.

Annulments are not initiated by third parties without the consent of the married couple. There is no team of special fertility-inquisition priests out there auditing Catholic couples’ use of NFP and forcibly annulling their marriages if they don’t use it “right.”

So the notion of having to “BEWARE!!1!!” of any dire repercussions from NFP use is absurd. Even if this couple was to make a secret pact to use NFP until menopause, it’s between the two of them.

It may be grounds for an annulment, but if they don’t take it upon themselves to seek an annulment, there’s no need to BEWARE an annulment.

Just to clarify.

TrueLight wasn’t implying that a third party was going to initiate an annulment, but I think you already knew that. My opinion, the couple has already allowed for deceit to enter into their marriage if they make a “pact” such as using NFP permanently to avoid children. If they were married in a Catholic wedding ceremony, they have deliberately deceived the Catholic Church. What else are they so willing to be deceptive about? I don’t understand how one could trust the other after they stood in front of God and took a vow they never planned to fulfill.