N
NSFrame
Guest
So true…I feel like the interrelationship between sex, marriage, and children as part of God’s design for our bodies and our lives is totally being lost here (in this thread and elsewhere).
- Status
C
Chayla
Guest
I am familiar with this type of situation, and in my mind, this does NOT seem sinful in any way. (I do not know if the Church agrees with me, but I hope it does….)
I know of a gentleman in is mid-50’s who recently married someone of a similar age. I have discussed marriage with him, including such matters on what he wanted from a spouse, including age range. He said he wanted someone around his own age rather than a younger woman. He is a very attractive, professional, accomplished person, and would have had no difficulty finding a younger wife.
The reason he did NOT choose someone younger was that young women usually want to have kids, and he is “done with that.” Although he could, he did not want to start a second family. A lady of around his age most likely cannot have kids, may very likely have grown kids and would likewise not want a second family.
I know of a gentleman in is mid-50’s who recently married someone of a similar age. I have discussed marriage with him, including such matters on what he wanted from a spouse, including age range. He said he wanted someone around his own age rather than a younger woman. He is a very attractive, professional, accomplished person, and would have had no difficulty finding a younger wife.
The reason he did NOT choose someone younger was that young women usually want to have kids, and he is “done with that.” Although he could, he did not want to start a second family. A lady of around his age most likely cannot have kids, may very likely have grown kids and would likewise not want a second family.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
It isn’t sinful in any way, which is exactly why certain people cannot provide any source whatsoever for their personal opinions.
The only way it is sinful if the couple has a permanent intention against children when they exchange vows. One gets into very problematic conclusions when they take the opposing point of view; e.g., abstinence is sinful.
The only way it is sinful if the couple has a permanent intention against children when they exchange vows. One gets into very problematic conclusions when they take the opposing point of view; e.g., abstinence is sinful.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.
St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.150
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155
2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
- Conjugal fidelity
2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.
St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.150
- The fecundity of marriage
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155
M
maryjk
Guest
Again, it seems you are reading more into the question, than was asked.
To quote the OP:
There is nothing in this question about avoiding marriage after meeting your potential spouse.
How are they manipulating nature? Menopause comes whether a woman has had children or not, and whether she wants children or not.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
cont.
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161
The gift of a child
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160
2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161
The gift of a child
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"164 And Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"165
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."166
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ "right to become a father and a mother only through each other."167
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that "entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children."168 "Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union . . . . Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person."169
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and "the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception."170
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Sorry for the length but it deals with the specific question asked. One can clearly see church teaching on marriage and even that it goes so far as to describe the pain, and horrible problem of infertility or sterility. And talks of children being the SUPREME gift of marraige. Now, to intentionally make that happen to do so with the intent purpose to POSTPONE a marraige so as to render the act infertile is obviously contrary to the purpose of marraige.
Warrior monk. It could not be spelled out more clearly.
I even wonder how it could be spelled out better. As usual the CCC and the CHurch in general have the Truth and society and our own personal biases tend to either not see it or distort it.
Warrior monk. It could not be spelled out more clearly.
I even wonder how it could be spelled out better. As usual the CCC and the CHurch in general have the Truth and society and our own personal biases tend to either not see it or distort it.
A
AnnArbor
Guest
All of these wonderful teachings are true – and apply after one gets married.
There is no sin in feeling uncalled to parenthood, and thereby postponing or foregoing marriage, as long as one is living a chaste life. None of these teachings speak to that.
There is no sin in feeling uncalled to parenthood, and thereby postponing or foregoing marriage, as long as one is living a chaste life. None of these teachings speak to that.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
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.
A
AnnArbor
Guest
But you are not “tricking” God – if you are living chastely during the time you are not married, you are in fact living as God asks us to live when in a single state.
Here’s a different, yet similar example. Someone discovers they have a genetic condition (say Tay Sachs) that will be inherited by any offspring. We criticize those people if they choose to marry and use contraception. Instead, this person chooses to remain single and forego the blessings of married life until such time as it is naturally improbable that they will conceive. Or, they choose to marry someone who is sterile.
As long as they are living chastely while single, and are open to life should a miracle occur after marriage, they are not living in sin. It is never a sin to live a chaste life.
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
You posted a lot of information, but it does not address your point. You posted about “marriage;” you were discussing “non-marriage.” You are conflating the two; treating a sacrament and a non-sacrament as the same. Furthermore, the information you posted in no way discusses the couple waiting until a certain age to marry.Warrior monk. It could not be spelled out more clearly.
If the couple is open to children, regardless of their age or whether either party is sterile (naturally or otherwise), when they exchange vows, the marriage is valid.
True, the Church put marriage in its proper context. However, it in no way addresses or supports your point.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Being single is not a sin. When one is single, one must remain chaste.
Getting married at an older age is not a sin, infertile people marrying is not a sin.
All women past a certain age will become infertile.
So hypothetical Jane Smith decides at 21, that instead of marrying and having children, she will devote her life to being a nurse in a NICU and she cares for babies. She does not want to marry at 25, 30, 35, 40 or 45.
On her 46th birthday she meets a nice man, they are compatible, they are both practicing Catholics. They love each other.
They decide to marry. Because Jane didn’t want to marry before and have children because she focused on other goals (being a nurse) earlier in life, is she now sinning by wanting to get married when children are not likely? If she is what sin is she committing?
Or was all the years of focusing on career and caring for sick babies and not marrying a sin? Which sin?
Getting married at an older age is not a sin, infertile people marrying is not a sin.
All women past a certain age will become infertile.
So hypothetical Jane Smith decides at 21, that instead of marrying and having children, she will devote her life to being a nurse in a NICU and she cares for babies. She does not want to marry at 25, 30, 35, 40 or 45.
On her 46th birthday she meets a nice man, they are compatible, they are both practicing Catholics. They love each other.
They decide to marry. Because Jane didn’t want to marry before and have children because she focused on other goals (being a nurse) earlier in life, is she now sinning by wanting to get married when children are not likely? If she is what sin is she committing?
Or was all the years of focusing on career and caring for sick babies and not marrying a sin? Which sin?
X
Xantippe
Guest
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
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes.
A
AnnArbor
Guest
Well, if men, who remain fertile much longer than women, are following this prescription, women over 50 will never date – men will be obliged to find younger women. (Not that they are that averse to it now.
)
T
TheWarriorMonk
Guest
Your point is actually a perversion of Church teaching. Abstinence for the unmarried is NEVER sinful. Abstinence in marriage is NEVER sinful if both parties agree (hence the reason why Josephite marriages can even exist). Futhermore, the Church does NOT teach that a couple that becomes naturally non-procreative (e.g.,post-menopausal) is sterilization. Self-sterilization by unnatural means for the exclusive purpose of not having children IS sinful. It is NOT sinful if it occurs in a manner that God has designed.
You might want to read Humanae Vitae. In no way does the Church teach the becoming infertile by natural means is “tricking God” or sinful. In fact, the Church allows one to use natural means for birth control under certain circumstances, or more specifically, having relations during the infertile period. The couple can abstain all they want if they so choose, because it is NEVER sinful to abstain.
T
Thorns
Guest
You do realize that if a person got a vasectomy intentionally in their youth, for example,and later regretted it and repented and wished to get married in the Church validly they could indeed do so, dont you? And get this, the person wouldnt be required to have a reverse surgery to attempt to correct the problem either! That is Catholic teaching.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!
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.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
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.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
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.
A
AnnArbor
Guest
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.
- Status