Is it ok to get married later in life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheWarriorMonk said:
The Church does not teach that the couple must marry when they are most fertile. You keep applying what is true during marriage to what isn’t true when the couple isn’t; it doesn’t work that way, and you won’t find anything authoritative to support your opinion.

What I think is being referenced is the vows being said at the time of marriage. Certain things can be changed without diminishing the meaning of the vows. A couple in their 60s would not reasonably be expected to have children naturally, and I believe they can remove that from their vows (with the pastor’s permission). Regardless, the couple would still be required to not have a permanent intention against children.
Click to expand...
I was unaware that a pastor can change the rite. Especially the wording of that part. Now do some? sure. I have seen some pretty wonky weddings. But are they allowed to? That would be spelled out in black and white somewhere.🤷

What I think is getting missed here is I am not advocating a couple must bet married when most fertile. What I am saying is that the OP indicated an attitude toward marraige and against kids that would go against what the Church and God intends. I think that is pretty obvious.
 
NSFrame said:
I’m not sure how they could be welcoming children that God might wish to send if they have waited until they are infertile to get married with the *specific intent *that they are thereby avoiding procreation. To me this sounds like a desire to circumvent God’s design for marriage.
Click to expand...
But you cant circumvent a miracle. So, will a couple accept the miracle if it should happen? If the answer is “yes” then it sounds like theyre open?

It sounds like youre not leaving room for a belief or acceptance of miracles, though its probably unlikely (but not impossible) that one will occur.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
I was unaware that a pastor can change the rite. Especially the wording of that part. Now do some? sure. I have seen some pretty wonky weddings. But are they allowed to? That would be spelled out in black and white somewhere.🤷

What I think is getting missed here is I am not advocating a couple must bet married when most fertile. What I am saying is that the OP indicated an attitude toward marraige and against kids that would go against what the Church and God intends. I think that is pretty obvious.
Click to expand...
I think it’s more that the person understands that openness to children is an essential part of marriage, and recognizes he/she is not called to that. Therefore, he/she does not enter into the state of marriage. There is no sin in being single. When we use phrases like ‘having your cake and eating it too’ or ‘scraping the frosting off’, we seem to overlook the very real sacrifice the person is making for many years.

If they feel called to marriage later in life, there is no sin in entering into that state of life, as long as all the requirements for a valid marriage are in place.
 
Thorns said:
But you cant circumvent a miracle. So, will a couple accept the miracle if it should happen? If the answer is “yes” then it sounds like theyre open?

It sounds like youre not leaving room for a belief or acceptance of miracles, though its probably unlikely (but not impossible) that one will occur.
Click to expand...
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.
 
AnnArbor said:
If they feel called to marriage later in life, there is no sin in entering into that state of life, as long as all the requirements for a valid marriage are in place.
Click to expand...
No one is disagreeing with this.
 
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...
Yes but wanting children/hoping not to have children is an entirely different concept than “accepting children if they should come despite your feelings or wants.”

And yes I agree with you, that it kind of reeks of dishonesty because one knows full well such a miracle is not likely (btw is seeing such unlikelyness in miracles a lack of faith?). I guess we’ll have to ban sterile couples from marriage who are coincidentally thankful for their sterility (even if they did nothing intentionally to cause it) though.
 
This discussion really hits home for me – I’m 44, never married. If I were to meet “the one” tomorrow and eventually marry, I probably would not want children – that doesn’t mean that I would do anything artificial to avoid them but I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to conceive. The reality is, if I met my husband today – allowing for a reasonable length of time to get to know him and decide to get married – that would realistically put me at 45. I personally feel that is too old to start a family. I mean, I’d be on social security when the graduate high school. Now, that being said, if something happened and we came up pregnant, well then guess what? We’re pregnant and we’re having a baby at 45.

But I also think that just because someone is over their child-bearing age does not preclude them from finding love and getting married – which sometimes is the only way people think. Marriage is about much more than just producing children!!
 
Aggie414 said:
This discussion really hits home for me – I’m 44, never married. If I were to meet “the one” tomorrow and eventually marry, I probably would not want children – that doesn’t mean that I would do anything artificial to avoid them but I’m certainly not going to go out of my way to conceive. The reality is, if I met my husband today – allowing for a reasonable length of time to get to know him and decide to get married – that would realistically put me at 45. I personally feel that is too old to start a family. I mean, I’d be on social security when the graduate high school. Now, that being said, if something happened and we came up pregnant, well then guess what? We’re pregnant and we’re having a baby at 45.

But I also think that just because someone is over their child-bearing age does not preclude them from finding love and getting married – which sometimes is the only way people think. Marriage is about much more than just producing children!!
Click to expand...
That is a very healthy and Catholic attitude.
 
AnnArbor said:
I think it’s more that the person understands that openness to children is an essential part of marriage, and recognizes he/she is not called to that. Therefore, he/she does not enter into the state of marriage. There is no sin in being single. When we use phrases like ‘having your cake and eating it too’ or ‘scraping the frosting off’, we seem to overlook the very real sacrifice the person is making for many years.

If they feel called to marriage later in life, there is no sin in entering into that state of life, as long as all the requirements for a valid marriage are in place.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point. One may marry if they find a mate or stay single. No cake, or frosting involved. But to purposely put off the idea of marriage until one can ensure sterility is the problem here. And how does one do this anyway? Make a pact with another person to make sure they will not marry until they cannot have children? So two people in their thirties are like “hey, I love you, but lets not live together, have sex, or live like we are married until we are 60 ok?” The answer to the question of the title of the thread is “yes” it is ok to marry later in life. But the OP saying that specifically avoiding children is the reason is dubious at best.

But the confusion in this thread is quite understandable seeing as we cannot even articulate to society why marriage is between opposite sexes.🤷

It is also problematic because the later one goes in life the more baggage the partner will have. Grown children, grand children, or immaturity when it comes to intimacy and a married life when they finally do “settle down” If I waited until my 50s to find a wife and it was specifically to avoid children, and I was seeking the same type of mentality, chances are that would not be a marriage full of sacrifice to another person, but really just a little cleaner than getting 20 cats for companionship.
 
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...
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Exactly my point. One may marry if they find a mate or stay single. No cake, or frosting involved. But to purposely put off the idea of marriage until one can ensure sterility is the problem here. And how does one do this anyway? **Make a pact with another person to make sure they will not marry until they cannot have children? So two people in their thirties are like “hey, I love you, but lets not live together, have sex, or live like we are married until we are 60 ok?” ** The answer to the question of the title of the thread is “yes” it is ok to marry later in life. But the OP saying that specifically avoiding children is the reason is dubious at best.

But the confusion in this thread is quite understandable seeing as we cannot even articulate to society why marriage is between opposite sexes.🤷

It is also problematic because the later one goes in life the more baggage the partner will have. Grown children, grand children, or immaturity when it comes to intimacy and a married life when they finally do “settle down” If I waited until my 50s to find a wife and it was specifically to avoid children, and I was seeking the same type of mentality, chances are that would not be a marriage full of sacrifice to another person, but really just a little cleaner than getting 20 cats for companionship.
Click to expand...
It seems that you are reading more into the question then was asked. The OP said nothing about a pact. Nothing about meeting your future spouse and not getting married for 30 years because you don’t want the chance of children.

The person is simply avoiding marriage. Which sounds like a very good idea for someone that doesn’t want children.
 
maryjk said:
It seems that you are reading more into the question then was asked. The OP said nothing about a pact. Nothing about meeting your future spouse and not getting married for 30 years because you don’t want the chance of children.

The person is simply avoiding marriage. Which sounds like a very good idea for someone that doesn’t want children.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the person was not “avoiding marriage” but merely postponing it to make it barren. Implying that marriage before then is an option. Which would imply that two people are involved. Since marriage is a two way pact here, how is this done. Personally I think the OPs scenario highly unlikely. But to postpone marriage makes it sound like marriage involving two people they are conspiring. If the OP just wants to not date a person because they are not family material. Then by all means go ahead and not date. But to purposely and selfishly manipulate nature in this way is wrong. And before someone yells But NFP NFP! That is a decision TWO people make in a marriage with God. This is just selfish plain and simple. It is misunderstanding what marriage is to serve a selfish purpose. How can that be Holy?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Exactly my point. One may marry if they find a mate or stay single. No cake, or frosting involved. But to purposely put off the idea of marriage until one can ensure sterility is the problem here.
Click to expand...
I would really, really like to see the authoritative Church reference on which you are referring to.

Abstinence is never sinful…period…even in marriage (provided both spouses agree). The whole issue of the sinfulness of avoiding children within marriage itself revolves around the action of having relations with the purpose of avoiding children; i.e., having pleasure without the “consequences” around children. You’re attempting to argue that intended to avoid children without the the sex act is sinful and degrades marriage. The Church not only doesn’t teach that, but it is contrary to what the Church teaches.
But the OP saying that specifically avoiding children is the reason is dubious at best.
Click to expand...
It is never sinful to avoid having children when one is not married. In fact, in the case of biological children, it is the correct course of action.
 
Ok, so, all you people who are hostile to children, go ahead and wait until menopause!

We did it! We found a way around Gods plan!:rolleyes:

We are so confused as a society as to what a Catholic marriage should be. And why we should get married. No wonder we are losing this battle.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
Like my wife…so we adopted. And you?
Click to expand...
Let me get this strait. You could have married your wife during fertile years but specifically chose not to so you could not have kids but then adopted?

My wife is pregnant with out fifth. Though I wonder if that matters to the theology of marriage at all?
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Ok, so, all you people who are hostile to children, go ahead and wait until menopause!

We did it! We found a way around Gods plan!:rolleyes:

We are so confused as a society as to what a Catholic marriage should be. And why we should get married. No wonder we are losing this battle.
Click to expand...
But if they do not feel called to have children, then it is not God’s plan. This is not the same thing as a married couple enjoying the benefits of marriage without intending to accept children. This is someone saying, “I know I am not ready for marriage until I am much older, because I know I am not called to parenthood.”
 
AnnArbor said:
But if they do not feel called to have children, then it is not God’s plan. This is not the same thing as a married couple enjoying the benefits of marriage without intending to accept children. This is someone saying, “I know I am not ready for marriage until I am much older, because I know I am not called to parenthood.”
Click to expand...
Yes–there’s no scraping off of the frosting (to continue with HoosierDaddy’s metaphor), because by the time the couple gets to enjoy the cake, the frosting is gone. They did not remove the frosting.
 
Xantippe said:
Yes–there’s no scraping off of the frosting (to continue with HoosierDaddy’s metaphor), because by the time the couple gets to enjoy the cake, the frosting is gone. They did not remove the frosting.
Click to expand...
Exactly! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top