Is it ok to get married later in life?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, since you mention it, this could have been dialed back a bit as well:

“well, I am sorry but you are against God on this.”

While you have pointed out Church teaching, everything you have cited applies to marriage. Nothing you shared has anything to do with the single state, age of marriage, or choosing to delay marriage. No one is obligated to marry – at any point. No one who is free to marry is prohibited from doing so at any point. It’s simply not sinful to choose to live a single life because you don’t feel called to parenthood, and then to marry later because you do feel called to share your life with someone. As long as one is chaste in each state of life, one is not sinning.

Which is why we need clarification on the OP.

Because holding a belief of marriage as the OP suggests is obviously contrary to the purpose of it or the very definition of it. So, it is indeed wrong to (for) selfish reasons purposeful render a potential or future marriage infertile.

Sex is the real issue here. If the OP said, hey I want companionship but dont want to share my money with anyone so I will squander and spend all my money on me and then get married specifically for companionship when I am broke, I think less people would defend it. But it has to do with sex. That “right” and selfish aspect that our society has ingrained in our minds. Here, the OP wants to have sex, without having children and they wish to manipulate sex and bodies and time, to get what they want. A permanent solution to having those nasty children and the ability to have sex on their own terms, without a thought to God or the purpose of man and woman and marriage. What does that sound like? Birth Control?

 

[AnnArbor]

Which is why we need clarification on the OP.

Because holding a belief of marriage as the OP suggests is obviously contrary to the purpose of it or the very definition of it. So, it is indeed wrong to (for) selfish reasons purposeful render a potential or future marriage infertile.

Sex is the real issue here. If the OP said, hey I want companionship but dont want to share my money with anyone so I will squander and spend all my money on me and then get married specifically for companionship when I am broke, I think less people would defend it. But it has to do with sex. That “right” and selfish aspect that our society has ingrained in our minds. Here, the OP wants to have sex, without having children and they wish to manipulate sex and bodies and time, to get what they want. A permanent solution to having those nasty children and the ability to have sex on their own terms, without a thought to God or the purpose of man and woman and marriage. What does that sound like? Birth Control?

No, it doesn’t. Because the point is that they WON’T be able to have sex. Your analogy about the money doesn’t hold.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Well, since you mention it, this could have been dialed back a bit as well:

“well, I am sorry but you are against God on this.”.

I am sorry but where did I address this to you or anyone on this thread? I went back and read the whole thread. (something that would be beneficial for all of us to do there is some good stuff on here.) And I could not find that. Again, just like warrior monk. If you wish to accuse please provide proof.

Which post are you quoting? Is it on this thread? There are many things in which

“well, I am sorry but you are against God on this.”

Can be used appropriately. A thread on pro choice for instance. Or even marriage. And there are certainly things that someone could say, as warrior monk did, “You are perverting Church teaching” That is an acceptable statement. just not in this context. I perverted nothing I only quoted the CCC and applied it to the CONCEPT and PURPOSE of marriage. Something all (married and unmarried) should defend. The OP asks if they can purposefully manipulate the purpose of marriage in their favor by postponing it for the only reason of rendering infertile. The answer is a clear no. I really do not understand how someone can defend otherwise. The attitude and understanding of marriage that purposefully takes away the procreative aspect for the sheer convenience of the person involved is certainly not Holy? Is it?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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?

WM I am still waiting on an answer to this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

From a male perspective this may be a really really bad idea. While a sterilized person may marry. An impotent one cannot. And age is a factor here. Impotence is an impediment to marriage. And yes, Cialis is a drug. Sometimes age is well, to big to overcome.

So if the big scheme on God is to trick HIm by waiting, well, He may have a trick or two up His sleeve too.

 

[AnnArbor]

I am sorry but where did I address this to you or anyone on this thread? I went back and read the whole thread. (something that would be beneficial for all of us to do there is some good stuff on here.) And I could not find that. Again, just like warrior monk. If you wish to accuse please provide proof.

Which post are you quoting? Is it on this thread? There are many things in which
Can be used appropriately. A thread on pro choice for instance. Or even marriage. And there are certainly things that someone could say, as warrior monk did, “You are perverting Church teaching” That is an acceptable statement. just not in this context. I perverted nothing I only quoted the CCC and applied it to the CONCEPT and PURPOSE of marriage. Something all (married and unmarried) should defend. The OP asks if they can purposefully manipulate the purpose of marriage in their favor by postponing it for the only reason of rendering infertile. The answer is a clear no. I really do not understand how someone can defend otherwise. The attitude and understanding of marriage that purposefully takes away the procreative aspect for the sheer convenience of the person involved is certainly not Holy? Is it?

Perhaps it wasn’t addressed to me – in which case, apologies. It seemed that way, though. Post 69, by the way.

You keep talking about people purposefully manipulating the purpose of marriage. If they are not married, they are simply not doing that. They cannot manipulate what they are not doing. They are sacrificing the goods of marriage because they recognize they are not called to one of its essential elements, parenthood. Later in life, they may choose to enter the marital state. Then, all the attitudes, etc. hold. But not until they have actually entered that state.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Perhaps it wasn’t addressed to me – in which case, apologies. It seemed that way, though. Post 69, by the way.

You keep talking about people purposefully manipulating the purpose of marriage. If they are not married, they are simply not doing that. They cannot manipulate what they are not doing. They are sacrificing the goods of marriage because they recognize they are not called to one of its essential elements, parenthood. Later in life, they may choose to enter the marital state. Then, all the attitudes, etc. hold. But not until they have actually entered that state.

People manipulate the purpose of marriage all the time. And sometimes (gasp) they are not married when they do it. Like the couple living together raising a child outside of wedlock. Or supporting a gay marriage they are not part of either. One does not need to be part of a sacrament to alter, or damage it. It happens all the time.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If one does not seek marriage or is called to marriage then you are correct. But in this case, one obviously feels called to marriage but wants to sterilize it and is willing to alter the timeline to support their wants. This is a perversion of marriage. Now if one does not have a partner and does not find one until later and children are not a possibility, great! Or there is a death of a spouse etc. More power to you. Get married, go on Viagra, have a great time. But if you are PLANNING to trick God and avoid the SUPREME gift of children by postponing this with that being your sole impediment to marriage (that you do not want children) then no, while the person may not physically be sinning against the marriage that they do not have, they are indeed misusing marriage and not understanding the purpose of marriage for selfish reasons. I can certainly sin by being selfish without being part of that sin itself. For instance, being pro choice, or pro homosexual marriage. I may not marry another man, but if I support it in a Holy setting, well, I am sorry but you are against God on this.

Here is the post in question. It was not addressed to a specific person, nor did it contain anything outside of Church teaching and actual Catholic discussion.

This thread mimics gay marriage threads a ton!

 

[AnnArbor]

People manipulate the purpose of marriage all the time. And sometimes (gasp) they are not married when they do it. Like the couple living together raising a child outside of wedlock. Or supporting a gay marriage they are not part of either. One does not need to be part of a sacrament to alter, or damage it. It happens all the time.

But those are people who are simulating the state of marriage or supporting the same. That is not the same thing as someone who is living a chaste single life because they have recognized they were not called to parenthood, and thereby, marriage. That does not mean the call/lack of call is permanent. So when they are older, they may be called to marriage. At which point, they are “on” for all the elements that make marriage the wonderful state of life it is.

It is really hard to understand how you can state that someone who is living a chaste single life because they recognize they are not ready for marriage is sinning. I honestly don’t get where the perversion of the sacrament is happening there.

 

[AnnArbor]

Here is the post in question. It was not addressed to a specific person, nor did it contain anything outside of Church teaching and actual Catholic discussion.

This thread mimics gay marriage threads a ton!

Well, with one major exception — this isn’t in any way against Church teaching.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Accusing me of perversion of Church teaching is quite a charge. You may disagree but I only pointed out Church teaching. Please dial it back a little.

DO you wish to supply any sources for your point? I used the CCC.

Which specific points would you like me to address?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

WM I am still waiting on an answer to this.

WM has a life, and just spent a few hours training with his training partners. And out the door I go again.

Many of your points I cannot directly dispute, simply because they are your own personal opinion that has no basis in Church teaching. It is not necessary to non-applicable, non-sinful activity in Canon Law, the CCC, etc.

My opinions are based on what is included in authoritative teaching. I’m no Canon lawyer, but I know enough about law to know how it is interpreted.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

In your scenario the person(s) intentionally avoided marriage with the intent to avoid children. That is probably not a holy use of the sacrament. How would this even happen anyway. Two people agree to wait until barren to live together and be married? What an odd pact to make. What a skewed and selfish view of the purpose of marriage.

When a couple marry, they must be open to children. The couple has obligations toward each other (aka the marital debt).

Single people on the other hand, are not obligated to marry. There isn’t anything at all wrong to not marry. There isn’t an obligation to marry. Not even couples who have conceived a baby out of wedlock are obliged to marry. They are obligated to remain chaste.

The Church permits infertile couples to marry. The Church permits older couples to marry.

The couple makes vows on their wedding day. Do they intend to accept children lovingly on their wedding day?

My father’s sister never married. She didn’t feel called to do so. In her 60’s someone was interested in courting her. She said no. If she had said yes, that would have been a sin?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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?

Again. warrior monk. Is this correct?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My opinions are based on what is included in authoritative teaching. I’m no Canon lawyer, but I know enough about law to know how it is interpreted.

Oh ok. That is all I needed. Thanks for the authoritative proof.

 

[severus68]

From a male perspective this may be a really really bad idea. While a sterilized person may marry. An impotent one cannot. And age is a factor here. Impotence is an impediment to marriage. And yes, Cialis is a drug. Sometimes age is well, to big to overcome.

So if the big scheme on God is to trick HIm by waiting, well, He may have a trick or two up His sleeve too.

You are making the assumption that for everyone, marriage is all about sex. In fact, sex becomes less of an imperative the older one gets.

 

[severus68]

That is not a great example because in that example the vasectomy was a sin. And not only that, but the person has to realize that was wrong.

Could you clarify for me please.

Is your original post asking if one wished to be closed to children but felt called to marriage is that a valid reason to postpone a marriage until not fertile. And does that mean that a couple WOULD have gotten married BEFORE had they not been fertile? Are there two people in this scenario or just one person who does not want to look for a mate until infertile? Would the mate also have never had kids? Or not have ever wanted kids?

Could you elaborate a little please.

I am not the one you responded to but how about a couple who delays marriage until the woman is post-menopausal as her life will be at risk if she gets pregnant? So they choose to wait until she is no longer fertile, living chastely until then. Do you find that wrong too and about trying to trick God?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When a couple marry, they must be open to children. The couple has obligations toward each other (aka the marital debt).

Single people on the other hand, are not obligated to marry. There isn’t anything at all wrong to not marry. There isn’t an obligation to marry. Not even couples who have conceived a baby out of wedlock are obliged to marry. They are obligated to remain chaste.

The Church permits infertile couples to marry. The Church permits older couples to marry.

The couple makes vows on their wedding day. Do they intend to accept children lovingly on their wedding day?

My father’s sister never married. She didn’t feel called to do so. In her 60’s someone was interested in courting her. She said no. If she had said yes, that would have been a sin?

Of course there would be no sin.

Are people not seeing the intent here? The OP specifically asked if they may avoid marriage until after the fertile years. If that is the way it works out then sure many people cannot find a mate until later. Or find another mate later. None of that is disputed. What is disputed is purposely avoiding it because of the intent of Children. Look, marraige is a vocation, what the OP is asking is if one can be called to a partial vocation. Marraige, but not marriage. Like a priest wanting and purposefully rigging ordainment to avoid saying mass but getting to hear confessions.

Again, “feelings” can cloud the theology here and people can get quite huffy with my sister this or my wife and I that, but what I am not seeing is anyone actually doing what the OP is asking. If your father’s sister (your aunt) never married or did marry later is not the issue what would be the issue is if for 20 or so fertile years your aunt said, “Well, I am going to get married but not until I am infertile.” That would be weird wouldn’t it?

That is the issue. To have a such a feeling of dread of children that one alters natural events in order to avoid the issue and construe marriage all together.

Just like NFP can be used inappropriately. This could as well. And in the OPs post, it would appear that the single reason to not get married is to avoid children, then when children are no longer possible get married. Now honestly I have no idea why someone would go through this and drag someone else through such an elaborate scheme. But then again, I have no idea why people use NFP with a contraceptive mentality either:shrug: But we are human, and we tend to be capable of doing some odd mental gymnastics to try to make God see it our way.

So, let’s go to your example. If your Aunt had the opportunity and want to get married, and even had a man all ready to go and picked out, but then delayed that marraige for however many years until full on menopause kicked in for the specific purpose of not having a child then, yes, there would be a problem there. But if she had married later because that is when she found “the one” but it was past child bearing years, then there would be no problem. I am all for people getting married. At any age allowed by the Church. (yes, even 14) But I am not in favor of using that sacrament to your own selfish wants mocking God. Nope, not a fan at all!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Again. warrior monk. Is this correct?

The Church does not oblige anyone to marry, ever.

Unmarried people must stay chaste.

Married people must remain open to life at each marital act.

Older couples and infertile couples may marry.

So, a person chooses not to marry young is not sinning by changing her mind and marrying older.

A person who did not marry young, and marries older is not sinning by marrying.

Two people who are not married are not obliged to marry . They are not committing sins by staying chaste.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A couple who does not want children, cannot get married in the Church.

But my question for the OP is why not get married and use NFP with the intent of never conceiving. It is the EXACT SAME mentality.

The answer is: Because that is against Church teaching.