Is it ok to get married later in life?

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

Is it your assertion that the only way to sin against marriage is to be IN one?

 

[AnnArbor]

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.

Not exactly. He is not getting the benefits of marriage for all the years he is single. It is more accurate to say he is delaying the benefits of marriage until such time as he feels mature enough to enter into that state – and since he knows he is not called to parenthood, he knows that is not for a long time. So he lives a chaste single life, which is not sinful.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not exactly. He is not getting the benefits of marriage for all the years he is single. It is more accurate to say he is delaying the benefits of marriage until such time as he feels mature enough to enter into that state – and since he knows he is not called to parenthood, he knows that is not for a long time. So he lives a chaste single life, which is not sinful.

How does one discern the vocation to marriage but exclude the vocation t parenthood? Are they separate vocations?

 

[AnnArbor]

Is it your assertion that the only way to sin against marriage is to be IN one?

I am saying that living a chaste single life is not sinful. Also, the person is not advocating for anything that the Church considers sinful for married couples – ABC, a permanent intention against children (for the married couple), etc. This is not the same thing as someone attempting to redefine marriage – this is someone choosing not to enter into it at a particular time.

Not one of the teachings you have shared has addressed that – everything you have shared has pertained to the actual state of marriage. And no one is disagreeing with those teachings. But you are conflating teachings about marriage with an expectation of the single state. It just does not follow logically, nor in any other way.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am saying that living a chaste single life is not sinful. Also, the person is not advocating for anything that the Church considers sinful for married couples – ABC, a permanent intention against children (for the married couple), etc. This is not the same thing as someone attempting to redefine marriage – this is someone choosing not to enter into it at a particular time.

Not one of the teachings you have shared has addressed that – everything you have shared has pertained to the actual state of marriage. And no one is disagreeing with those teachings. But you are conflating teachings about marriage with an expectation of the single state. It just does not follow logically, nor in any other way.

No, you misunderstand. Nothing is wrong with someone living single and chaste. In fact, that is a higher calling than marriage. But to do something with the intent to avoid children and get married later, well, that is just wanting a part of the sacrament. And that is something God does not do. He does not split up the sacraments. One does not wait to receive a sacrament to avoid a fruit or responsibility of that sacrament. It is similar to saying I don’t want to go to Mass every week while I am young. But when I am old and retired, then that sounds like a good idea. So I will wait to convert and be baptized until I am 70.

It is not the waiting until 70 that is the problem, it is the reasoning behind it.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

I’m sorry about your pregnancy troubles.

It isn’t wrong to get married while infertile, you know.

 

[AnnArbor]

No, you misunderstand. Nothing is wrong with someone living single and chaste. In fact, that is a higher calling than marriage. But to do something with the intent to avoid children and get married later, well, that is just wanting a part of the sacrament. And that is something God does not do. He does not split up the sacraments. One does not wait to receive a sacrament to avoid a fruit or responsibility of that sacrament. It is similar to saying I don’t want to go to Mass every week while I am young. But when I am old and retired, then that sounds like a good idea. So I will wait to convert and be baptized until I am 70.

It is not the waiting until 70 that is the problem, it is the reasoning behind it.

It’s not exactly like that, though. Baptism is necessary for salvation; attendance at Mass is obligatory to all. Marriage is not an obligatory sacrament. So, one could marry, never marry, marry late – it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether one is living appropriately to one’s CURRENT state of life.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

The 25-year-old could speed up the process by courting only women over 50–no need for him to wait. But then he runs the risk of his wife having the loss of libido and ability to comfortably participate in the marital act that is not unusual for women that age.

There isn’t a free lunch. Nobody is getting away with anything that they shouldn’t.

Any 25-year-old who is so concerned about children that he would marry a 50-year-old woman to avoid them is so highly motivated that I would assume that his reasons are adequate (perhaps, for instance, his fears are phobic and pathological).

 

[Xantippe]

It’s not exactly like that, though. Baptism is necessary for salvation; attendance at Mass is obligatory to all. Marriage is not an obligatory sacrament. So, one could marry, never marry, marry late – it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether one is living appropriately to one’s CURRENT state of life.

Yes.

 

[AnnArbor]

How does one discern the vocation to marriage but exclude the vocation t parenthood? Are they separate vocations?

Exactly. They have discerned that they don’t have a vocation to marriage because they don’t have a vocation to parenthood. So they forego the blessings and benefits of marriage. Xantippe has it right – no one is getting a free lunch here.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

Women have been fearing and dreading childbirth since Eve. Fearing childbirth is entirely rational–the “natural” rate of maternal death is something like 1 per 100 births. (Our current US rate runs at nearly 1 maternal death per 5,000 births, which is still one of the more dangerous things an average woman does–interestingly, it’s rather more dangerous than skydiving, at least by my calculations.)

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

One does not wait to receive a sacrament to avoid a fruit or responsibility of that sacrament.

You are assuming that the the body becoming sterile by God’s design with “avoiding the fruit or responsibility of that sacrament.” That is entirely incorrect, and the Church teaches no such thing. God’s design (recourse to the infertile period) may even be used within marriage for controlling birth control for serious reason.

It is similar to saying I don’t want to go to Mass every week while I am young. But when I am old and retired, then that sounds like a good idea. So I will wait to convert and be baptized until I am 70.

You’re doing it again. You’re now implying that a non-Catholic is obligated to follow the CCC. That is false, and the Church teaches no such thing.

Technically, the person would be obligated to follow Divine Law, if that person is aware of it, but not eclessial law. But that isn’t relevant in the situation at hand, since there is no Divine or Eclessial Law requiring anyone to ever get married, or when.

It is not the waiting until 70 that is the problem, it is the reasoning behind it.

It only is an issue if and when the couple gets married, and if they have a permanent intention against children at the time they exchange vows. Anyone can stay single for any reason they want, since there is no requirement to be married in the first place.

It should also be noted that you are utterly excluding the possibility that it may be by God’s design that this couple not marry until later in life.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It’s not exactly like that, though. Baptism is necessary for salvation; attendance at Mass is obligatory to all. Marriage is not an obligatory sacrament. So, one could marry, never marry, marry late – it doesn’t matter. What matters is whether one is living appropriately to one’s CURRENT state of life.

I agree.

I remember being a teen, and having a “guy friend” ( a boy who was not my boyfriend) We jokingly made a pact that if we got to be 35, and neither of us were married, we would marry each other.

Should I interpret it that I was called to marriage at 16, to him, and was sinning by not marrying him then, but wanting to wait til 35? At 16, 35 is really old…

There isn’t anyway to even know what’s going to happen next week. How can a 25 year old know that forsaking marriage now, will result in finding a spouse in the future?

How does a 45 year old tell themselves, “I didn’t want to get married at 23, because I didn’t want kids. I’m 45 now, and I met a nice man at choir practice…I guess I should say no, because 22 years ago I didn’t want kids and I didn’t marry.”

 

[Thorns]

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.

The rules of marriage dont apply to someone who isnt married. And someone who isnt married isnt getting any of the “benefits of marriage” though.

Im aware of an older married couple who has had a child and they have both decided that they do not want anymore, so they now live as brother and sister. Are they sinning by reaping the “benefits of marriage” without fulfilling their openness to children?

 

[Thorns]

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.

A single person does not feel called to parenthood, so they dont get married. One day when they are older, they decide to start looking for a wife. At the time of their marriage, they are willing to accept a miracle baby if God sends, even though it seems highly unlikely. Is that still wrong in your view?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A single person does not feel called to parenthood, so they dont get married. One day when they are older, they decide to start looking for a wife. At the time of their marriage, they are willing to accept a miracle baby if God sends, even though it seems highly unlikely. Is that still wrong in your view?

IF the person changed then no, no problem at all. It just took them longer to find their vocation. But if it is premeditated then yes there is a problem. I am still waiting for clarification from you on the situation. The person COULD get married younger and has a mate but they postpone it until infertile? Yes or no?

And are we speaking hypothetically? Or is this a real situation. Because I find it hard to believe it is a real situation.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What is problematic here is the intent to never have children. Then how does one fulfill or discern the vocation to marriage?

 

[Xantippe]

IF the person changed then no, no problem at all. It just took them longer to find their vocation. But if it is premeditated then yes there is a problem. I am still waiting for clarification from you on the situation. The person COULD get married younger and has a mate but they postpone it until infertile? Yes or no?

And are we speaking hypothetically? Or is this a real situation. Because I find it hard to believe it is a real situation.

I think that would be a reasonable decision if the woman is in her mid/later 40s. It would be depressing and damaging to spend one’s newlywed years having miscarriage after miscarriage, perhaps with an occasional stillbirth or doomed chromosomally abnormal newborn for variety.

There are actually a number of moral and reasonable options. My husband suggests marriage (for companionship) and abstinence until the fertile years are over. Not loads of fun, obviously, but less emotionally scarring than dealing with so much death and grief with very little hope of having a healthy child out of it all.

Here are some possible moral options:

1. marry, live a normal married life and take what you get
2. wait to marry until fertility is over and then live a normal married life
3. marry and try to do NFP
4. marry and then wait to start marital relations until fertility is over

 

[Burt_Macklin]

This thread kind of reminds me of one of the users who frequents these forums who argues from CCC 2352 - “By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure…” - that a husband and wife are not permitted to touch each other’s genitals during coitus. It is always strange to me how different people can arrive at such different opinions from the same teaching.

Carry on.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

A single person does not feel called to parenthood, so they dont get married. One day when they are older, they decide to start looking for a wife. At the time of their marriage, they are willing to accept a miracle baby if God sends, even though it seems highly unlikely. Is that still wrong in your view?

A single person does not feel called to parenthood, so they dont get married. Yes that’s is morally just, and what a person is supposed to do. An unmarried person is supposed to remain chaste.

One day when they are older, they decide to start looking for a wife. Older people are permitted to marry in the Church , their marriages are valid sacramental marriages.

At the time of their marriage, they are willing to accept a miracle baby if God sends, even though it seems highly unlikely.

The couple can only make vows on their wedding day going forward. Having a chaste past, even actively avoiding marriage, is not an impediment to marriage. Having had decided at 22 that they were not called to parenthood and marriage at 22, is not an impediment for being sacramentally married at 50.

Is that still wrong in your view?

The Church doesn’t teach that decisions made in one’s 20’s that are in total conformity with Church teaching (living a single chaste life) could prohibit a future marriage.

When the 50 year old couple take their vows they must mean them. At the time they take them. Not 30 years prior.