Is it ok to get married later in life?

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, the Church actually goes beyond that as seen in the CCC but for this purpose. Yes.

Yes, and once again the Church even teaches that married people are called to chastity as well. But again, yes.

yes and no. The Church does have limits on marriage. AND some of those limits have to do with age. (14 for a female and 16 for a male and in the 1200s it was 12 for a female and 14 for a male WITHOUT parents approval.)
And one could argue that while there is no age limit on the upper end, the ability to be able to preform the act can be an issue in the very very late years. Or with illnesses.

Yes. But see above. There can be limits. But again, yes.

This is where we find ourselves in conversation. The answer here is yes and no. The Catholic “both and” And we see in the CCC and in theology of marriage and in 2000 years of teaching on marraige that the while in principle a that point CAN be true. The motivation and orientation that the OP has needs to be considered and can alter the original question of “is it ok” Setting one’s will contrary to God is never ok.

Having a minimum age requirement for marriage does not equal the Church obliging any person to marry. No one is obligated to marry at peak fertility. No one is obligated to marry at all.

When a person marries, they must mean his or her vows.

It is completely licit, just, and moral for a single person to remain chaste.

It is completely licit, just and moral for an older infertile person to marry.

You are arguing that if a person does not marry young in order to not have children, they have forfeited getting married in the future.

That isn’t true.

Older people have always been able to marry. As long as they mean their vows then the marriage is valid, licit and a sacramental marriage.

 

[severus68]

This is completely incorrect as under catholic doctrine annulment has nothing to do with what happens after the marriage. The nulity is based on what is happening and the intentions at the moment of marriage and before. It is not the action taken durinnullitymarriage what the tribunal uses to declare nulity. The church tribunal looks at the conditions previous to the marriage to determine if at the moment of the marriage there was a valid marriage. And I didn’t say that marrying to old is grounds for nullity, read again. Marrying not being open to have children and with a refusal to have children is the grounds of nulity.

If there is no marriage in the first place , how does annulment come in at all. When this hypothetical decide to marry, they will vow to accept children. The fact that it is improbable that the woman can ever conceive, is not relevant.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Having a minimum age requirement for marriage does not equal the Church obliging any person to marry. No one is obligated to marry at peak fertility. No one is obligated to marry at all.

When a person marries, they must mean his or her vows.

It is completely licit, just, and moral for a single person to remain chaste.

It is completely licit, just and moral for an older infertile person to marry.

You are arguing that if a person does not marry young in order to not have children, they have forfeited getting married in the future.

That isn’t true.

Older people have always been able to marry. As long as they mean their vows then the marriage is valid, licit and a sacramental marriage.

Having a minimum age requirement for marriage does not equal the Church obliging any person to marry. No one is obligated to marry at peak fertility. No one is obligated to marry at all.

Of course, I never said it did. That was not the point at all. You must be reading something into what I am saying. I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement.

When a person marries, they must mean his or her vows.

Yup. Why is this an issue?

It is completely licit, just, and moral for a single person to remain chaste.

In all the posts on this thread this has not been disputed. But you keep posting it as if I disagree with it.

It is completely licit, just and moral for an older infertile person to marry.

yes as I have agreed and demonstrated. Why do you keep restating it when I already have said the exact same thing!

You are arguing that if a person does not marry young in order to not have children, they have forfeited getting married in the future.

Boy did you miss the mark on that. No I am not arguing that. That would be absolutely non Catholic.
You may change your mind, you may just plain old fall in love late. But the OP asked specifically if delaying marriage ON PURPOSE to not have children was wrong. Yes, it is wrong because it is not ordered to what God obviously intends and it is selfish. So, is being selfish wrong. Yes. Can a person hate the idea of children from age 20 to 60 and then get married. yes, but that person is wrong from age 20 to 60 if their vocation is indeed marriage. They are not oriented in a Holy way. And that is what we are all called to be.

Perhaps you are reading more into the point than intended. The OP wants to know if it is correct to purposfully postpone marriage until they cannot have children, for the express purpose of NOT HAVING CHILDREN. Not for medical reasons not for anything other than just not wanting children.


Either way, look out to the “lucky” golden girl he finds, lots of selfless love there…

 

[thewanderer]

The idea that someone remainin(not marrying, not forncating, and not contracrpting (because they don’t want children does not preclude them frpm dacramental marriage provided that when they take their vows they mean them

This is where we find ourselves in conversation. The answer here is yes and no. The Catholic “both and” And we see in the CCC and in theology of marriage and in 2000 years of teaching on marraige that the while in principle a that point CAN be true. The motivation and orientation that the OP has needs to be considered and can alter the original question of “is it ok” Setting one’s will contrary to God is never ok.

Perhaps this is the center of the disagreement here. Mary Gail stipulated that the couple in question must actually mean them when they say them. This necessarily means that the couple is truly willing to accept any children they conceive lovingly from God. This does not require that they want to have kids nor does it require that they expect to have kids. You seem to want a further requirement that they actually actively want kids. The thing is, while the Church extols the importance of kids in marriage and talks about the sufferings of the infertile She does not make actually actively desiring kids a requirement for a valid marriage. All that is required is that the couple in question are willing to accept any children that may be conceived lovingly from God. If you believe there is another requirement for marriage besides this then please, by all means, show us where it is in official Church teaching. Unless you can find some such requirement for marriage it is wrong to say that people such as those we are discussing who truly mean all of the marriage vows should not marry. It is wrong to prevent anyone from marrying who may do so validly.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But the OP asked specifically if delaying marriage ON PURPOSE to not have children was wrong. Yes, it is wrong because it is not ordered to what God obviously intends and it is selfish.

There is no such Church teaching. This is solely you own personal opinion based on nothing the Church teaches. If a couple delays marriage on purpose to avoid children is sinful, that implies that the couple must get married and have children in order not to sin.

The point needs to be repeated: If either one of the spouses has a permanent intent against having children at the time of marriage, then the marriage could theoretically be declared invalid if it is challenged before a Tribunal.

So, is being selfish wrong. Yes. Can a person hate the idea of children from age 20 to 60 and then get married. yes, but that person is wrong from age 20 to 60 if their vocation is indeed marriage. They are not oriented in a Holy way. And that is what we are all called to be.

The Church does not teach being single is selfish or sinful.

The Church does not teach that avoiding children for any reason is selfish or sinful for single people.

The Church does not teach that single people waiting for any reason to get married or not is sinful.

The Church does teach what is required at the time of marriage, and that’s all that matters. The rest of the conversation is a side show.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Perhaps this is the center of the disagreement here. Mary Gail stipulated that the couple in question must actually mean them when they say them. This necessarily means that the couple is truly willing to accept any children they conceive lovingly from God. This does not require that they want to have kids nor does it require that they expect to have kids. You seem to want a further requirement that they actually actively want kids. The thing is, while the Church extols the importance of kids in marriage and talks about the sufferings of the infertile She does not make actually actively desiring kids a requirement for a valid marriage. All that is required is that the couple in question are willing to accept any children that may be conceived lovingly from God. If you believe there is another requirement for marriage besides this then please, by all means, show us where it is in official Church teaching. Unless you can find some such requirement for marriage it is wrong to say that people such as those we are discussing who truly mean all of the marriage vows should not marry. It is wrong to prevent anyone from marrying who may do so validly.

You seem to want a further requirement that they actually actively want kids. The thing is, while the Church extols the importance of kids in marriage and talks about the sufferings of the infertile She does not make actually actively desiring kids a requirement for a valid marriage.

Actually she does.

The Church will not allow a marriage of a couple who are opposed to children. It is an impediment to marriage.

Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

Refusal to have children One of the goods of marriage is children. A man or woman physically capable of fathering or, respectively, conceiving a child but who intends never to have children may not marry in the Catholic Church.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There is no such Church teaching. This is solely you own personal opinion based on nothing the Church teaches. If a couple delays marriage on purpose to avoid children is sinful, that implies that the couple must get married and have children in order not to sin.

The point needs to be repeated: If either one of the spouses has a permanent intent against having children at the time of marriage, then the marriage could theoretically be declared invalid if it is challenged before a Tribunal.

The Church does not teach being single is selfish or sinful.

The Church does not teach that avoiding children for any reason is selfish or sinful for single people.

The Church does not teach that single people waiting for any reason to get married or not is sinful.

The Church does teach what is required at the time of marriage, and that’s all that matters. The rest of the conversation is a side show.

Warrior Monk. I have addressed all of your points at length. You may go back and read them. Or you may further the conversation by either answering the personal question I asked you pages ago, or providing some resources of your own. As I am providing resources, yours is in the realm of “opinion”

 

[thewanderer]

Actually she does.

The Church will not allow a marriage of a couple who are opposed to children. It is an impediment to marriage.

Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

While you probably shouldn’t rely on wikipedia to be entirely accurate, even wikipedia is not agreeing with you here. It restricts this requirement to men and women capable of having children.

I have already stated that the couple must be willing to accept children lovingly from God, that is a part of the vows. That is all that the Church requires. And so, if a couple gets married when older and is willing to accept any children God sends them lovingly they are meeting the requirements for marriage set out by the Church. This is true regardless of whether they actively desire children or not and also whether or not they avoided marriage in the past because they did not want children. If you want to claim there is any further requirement please provide an authoritative statement from the Church to show that such a requirement exists. Wikipedia does not count.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Actually she does.

The Church will not allow a marriage of a couple who are opposed to children. It is an impediment to marriage.

Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_impediment#List_of_diriment_impediments_to_marriage

The requirement is that those physically able to have a child have a child according to the canon.

Older people might not be able to have children but their marriages are valid and sacramental. Or no?

One can chose to marry or not marry. One may chose a time to marry or not marry. A single person must remain chaste.

So instead of copying and pasting the CCC. Tell us where the sin is
. A single chaste person not wanting kids or an older person marrying? Is the sin waiting until the biological clock has stopped ticking? If that is illicit, then a person must marry by a certain age. Does the church teach that? (No it doesn’t).
Does the church teach that older people cannot get married? ( no it doesn’t)

Is the sin not wanting kids? It is licit for a single person to not want kids and not marry.

Or is it a sin to wait too long? (No. The church allows people to marry at older ages)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

While you probably shouldn’t rely on wikipedia to be entirely accurate, even wikipedia is not agreeing with you here. It restricts this requirement to men and women capable of having children.

I have already stated that the couple must be willing to accept children lovingly from God, that is a part of the vows. That is all that the Church requires. And so, if a couple gets married when older and is willing to accept any children God sends them lovingly they are meeting the requirements for marriage set out by the Church. This is true regardless of whether they actively desire children or not and also whether or not they avoided marriage in the past because they did not want children. If you want to claim there is any further requirement please provide an authoritative statement from the Church to show that such a requirement exists. Wikipedia does not count.

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…

 

[marymary1975]

Sorry. I apparently was not clear. You are correct that what happens within marriage is not ground for nullity, other than as evidence of original intent.

However, the intent of a person to be chaste and single is not grounds for annulment if one later marries. If there is no physical capacity to have children, and both parties know it at the time of marriage, there are no grounds.

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.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Warrior Monk. I have addressed all of your points at length. You may go back and read them. Or you may further the conversation by either answering the personal question I asked you pages ago, or providing some resources of your own. As I am providing resources, yours is in the realm of “opinion”

Your resources do not address the matter in question. Your resources address the issue of them being married, not being single. You are drawing lines where there are no lines to be drawn.

 

[marymary1975]

I don’t agree. The vows are the same. They are taken the wedding day. Having remained CHASTE is not an impediment to marriage. Everyone is supposed to be chaste.

The church doesn’t mandate marrying at all.

We are talking about single chaste people postponing marriage. Not cohabitating couples, not contracepting couples. Couples who obey the Church be remaining chaste untilhere, tariage and make vows to welcome children.

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?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

We all know that instead of waiting around for a couple decades the couple in question would realistically just use NFP or even contracept…

Please educate us all, by providing an authoritative Church source, that states that a couple cannot wait, for any reason whatsoever, (what you deem to be) sinful or otherwise, to get married. You have utterly and obstinately failed to do so.

 

[marymary1975]

I think you may be incorrect. All it takes for a valid marriage to occur is openness and sincerity at the time of the vows, nothing before or after is relevant.

Also, marriage isnt only about children, as the Church teaches.

Fuethermore, if people actively trying not to have children is wrong, then single chaste people are livijng in sin and those who practice NFP are also living in sin,according to your view.

I am not incorrect. The church has established several grounds for annulmemt. Refusal to have children is one of the grounds for annulment. You can just do a quick search on CAF and you can find either answers from fray serpa to experts in canonical law reiterating that refusal to have children is grounds for annulment. And as I said before take chastity out the question here because chastity is irrelevant under this discussion. Refusal to have children is the grounds for annulment. And if a couple uses NFP as a run around to contraception with the mentality of contracepting that is a run around the sin. Run around sins are sins too. NFP is space children responsible under God’s discernment and if it is used with a contraceptive mentality it can become sinful.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Your resources do not address the matter in question. Your resources address the issue of them being married, not being single. You are drawing lines where there are no lines to be drawn.

A person wants no children. So that person obeys the Church, does not fornicate, does not cohabit and remains chaste. So this person should do what?*

A: get married now
B.never get married
C. Say “Well, maybe when I’m older I’ll find a nice person to marry.”
D. “perhaps I’ll get sterilised and be a swinger”. Because C = D in gravity of sinfulness.
E. Get a little dog that I can dress up, because I’ve forfeited ever getting married since I’m sinning against marriage ( by remaining single and chaste and hoping maybe someday to meet someone to not die alone.)
F: all of the above except beings swinger because that is really a sin.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Seriously, this discussion is a demonstration of starting with a conclusion then attempting to support it after the fact. The opposite should be done; start with a set of facts and build a logical thought process upon them. And when that is done, it’s easy to destroy the argument/conclusion by bringing in facts that had not yet been addressed. The fact that HD cannot do that, or is bring in facts that are pertinent to a different matter, is indicative that his thought process is of the “conclusion first” type.

As an interesting side observation (to me, at least), some people are simply not good at a logical thought process. I witnessed this firsthand when I went for my computer degree. Some people simply cannot program, which involves taking a series of “facts” (commands with certain characteristics) and building a usable program upon those “facts.” The same thing happens with philosophical/theological discussions; some people simply cannot “read/understand the rules” and build up an argument upon them.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Refusal to have children is one of the grounds for annulment.

Not just refusal, but permanent intention against children at the time of marriage.

Also, the annulment issue isn’t relevant to the OP. If the couple gets married in Catholic form (or not with appropriate dispensation), the marriage is presumed valid (or more properly enjoys the favor of law). The OP was simply asking if it is OK.

 

[marymary1975]

**
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 CChastity 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 abstein 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.

Second,marriage is a vocation and that vocation entails having and raising children. The church teaches us there are two vocations and we have to use proper discernment to choose one of those two - marriage or singlehood. In order to properly discern we must think about everything that each vocation entails look at its pros and cons and then choose the one that we are called to. If I do not want to have children ever if I am not good with children and I do not think that I can be a parent, then probably marriage is not for me. Now people change so if along the road I find out that I am called to the other vocation - either I got married but all of the sudden all my kids and husband die and I feel called to be a nun or if I have lived single my whole life and after many years I realize that I want the marriage vication- that is perfectly fine and I can do it. But in both cases I mentioned - being married tothen become a nun, and single tto then marrying - I didn’t intentiinally manipulated the circumstances to produce a result: I did not murdered my husband and kids to become a nun neither I made a detailed plan at 22 with my boyfriend to abstain from sex to not get pregnant and then when when I get menopausic we run to get married. If I am manipulating circumstances to fulfill my own selfishness that is plain wrong

 

[marymary1975]

Not just refusal, but permanent intention against children at the time of marriage.

Also, the annulment issue isn’t relevant to the OP. If the couple gets married in Catholic form (or not with appropriate dispensation), the marriage is presumed valid (or more properly enjoys the favor of law). The OP was simply asking if it is OK.

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.