Is it ok to get married later in life?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thorns
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
marymary1975 said:
Not really. If you abstain from sex before marriage but look at a girl/ guy on the street and have lustful thoughts about that person you ate not chaste. Chastity is a much broader concept than a mere physical level or not having sexual intercourse.
Click to expand...
Wow, where did that come from? So now the guy that isn’t getting married is lusting after girls on the street?

Guys, the scenario is pretty simple.
  1. Person doesn’t want children.
  2. Person decides that they will not marry.
  3. Otherwise, person follows Catholic teaching
  4. After reaching an age that women would naturally enter menopause, the person finds or looks for a spouse.
  5. Person marries, and couple is now naturally infertile.
There is no pact between two people. No, “we love each other and want to marry but since we don’t want kids we will wait 30 years to marry.” No, “I’m not getting married but I am going to get my jollies visiting strip clubs.” No sleeping around. None of that.

The person is simply not getting married. And not have children. Oh, and not having sex.

Edit to add:
I can’t imagine someone going through life like this if they were simply being selfish. If they were so selfish, they would simply have surgery and not worry about Catholic teaching.
 
thewanderer said:
This is not correct. What matters is the state of the people and their vows at the time of their marriage. Not before, not after. If in the past they avoided marrying because they didn’t want kids that doesn’t effect the validity of their current marriage at all. The only thing that matters is their intent at he time of their marriage. And so long as they are willing to accept any children that might come their way lovingly then they are fulfilling that aspect of the requirements for marriage and would not be able to receive an annulment even if they previously avoided marriage because they didn’t want to have kids.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I agree with that. When I was in the process of annulment I had to present several witnessese that knew us at the time we met. This was particularly challenging for me as I barely knew anyone who knew us at the time we met or before and after we met, but I had a lot of people that knew us at the time we got married so I thought those may help. I was told no that the witness had to know us at the time we met. That gave a lot of trouble so if what you are saying is accurate then why the tribunal refused my witnesses. It what counts is just at the time not before why they wanted people who knew us five years before the marriage and why the witnesses were inquired about the time we met and about the entire relationship from beginning to start. If what you are saying is true the annulment process would have very easy for me and it was all the opposite. I had an entire nightmare because the tribunal wanted information previous to the time of marriage so it can’t be as simple as you are saying.
 
marymary1975 said:
I don’t think I agree with that. When I was in the process of annulment I had to present several witnessese that knew us at the time we met. This was particularly challenging for me as I barely knew anyone who knew us at the time we met or before and after we met, but I had a lot of people that knew us at the time we got married so I thought those may help. I was told no that the witness had to know us at the time we met. That gave a lot of trouble so if what you are saying is accurate then why the tribunal refused my witnesses. It what counts is just at the time not before why they wanted people who knew us five years before the marriage and why the witnesses were inquired about the time we met and about the entire relationship from beginning to start. If what you are saying is true the annulment process would have very easy for me and it was all the opposite. I had an entire nightmare because the tribunal wanted information previous to the time of marriage so it can’t be as simple as you are saying.
Click to expand...
I am no expert on the finer points of why the Tribunal requires witnesses meeting that criteria, but I can speculate (having been through an annulment myself). Realistically, it is going to be next to impossible to find anyone that knows that state of mind of a person at the time of exchanging vows. However, if a person has knowledge of a person before/after the vows, lines can be drawn before/after the vows to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

I wanted to challenge my marriage based on permanent intention against children on the part of my ex. Ultimately, I didn’t, because though everything before and after marriage pointed to just that, there was still the tiniest bit of doubt as to the state of mind at the time of the exchanging of the vows. In my case, though, I could have challenged the marriage on several different grounds, and the annulment was granted based on “grave discretion.”
 
maryjk said:
Wow, where did that come from? So now the guy that isn’t getting married is lusting after girls on the street?

Guys, the scenario is pretty simple.
  1. Person doesn’t want children.
  2. Person decides that they will not marry.
  3. Otherwise, person follows Catholic teaching
  4. After reaching an age that women would naturally enter menopause, the person finds or looks for a spouse.
  5. Person marries, and couple is now naturally infertile.
There is no pact between two people. No, “we love each other and want to marry but since we don’t want kids we will wait 30 years to marry.” No, “I’m not getting married but I am going to get my jollies visiting strip clubs.” No sleeping around. None of that.

The person is simply not getting married. And not have children. Oh, and not having sex.

Edit to add:
I can’t imagine someone going through life like this if they were simply being selfish. If they were so selfish, they would simply have surgery and not worry about Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
That came up as a response to someone else who stated to me that chastity was basically just refraining from physical sex nothing else. I actually fully agree with you. The issue of chastity came out of previous posts that started brining chastity into the picture and what I actually I said was take out chastity out of this picture because it doesn’t belong here. Then people kept bringing chastity and that is how we ended up there.

Having said that I fully agree with what you stated. It seems you indeed have the right picture on this scenario.
 
maryjk said:
Edit to add:
I can’t imagine someone going through life like this if they were simply being selfish. If they were so selfish, they would simply have surgery and not worry about Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Obviously were discussion a hypothetical situation, and the above is exactly what happens in 99.99% of the cases. But of course an entity as old as the Catholic Church will come across situations out of the norm like this from time to time. For example, Catholics marrying outside of Catholic form yet having valid marriages because they’re shipwrecked on an island or lost in a rainforest, etc.
 
maryjk said:
Wow, where did that come from? So now the guy that isn’t getting married is lusting after girls on the street?

Guys, the scenario is pretty simple.
  1. Person doesn’t want children.
  2. Person decides that they will not marry.
  3. Otherwise, person follows Catholic teaching
  4. After reaching an age that women would naturally enter menopause, the person finds or looks for a spouse.
  5. Person marries, and couple is now naturally infertile.
There is no pact between two people. No, “we love each other and want to marry but since we don’t want kids we will wait 30 years to marry.” No, “I’m not getting married but I am going to get my jollies visiting strip clubs.” No sleeping around. None of that.

The person is simply not getting married. And not have children. Oh, and not having sex.

Edit to add:
I can’t imagine someone going through life like this if they were simply being selfish. If they were so selfish, they would simply have surgery and not worry about Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
Even if 2 people said “We love each other, let’s wait 30 years.”…it isn’t sinful, odd, perhaps, but not sinful.

I’ve known of couples who were divorced and remarried outside of the Church, for years. One couple married in the Church after the husband’s former spouse passed away.

They weren’t sent away because they wasted time were in a sinful situation prior.

I know of men that have had many many partners before marriage, but then settle down and remain good Catholic husbands. They were not turned away because of a sinful past scenario.

My own grandparents were both widowed and married at 45. My grandmother hadn’t had any children in her late husband. My grandfather had 3 children with his late wife. He married my grandmother, both believing that more children were not possible. They didn’t intend on having more. My grandmother would care for her husband’s children.

My dad was a surprise. They were overjoyed, but he was still a surprise. They were validly, sacramentally married for 30 years.

But the argument is, “you didn’t want children so you didn’t marry and have children, but now you can’t really have children because of age, Soooo, no valid marriage for you.” :confused:
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
I am no expert on the finer points of why the Tribunal requires witnesses meeting that criteria, but I can speculate (having been through an annulment myself). Realistically, it is going to be next to impossiind anyone that knows that state of mind of a person at the time of exchanging vows. However, if a person has knowledge of a person before/after the vows, lines can be drawn before/after the vows to arrive at reasonable conclusions.

I wanted to challenge my marriage based on permanent intention against children on the part of my ex. Ultimately, I didn’t, because though everything before and after marriage pointed to just that, there was still the tiniest bit of doubt as to the state of mind at the time of the exchanging of the vows. In my case, though, I could have challenged the marriage on several different grounds, and the annulment was granted based on “grave discretion.”
Click to expand...
I challenged mine on lack of consent and decipt. I had the particular issue that because I came from a different country,he was one of the first people I met, all the people that knew us but one met us a couple of months after we meet. I presented them under the idea that they knew us at the time we started dating.l (we started dating about 6 months after meeting) and these people knew bith if us at that particular time. The tribunal refused they said they wanted witnesses that knew us at least seven months before we started dating. When I spoke with my priest he said it was because they need to consider what happened before the marriage so that was massive road block to me. In the end my priest figure out (long story) that there was actually a lack of form and then my first husband died so it ended in all the aggravation for nothing but again the fact that the tribunal refused witnesses that knew us at the time of dating that didn’t know us at the time of meeting is why I think it is not just merely at the time of marriage because is obvious they wanted to consider evidence before we even started dating.
 
I was permitted to use only two witnesses (my parents) simply because I had nobody else that met the before/after criteria. Basically, I dumped all of my “friends” after marriage due to maturity issues (I grew up; they didn’t).
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Even if 2 people said “We love each other, let’s wait 30 years.”…it isn’t sinful, odd, perhaps, but not sinful.

I’ve known of couples who were divorced and remarried outside of the Church, for years. One couple married in the Church after the husband’s former spouse passed away.

They weren’t sent away because they wasted time were in a sinful situation prior.

I know of men that have had many many partners before marriage, but then settle down and remain good Catholic husbands. They were not turned away because of a sinful past scenario.
Click to expand...
My comments were simply to stop the “but, but, but, but, what about THIS,” comments.

I lived in a sinful marriage for a long time. I didn’t marry in the Church, I used ABC. But when I turned back to God, the Church welcomed me.

They didn’t say, “no, sorry, can’t come back now.”

Oh, and I didn’t plan on any more children after our Convalidation. Too many medical problems. All I was asked, was, “if God gave you a miracle, would you accept it?” And of course I would.
 
marymary1975 said:
I challenged mine on lack of consent and decipt. I had the particular issue that because I came from a different country,he was one of the first people I met, all the people that knew us but one met us a couple of months after we meet. I presented them under the idea that they knew us at the time we started dating.l (we started dating about 6 months after meeting) and these people knew bith if us at that particular time. The tribunal refused they said they wanted witnesses that knew us at least seven months before we started dating. When I spoke with my priest he said it was because they need to consider what happened before the marriage so that was massive road block to me. In the end my priest figure out (long story) that there was actually a lack of form and then my first husband died so it ended in all the aggravation for nothing but again the fact that the tribunal refused witnesses that knew us at the time of dating that didn’t know us at the time of meeting is why I think it is not just merely at the time of marriage because is obvious they wanted to consider evidence before we even started dating.
Click to expand...
I can’t tell you why exactly they wanted that information, but the theology of an annulment makes it very clear that what determines whether or not the marriage is valid is whether or not the couple meet all the requirements at the time the make their vows. Not on what happened before or what happened after. What happened before or can give likely evidence for what their attitude was at the time they attempted marriage but it cannot, in and of itelf, determine the validity or lack thereof of a marriage.
 
There’s nothing wrong about being childless and married to the person you love.
 
LaLaLa49 said:
Did I say anything about anyone?
Click to expand...
There’s a very small faction of people who seem to think that if you are past your child-bearing years or because of their age (for example, me being 44) who would not actively try to conceive children, then we have no business getting married. They think that the sole purpose of being married is to procreate.

I’m happy to say this is a very small minority of people with this viewpoint, but it has been stated in responses before.
 
Aggie414 said:
There’s a very small faction of people who seem to think that if you are past your child-bearing years or because of their age (for example, me being 44) who would not actively try to conceive children, then we have no business getting married. They think that the sole purpose of being married is to procreate.

I’m happy to say this is a very small minority of people with this viewpoint, but it has been stated in responses before.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen some replies like that too. I honestly can’t understand why they would put such restrictions over marriage. I view it in a different way. But, I guess, it’s okay if it’s just a small faction of people :D. [Beh, editing because 11:40 PM]
 
Aggie414 said:
There’s a very small faction of people who seem to think that if you are past your child-bearing years or because of their age (for example, me being 44) who would not actively try to conceive children, then we have no business getting married. They think that the sole purpose of being married is to procreate.

I’m happy to say this is a very small minority of people with this viewpoint, but it has been stated in responses before.
Click to expand...
As long as you are ready to get the happy news given to Abraham and Sarah or Elizabeth and Zechariah, you can get married as late in life as you want. You are only asked to be open to that miracle baby.
 
This thread seems to have gotten pretty off-topic (what’s been discussed recently isn’t really related to the original question). The original question was if someone could marry validly after deliberately postponing marriage to the point of infertility, with the intention of permanently avoiding children.

I brought this question to a canon lawyer who actively judges annulment cases in a diocese somewhere in the Western world (the location of which I will not disclose). With the caveat that our discussion is purely academic and cannot be construed as advice for any individual situation…the response of the canonist was, yes, a couple in this situation could certainly marry validly.

Echoing what others on this thread have said, the canonist reminded me that a couple doesn’t even need to want, or like, children to validly marry – the marriage would only be invalid if they positively intended to permanently exclude any children that God sends after getting married. In this hypothetical situation, their plan to avoid children by marrying late in life was considered irrelevant, because they weren’t married while they carried it out.

To ensure that I’m not leading anyone astray, I’ll note that I didn’t specifically ask about these two scenarios (although the canonist didn’t bring them up as exceptions either):
(1) If all this is still true when a young person marries a much older one – where one person is obviously still fertile and the other is not.
(2) If this is still true in the case of a couple who was living together and contracepting before the marriage.
 
EasterJoy said:
As long as you are ready to get the happy news given to Abraham and Sarah or Elizabeth and Zechariah, you can get married as late in life as you want. You are only asked to be open to that miracle baby.
Click to expand...
Oh, I would be – I said in an earlier post (I think in this thread) that if I were to meet someone and get married, that I would not try to conceive – realistically I’m 44 right now. If I met someone today and took a good time getting to know him and discerning marriage, I would be 45/46 before a baby were born. That’s not something I want. If God has other plans and I’m pregnant at 45/46, then guess what? I’m a 45/46-year-old having a baby!!
 
Aggie414 said:
There’s a very small faction of people who seem to think that if you are past your child-bearing years or because of their age (for example, me being 44) who would not actively try to conceive children, then we have no business getting married. They think that the sole purpose of being married is to procreate.

I’m happy to say this is a very small minority of people with this viewpoint, but it has been stated in responses before.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I too have seen these type of responses here.

In fact, I have seen a poster claim, that infertile people or senior citizens have no business getting married since they cannot have children.

I and a lot of other posters tried to reason with him or her but the poster just gave us the equivalent of the finger.
 
Aggie414 said:
Oh, I would be – I said in an earlier post (I think in this thread) that if I were to meet someone and get married, that I would not try to conceive – realistically I’m 44 right now. If I met someone today and took a good time getting to know him and discerning marriage, I would be 45/46 before a baby were born. That’s not something I want. If God has other plans and I’m pregnant at 45/46, then guess what? I’m a 45/46-year-old having a baby!!
Click to expand...
Women in my family usually have their last babies around 50. Both my grandmothers had their last babies at 50.

My father was the youngest and he was born when my grandmother was 50.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top