Is it ok to get married later in life?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

Yes, you are 100 percent correct on all of that. none of that is disputed. IN the OP case the person did not “change their mind” but rather intended to marry late to avoid children. Implying marrying before that was an option.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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!

My Aunt, had no obligation to marry the man all picked out and ready to go, and he had no obligation to wait decades for her.

If two people commit to be in a chaste courtship until 90, they haven’t sinned. They are being chaste. If at 90 they get married they haven’t sinned. What is the sin? Unmarried people are not obliged to marry. They are obliged to be chaste.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, you are 100 percent correct on all of that. none of that is disputed. IN the OP case the person did not “change their mind” but rather intended to marry late to avoid children. Implying marrying before that was an option.

So, a person doesn’t want children, if they give up marriage when they are young, then they forfeit marriage when they are old. It’s mandatory to forfeit marriage, because otherwise it is sinful tantamount to contraception and homosexuality?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My Aunt, had no obligation to marry the man all picked out and ready to go, and he had no obligation to wait decades for her.

If two people commit to be in a chaste courtship until 90, they haven’t sinned. They are being chaste. If at 90 they get married they haven’t sinned. What is the sin? Unmarried people are not obliged to marry. They are obliged to be chaste.

Again, all true. But if the chaste courtship is ONLY to avoid children then… nope.

But again, I doubt this is more than an excercise in theology because I doubt very much someone would go through all the trouble of trying to get around the rules when you could get married and use contraception or use NFP like contraception. Both of those things would be easier than a 30 year engagement. Cheaper too if the couple is living separately. I doubt very much that someone who had such an aversion to children would have the respect for the sacrament of marriage to wait until 90…But after seeing some of the gymnastics on these threads, I’ll bet someone will try it…

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

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

You’re asking me to beat up on a straw man. You are asking me dispute personal opinions based on non-teachings. Provide specific points to dispute that are based on Church teachings, and I will do so.

IN the OP case the person did not “change their mind” but rather intended to marry late to avoid children.

So what. They are not married, and are not obligated to marry. Remaining chaste in their single state is not a sinful, regardless of the reason.

Implying marrying before that was an option.

It sure was, but there is no requirement to marry, and thus no sin.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Again, all true. But if the chaste courtship is ONLY to avoid children then… nope.

But again, I doubt this is more than an excercise in theology because I doubt very much someone would go through all the trouble of trying to get around the rules when you could get married and use contraception or use NFP like contraception. Both of those things would be easier than a 30 year engagement. Cheaper too if the couple is living separately. I doubt very much that someone who had such an aversion to children would have the respect for the sacrament of marriage to wait until 90…But after seeing some of the gymnastics on these threads, I’ll bet someone will try it…

So the chaste couple is obligated to get married young, or forever hold their peace? So the Church does oblige some to marry?

And the Church can tell an older couple they cannot marry now, because they didn’t do it when they had the chance when they were younger?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So, a person doesn’t want children, if they give up marriage when they are young, then they forfeit marriage when they are old. It’s mandatory to forfeit marriage, because otherwise it is sinful tantamount to contraception and homosexuality?

For some reason I am not able to reply to this post. I get a weird screen.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So the chaste couple is obligated to get married young, or forever hold their peace? So the Church does oblige some to marry?

And the Church can tell an older couple they cannot marry now, because they didn’t do it when they had the chance when they were younger?

No, of course not.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Again, all true. But if the chaste courtship is ONLY to avoid children then… nope.

False. They are not married.

Do you want to shut us all up? Provide something in the CCC, Catechism, etc. that states or implies that a chaste courtship is sinful under any circumstances. You have utterly failed to do so.

But after seeing some of the gymnastics on these threads, I’ll bet someone will try it…

You’re doing the gymnastics as you have provided no support for your opinions. And I have no doubt that people have done this. If a couple is, say, in their mid-late 40s, they might want to avoid having children for the simple reason that pregnancy is likely to be difficult. I personally know people that have had miscarriage after miscarriage at that age. While they have serious reason and could practice NFP in marriage, they could also opt to simply get married a few years later…and it is not sinful in any way.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The CCC posted earlier was Quite clear on marriage and children. What I would like to see is where someone can come up with a Catholic defense of purposefully avoiding children solely out of want, in a marriage. Obviously here there has to be some sort of agreement between paries that COULD marry to NOT marry until older. But again, why not just use NFP with the permanent intent to not have children.

Answer: Because the Church does not allow it.

Why would it be wrong for me to get married and permanently avoid children using licit means (NFP) for no other reason than that is what I wanted.

Answer that.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

False. They are not married.

Do you want to shut us all up? Provide something in the CCC, Catechism, etc. that states or implies that a chaste courtship is sinful under any circumstances. You have utterly failed to do so.

You’re doing the gymnastics as you have provided no support for your opinions. And I have no doubt that people have done this. If a couple is, say, in their mid-late 40s, they might want to avoid having children for the simple reason that pregnancy is likely to be difficult. I personally know people that have had miscarriage after miscarriage at that age. While they have serious reason and could practice NFP in marriage, they could also opt to simply get married a few years later…and it is not sinful in any way.

False.

No, I don’t want to shut you all up. THis is good educational discussion (well some of it) And I did cite the Catechism I am still waiting for you to
A: Answer the question I asked you.
B: Provide backup for your interpretation.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

The CCC posted earlier was Quite clear on marriage and children.

True. But since they are not married, it is not relevant. You are attempting to apply requirements of those that have received the sacrament with those that have not. That is simply an incorrect line of thought and reasoning, and results in false conclusions.

What I would like to see is where someone can come up with a Catholic defense of purposefully avoiding children solely out of want, in a marriage. Obviously here there has to be some sort of agreement between paries that COULD marry to NOT marry until older. But again, why not just use NFP with the permanent intent to not have children.

IF the couple has a permanent intention against children, then the marriage would have a basis for being considered invalid if challenged (Canon 1101, Section 2). However, that point has not been established. If the couple does not want children, yet are not contracepting and are open to having children, the marriage would be considered valid if challenged.

Why would it be wrong for me to get married and permanently avoid children using licit means (NFP) for no other reason than that is what I wanted.

Answer that.

Sure. Your statement is above is contradictory. “NFP for no other reason than that is what I wanted” is not a licit use of NFP. See HV no. 16, second paragraph:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

False.

No, I don’t want to shut you all up. THis is good educational discussion (well some of it) And I did cite the Catechism I am still waiting for you to
A: Answer the question I asked you.
B: Provide backup for your interpretation.

You’re asking me to explain why the non-married couple is sinning based on marriage requirements.

What’s next? Why Buddhist’s are sinning based on Baptism requirements?

Or why Tony Horton is sinning because he isn’t receiving Annointing of the Sick?

 

[bitterhope]

One isn’t sterilizing anything. Time is simply doing what time does.

Again, there is no duty to marry on a particular schedule.

In any case, this is purely theoretical–in practice women over 50 often have a heck of a time dating.

advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2014/07/carbon-dating.html

One isn’t misusing marriage when one isn’t married.

Practically speaking, the years just before menopause is complete are 1) often difficult for NFP with major demands for abstinence and 2) pose a higher risk of miscarriage, danger to the mother in pregnancy, or serious disability in the child, so there is actually some point in delaying marriage until menopause. (We covered similar ground in the old maternal age thread…)

I was just playing with a chromosomal abnormality calculator–at 45, a woman has a 1 in 11 chance of having a baby with a chromosomal abnormality. At 48, it’s 1 in 5. At 49, it’s 1 in 3.

perinatology.com/calculators/ama.htm

People actually play around with chromosomal abnormality calculators? No wonder so many people fear children and pregnancy and child birth and motherhood. The fear of commitment has been replaced with the fear of procreation.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

People actually play around with chromosomal abnormality calculators? No wonder so many people fear children and pregnancy and child birth and motherhood. The fear of commitment has been replaced with the fear of procreation.

Some people fear it for good reason. Back in the day, before contraception, it was not uncommon for woman to have several miscarriages later in the fertile life. It’s not pleasant to have miscarriages every several months.

 

[bitterhope]

Some people fear it for good reason. Back in the day, before contraception, it was not uncommon for woman to have several miscarriages later in the fertile life. It’s not pleasant to have miscarriages every several months.

This still happens to many women today, and not always later in life either. Many young women suffer from miscarriages and still births and birth defects and also infertility. No one has suggested it is pleasant. But it is still against Church teaching to enjoy the benefits of marriage while intentionally avoiding any chance of children. I have never seen where the Church or the scriptures say that living according to God’s plan is going to be pleasant or easy or free of worries. I think Jesus tells us to take up our cross and follow Him. Life is full of suffering and heartache. Not many of us have smooth sailing down here. Most of us struggle. We don’t always get to choose our cross. But if you are called to marriage you have chosen the various struggles that go go along with that sacrament. If those are things you want to avoid then marriage isn’t the path for you to take. Remain single or follow a religious vocation instead. To simply want the companionship of a spouse and the benefits that go along with that union without any chance of having to deal with the fear/burden/hardship of children is against the Catholic definition of marriage. Children are a gift and blessing. That is what the Church says.

I’m currently at extremely high risk of losing my twins. Is this pleasant? Of course not. But it is a blessing to have been chosen to carry them as long as God intends for me to do so. They have already been a much loved part of our family and we will cherish them regardless of what happens. One of my sisters miscarried 12 times before she was able to carry a baby to full term. She was in her 20’s and early 30’s at the time. She now has 3 girls and a total of 15 miscarriages. I understand that it isn’t pleasant. Raising kids is also difficult and often not pleasant. It is still wrong to go into a marriage with no intention of children being even remotely possible.

 

[thewanderer]

False.

No, I don’t want to shut you all up. THis is good educational discussion (well some of it) And I did cite the Catechism I am still waiting for you to
A: Answer the question I asked you.
B: Provide backup for your interpretation.

HoosierDaddy, you are the one claiming it is sinful for a single person to avoid marrying under certain circumstances. The burden of proof that this is sinful therefore falls on you. As has been noted you have pro ided no official arguments for this position. You have merely provided statements about the duties of married people. You cannot just assume that the duties of married people apply to those who are single, and so, your argument is lacking. It is not us that needs to provide backup for our interpretation.

 

[maryjk]

Again, all true. But if the chaste courtship is ONLY to avoid children then… nope.

But again, I doubt this is more than an excercise in theology because I doubt very much someone would go through all the trouble of trying to get around the rules when you could get married and use contraception or use NFP like contraception. Both of those things would be easier than a 30 year engagement. Cheaper too if the couple is living separately. I doubt very much that someone who had such an aversion to children would have the respect for the sacrament of marriage to wait until 90…But after seeing some of the gymnastics on these threads, I’ll bet someone will try it…

Again with the couple waiting. The OP was about a person, not a couple.

**So the chaste couple is obligated to get married young, or forever hold their peace? So the Church does oblige some to marry? **

And the Church can tell an older couple they cannot marry now, because they didn’t do it when they had the chance when they were younger?

No, of course not.

Then, what?

 

[NSFrame]

The scenario I’m imagining is the following:

Young man, maybe 25, decides that he’d really like sex and companionship, but does not want children. He knows that the Church does not allow ABC and he is adament that he does not want to concieve with his future wife - for whatever reason. So, he decides that he will stay single until his mid-40s, at which point he will begin to date and find a wife who is presumably past her fertile years.

The problem with this scenario is that the man himself is looking to obtain only the benefits of marriage that he desires and is looking for a way to reject all of the benefits and responsibilities that God intends for marriage.

Yes, technically he is not breaking the letter of the law in terms of the outward behaviors, but there is no question he is breaking the spirit of the law as specifically spelled out by the Church in what has already been quoted here. We have all been teenagers, we all know how to “technically” follow the rules but still be getting past their intent to get what we want behind our parents’ backs. That is what the OP is proposing here.

 

[AnnArbor]

The CCC posted earlier was Quite clear on marriage and children. What I would like to see is where someone can come up with a Catholic defense of purposefully avoiding children solely out of want, in a marriage. Obviously here there has to be some sort of agreement between paries that COULD marry to NOT marry until older. But again, why not just use NFP with the permanent intent to not have children.

Answer: Because the Church does not allow it.

Why would it be wrong for me to get married and permanently avoid children using licit means (NFP) for no other reason than that is what I wanted.

Answer that.

Because again, all of that applies to what occurs WITHIN marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with when or if one marries. Once one is in the married state, then, yes, there is an obligation and expectation to accept children lovingly from God.

But there is not obligation to enter into the married state at a specific time in order to ensure fertility. A single person living a chaste life is not perverting marriage.

You have not provided a single teaching that addresses this – everything you have provided relates to what occurs WITHIN marriage.