Is it ok to get married later in life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Wikipedia does count. And I have used that exact article in the past. If you don’t like it or think it is false you can show where it is false. Until then, 🤷

IT is obvious that piles upon piles of the Church addressing children in marriage. ANd yet none of you can point to a single thing that says that it is ok to want to be married and not want to and take steps to permanently not have kids. I have said about all I can on the subject. It is yours to reject or accept.

The mind of the Church and the idea of orienting yourself to holiness pretty much makes this clear.

In no way is the OP’s attitude or mindset Holy. If you think it is then well, show it!

We all know that instead of waiting around for a couple decades the couple in question would realistically just use NFP or even contracept…
Click to expand...
HoosierDaddy, we haven’t provided evidence for it being licit because the burden of proof in matters like this always lies with the person trying to prove it is illicit and immoral. You have not yet provided authoritative evidence that it is immoral for a couple to get married when older if they previously avoided marriage when younger because they didn’t want children unless they now actively want children. You have provided Church statements about the duties within marriage and you have provided an excerpt from a wikipedia article which disagrees with you. Please provide actual authoritative Church teaching that the situation we are discussing is immoral and impermissible. As I have noted before, the burden of proof does not lie with us but with you as you are the one claiming it is immoral.
 
marymary1975 said:
I don’t think you are understanding what Hoosier daddy and I ate trying to explain. Chastityvdoes not have anything to do in here. Look at what I just answered to Ann harbor. Neither Hoosier daddy or I have said at any moment that chastity is grounds for nulity. No. Refusing to have children is grounds for nulity. It is the refusal to have children what causes the nulity…again chastity has nothing yo do in here…is I don’t want to have kids ever. Yhe chastity is irrelevant here tale it out of the picture because is confussing you. Now for a catholic annulment what counts is what happened before the marriage and the circumstances around the marriage. If before the marriage I have a mindset that I don’t want to ever have children and I premeditate a marriage in such a way tobfurryher my goal of never having children, that is grounds for annulment and the catholic church does not considered said marriage premeditated toward the goal of not having children valid. Do you understand better what we are trying to explain now?
Click to expand...
This is not correct. What matters is the state of the people and their vows at the time of their marriage. Not before, not after. If in the past they avoided marrying because they didn’t want kids that doesn’t effect the validity of their current marriage at all. The only thing that matters is their intent at he time of their marriage. And so long as they are willing to accept any children that might come their way lovingly then they are fulfilling that aspect of the requirements for marriage and would not be able to receive an annulment even if they previously avoided marriage because they didn’t want to have kids.
 
Points have been made, sources cited and explanations and opinions abound. What else is there really to say?

People who are called to the vocation of marriage should desire children. If you have a permanent avoidance to have children the Church will not marry you. The OP thinks the vocation for marriage is specifically for his wants. No other person (a spouse) is involved in the decision to remain childless. The decision to have children is something a wife and husband decide together. Since the OP is not married and is waiting to enter into marriage until they can finagle biology. The OP has found the loophole to not having children.

God would be proud.

Again. What is Holy about the OPs stance on children in the sacrament of marriage. If one feels called to a sacrament or enters into a sacrament should the person do so with a Holy respect for the sacrament, or just selfish wants?

But who knows, maybe the OP just really really likes old ladies. In which case, Whatever floats your boat…🤷
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Points have been made, sources cited and explanations and opinions abound. What else is there really to say?

People who are called to the vocation of marriage should desire children. If you have a permanent avoidance to have children the Church will not marry you. The OP thinks the vocation for marriage is specifically for his wants. No other person (a spouse) is involved in the decision to remain childless. The decision to have children is something a wife and husband decide together. Since the OP is not married and is waiting to enter into marriage until they can finagle biology. The OP has found the loophole to not having children.

God would be proud.

Again. What is Holy about the OPs stance on children in the sacrament of marriage. If one feels called to a sacrament or enters into a sacrament should the person do so with a Holy respect for the sacrament, or just selfish wants?

But who knows, maybe the OP just really really likes old ladies. In which case, Whatever floats your boat…🤷
Click to expand...
I really don’t think anyone is arguing that you can get married with a permanent impediment against children. That is pretty clearly contrary to Church teaching. But again, that isn’t what is in dispute here. What is in dispute here is what is required of those unable to have children in order for them to be able to marry. I, and others, have asserted that with regards to children all that is required is the willingness at the time of their marriage to accept any miracles they may conceive lovingly from God. You seem to think this is not sufficient and that there is some other requirement as well. As far as I can tell you seem to think that unless a couple actively desires to have children they cannot marry. I truly do not understand where you get that idea from. I am not trying to find a loophole around having children, I just have never seen anything that supports the claim that such a requirement exists. If you would kindly provide authoritative evidence that such a requirement exists I would respectfully change my position on the matter. Until then, however, I will have to remain convinced that there is no real evidence for your position, and so, that you are incorrect that such a course of action is impermissible.
 
marymary1975 said:
I also want to clarify too I have never said that being chaste is grounds for annulment. I have never said either that infertility is grounds for annulment (and I specifically use infertility not physical capacity because impotency is indeed grounds for annulment, infertility is not). You are right as to those two but that is not what I said. Refusal to have children is grounds for annulment. If I refuse to have children and I never want to have children and I marry that is grounds for annulment. Hopefully that makes it clearer.
Click to expand...
That is clear. Sorry, I thought you were agreeing that choosing to remain single because you didn’t want children, and then marrying older, was sinful. Entering into marriage with a permanent intention against children is possible grounds for a decree of nullity; waiting until you are old enough that that is unlikely is not.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Points have been made, sources cited and explanations and opinions abound. What else is there really to say?

People who are called to the vocation of marriage should desire children. If you have a permanent avoidance to have children the Church will not marry you. The OP thinks the vocation for marriage is specifically for his wants. No other person (a spouse) is involved in the decision to remain childless. The decision to have children is something a wife and husband decide together. Since the OP is not married and is waiting to enter into marriage until they can finagle biology. The OP has found the loophole to not having children.

God would be proud.

Again. What is Holy about the OPs stance on children in the sacrament of marriage. If one feels called to a sacrament or enters into a sacrament should the person do so with a Holy respect for the sacrament, or just selfish wants?

But who knows, maybe the OP just really really likes old ladies. In which case, Whatever floats your boat…🤷
Click to expand...
Aside from the gratuitous slam at older women in the last line, the thing that’s wrong here is this–absolutely every citation and source you’ve given applies to those who are married or who are entering into marriage with the intent of avoiding children while in that state. Nothing you’ve quoted applies to those who do not enter that state precisely because they know they are not called to parenthood.

By waiting, the person isn’t disrespecting the sacrament–rather, the contrary. They appear to respect it enough to forego years of its pleasures so as not to enter it invalidly. You keep making it sound as if they are ‘having their cake and eating it too’ but obviously, they are not.

You are applying the teaching about apples to the state of oranges. It may be your opinion, but you have not given a single Church teaching to support it.
 
AnnArbor said:
Aside from the gratuitous slam at older women in the last line, the thing that’s wrong here is this–absolutely every citation and source you’ve given applies to those who are married or who are entering into marriage with the intent of avoiding children while in that state. Nothing you’ve quoted applies to those who do not enter that state precisely because they know they are not called to parenthood.

By waiting, the person isn’t disrespecting the sacrament–rather, the contrary. They appear to respect it enough to forego years of its pleasures so as not to enter it invalidly. You keep making it sound as if they are ‘having their cake and eating it too’ but obviously, they are not.

You are applying the teaching about apples to the state of oranges. It may be your opinion, but you have not given a single Church teaching to support it.
Click to expand...
ok:shrug:
 
AnnArbor said:
Aside from the gratuitous slam at older women in the last line, the thing that’s wrong here is this–absolutely every citation and source you’ve given applies to those who are married or who are entering into marriage with the intent of avoiding children while in that state. Nothing you’ve quoted applies to those who do not enter that state precisely because they know they are not called to parenthood.

By waiting, the person isn’t disrespecting the sacrament–rather, the contrary. They appear to respect it enough to forego years of its pleasures so as not to enter it invalidly. You keep making it sound as if they are ‘having their cake and eating it too’ but obviously, they are not.

You are applying the teaching about apples to the state of oranges. It may be your opinion, but you have not given a single Church teaching to support it.
Click to expand...
👍
 
AnnArbor said:
Aside from the gratuitous slam at older women in the last line, the thing that’s wrong here is this–absolutely every citation and source you’ve given applies to those who are married or who are entering into marriage with the intent of avoiding children while in that state. Nothing you’ve quoted applies to those who do not enter that state precisely because they know they are not called to parenthood.

By waiting, the person isn’t disrespecting the sacrament–rather, the contrary. They appear to respect it enough to forego years of its pleasures so as not to enter it invalidly. You keep making it sound as if they are ‘having their cake and eating it too’ but obviously, they are not.

You are applying the teaching about apples to the state of oranges. It may be your opinion, but you have not given a single Church teaching to support it.
Click to expand...
Very well said.

I would even say most people who marry in their 50’s realize children are unlikely. I would say the Church realizes that children are unlikely as well, yet permits marriage for these people.

So what should a person do if they don’t want children? I would say the most moral solution is to avoid marriage.

Some are arguing that the Church teaches that this person cannot ever marry.

The person needs to mean their vows when they take them.

That’s all. If someone who avoided marriage and children can’t marry validly at 50, then why is anyone permitted to marry at 50. The likelihood of children would be the same.
 
Josephite marriages.

The Church has always allowed them, albeit under certain conditions and with spiritual direction of the couple. And with the caveat that if either spouse desires to end the period of living in continence, they have a right to request the marital debt.

If a couple may enter a Josephite marriage, which sacrifices a primary good of marriage (and of course, also the supreme gift of marriage), then surely a person or a couple who might like to marry to enjoy some of the goods of marriage, but do not believe it would be wise for them personally to have children, may remain single. They are giving up their right entirely to ALL of the goods of marriage, unless and until such time when procreation is not likely to occur.

Catholics are NOT required to personally actively desire to have children.

If a person does not want children of their own, they should not marry.
God Himself built in a time limit, especially with female fertility, after which procreation is not possible (barring a miracle).
If a person seeks the companionship and comfort of marriage in their golden years, they are not violating any of God’s own design for marriage.
If a person wants children and marries while fertile, God’s design for marriage is able to (hopefully) reach its full life-giving potential.
Infertile individuals are permitted to marry, because they are still honoring God’s design while knowing they likely will never be granted the supreme gift of marriage via natural means.

There is absolutely nothing wrong at all with respecting the fact that marital relations are ordered to procreation, acknowledging the reality that a person does not desire to become a parent, and therefore deciding not to get married, even if they have the hope that they may one day be able to enjoy some of the goods of marriage by marrying in their golden years. That is honest, that is sacrificing real goods, that is just.

I suggest that those who insist that such a decision is sinful or selfish might want to ask their priest for answers. Because we cannot demand of people who choose to remain single that they have the intentions of those who are marrying or who are already married. THAT would be unjust.
 
mommamaree said:
Josephite marriages.

The Church has always allowed them, albeit under certain conditions and with spiritual direction of the couple. And with the caveat that if either spouse desires to end the period of living in continence, they have a right to request the marital debt.

If a couple may enter a Josephite marriage, which sacrifices a primary good of marriage (and of course, also the supreme gift of marriage), then surely a person or a couple who might like to marry to enjoy some of the goods of marriage, but do not believe it would be wise for them personally to have children, may remain single. They are giving up their right entirely to ALL of the goods of marriage, unless and until such time when procreation is not likely to occur.

Catholics are NOT required to personally actively desire to have children.

If a person does not want children of their own, they should not marry.
God Himself built in a time limit, especially with female fertility, after which procreation is not possible (barring a miracle).
If a person seeks the companionship and comfort of marriage in their golden years, they are not violating any of God’s own design for marriage.
If a person wants children and marries while fertile, God’s design for marriage is able to (hopefully) reach its full life-giving potential.
Infertile individuals are permitted to marry, because they are still honoring God’s design while knowing they likely will never be granted the supreme gift of marriage via natural means.

There is absolutely nothing wrong at all with respecting the fact that marital relations are ordered to procreation, acknowledging the reality that a person does not desire to become a parent, and therefore deciding not to get married, even if they have the hope that they may one day be able to enjoy some of the goods of marriage by marrying in their golden years. That is honest, that is sacrificing real goods, that is just.

I suggest that those who insist that such a decision is sinful or selfish might want to ask their priest for answers. Because we cannot demand of people who choose to remain single that they have the intentions of those who are marrying or who are already married. THAT would be unjust.
Click to expand...
Very well stated.👍
 
marymary1975 said:
I know that he asked if it is OK but there is a big likelihood that if the issue he is asking if is OK has been established as grounds for annulment that it is not OK. Let’s just take as explamle other two grounds of annulment: would it be OK under the catholic church if I knowingly marry a 12 year old that has the body of a 17 year old (ground of nulity impediment). Would it be OK under the catholic church if I go to my best friend and tell him to have his daughter to marry me against her consent? (Lack of consent). Of the xhurchvis telling us that marrying a 12 year old is grounds of annulment probably is because there may be something wrong with that picture. So while the question is not what are the grounds of annulments we can draw a pretty good conclusions out of situations that the church is saying that there may be something wrong with that picture.
Click to expand...
You’re discussing specific, explicit diriment impediments. An explicit diriment impediment has not been given in this case. Some people are are assuming that, but if the couple is willing to accept any (miraculous) children at the time of marriage, as unlikely as children may be for them, no such impediment exists.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Wikipedia does count.
Click to expand...
Any Catholic looking to inform oneself of the on matters of Catholic faith in general, and the finer points in general, ONLY uses authoritative Catholic sources for guidance (CCC, Encyclicals, etc.). The reason is blatantly obvious: non-Catholic sources are often not written by experts, which may include cafeteria Catholics that don’t understand the finer relevant points of the discussion, or non-Catholics, both categories of which infuse their own personal opinion into the discussion. Canon lawyers, theologians, apologists, etc, don’t rely on non-Catholic sources for authoritative teaching, and neither should lay Catholics.

Also, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source on anything. I’ve actually seen articles that are 100% wrong. One of the first times I saw this dealt with an article on a professional organization. The writer of the article had a beef with the organization, and the article was filled with false, opinionated venom.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Since the OP is not married and is waiting to enter into marriage until they can finagle biology. The OP has found the loophole to not having children.
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach that the natural course of biological events in the body (designed by God) is finagling biology, nor does the Church does it is a loophole, nor does the Church teach it is immoral to use this design. In fact, the Church states the exact opposite. I asked if you ever read HV for a reason; this issue is specifically addressed in that Encyclical.

NFP is allowed to control birth (for serious reason) for the specific reason that it observes Natural Law.
But who knows, maybe the OP just really really likes old ladies. In which case, Whatever floats your boat…🤷
Click to expand...
Utterly disrespectful.

Is a person natural sterile an “old lady.” How about a woman that goes through menopause in her 30s ( I personally know several such people)? Furthermore, you comments assume that God has the exact same plan for everyone, which is not true, even for those in marriage.
 
Thorns said:
If a person does not want children, but desires a companion, is it ok to get married later in life once the woman is past child bearing years? Wouldn’t this be exactly like NFP but on a larger scale?
Click to expand...
Should one, through happenstance, find oneself wishing to marry “late in life”, no problem, go ahead.

How one has conducted oneself in times prior is another matter, about which no details are included in your question.
 
marymary1975 said:
I think many of you here are getting completely deviated from the main issue in the OP given that you guys are mixing some ideas. First of all, chastity and abstaining from sex are two completely different things. The OP despite using the word “chastity” is not really chastity Chastity means purity of body, purity of MIND and purity of HEART. I make emphasis on mind because in order to be chastity your intention to abstain from sex has to be PURE, hence the reasoning behind it must be because your body is temple of the holy spirit and as such you want to respect your body as the temple of god and you don’t allow any kind of impure thought in you. **Abstaining from sex because you don’t want to get pregnant is not chastity. ** The OP refers to abstaining from sex out of an desire of not having a pregnancy and that is not chastity. So all that are bringing the chastity point it is incorrect because under this circumstances the person despite abstaining from sex is not chaste.
Click to expand...
Abstaining from sex because you aren’t married **is **being chaste. Which is what the scenario is about.
 
NSFrame said:
Well, no, you can’t circumvent a miracle, but you can use your God-given sense to know that a woman who is past menopause or who has had a hysterectomy has an infinitesimally small chance of pregnancy. And if you enter marriage in these circumstances specifically with the hope that this will prevent you from having children while allowing you sex and companionship, then you can’t play dumb and say “well, maybe God will give a miracle” when you know full well the reasoning behind the timing of your marriage.
Click to expand...
Consider a man who is not comfortable with having children, and consequently does not date. One day, he meets a woman who he learns is infertile. They do like each, and given her infertility, he does date her. They fall in love. They marry.

Has either done wrong?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
People manipulate the purpose of marriage all the time.
Click to expand...
I view the scenario put by the OP in chunks, like this:
  1. A Man is not attracted to having kids, and does not foresee this changing. He quite properly chooses not to seek marriage. We assume he behaves otherwise chastely.
  2. Years later, he realises his concerns about children are, for practical purposes, irrelevant now. He admits that if he did marry, and miraculously his wife became pregnant, they would be obliged to welcome the child. He is drawn to the idea of marriage. He meets a woman, falls in love, marries.
Where in this sequence did anyone do wrong?

Possibly, the original attitude to children was of a selfish nature. That is the only possible wrong I can see. Certainly I would not see this as “gaming” marriage.
 
maryjk said:
Abstaining from sex because you aren’t married **is **being chaste. Which is what the scenario is about.
Click to expand...
Not really. If you abstain from sex before marriage but look at a girl/ guy on the street and have lustful thoughts about that person you ate not chaste. Chastity is a much broader concept than a mere physical level or not having sexual intercourse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top