Is it okay to only court infertile people b/c you don't want children?

[JimG]

I actually had the wild idea if what you SEEM to be saying is true, of starting some venture based on a tiny niche market.

edit

Just to clarify your post, it must also be “antecedent” impotence

Yes, permanent and irreversible impotence which exists prior to marriage is an impediment to marriage. Impotence which arises after marriage does not affect validity of the marriage.

 

[coco2]

I know that the Church will not allow a couple to marry if the marriage cannot be consummated. This seems so sad to me. It makes me think of marriages of centuries ago that were basically business deals, children being part of the deal. Does that type of marriage sound very spiritual? Yet, a paralyzed person, who has a relationship based on love and commitment with God at the center, cannot receive the sacrament of marriage? Is the only reason for marriage procreation? Hmm… I will look for some scripture passages that will support marriage without the condition of sex. Marriage is so much more than that!

I hope the Church someday will recognize marriage for those souls unable to have sex. Would someone not be given the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist if they had no tongue for the host?

 

[jfhh]

I know that the Church will not allow a couple to marry if the marriage cannot be consummated. This seems so sad to me. It makes me think of marriages of centuries ago that were basically business deals, children being part of the deal. Does that type of marriage sound very spiritual? Yet, a paralyzed person, who has a relationship based on love and commitment with God at the center, cannot receive the sacrament of marriage? Is the only reason for marriage procreation? Hmm… I will look for some scripture passages that will support marriage without the condition of sex. Marriage is so much more than that!

I hope the Church someday will recognize marriage for those souls unable to have sex. Would someone not be given the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist if they had no tongue for the host?

I hope so too. It makes no sense to me that people are allowed to marry and choose mutually to not ever have sex and intend to do that even prior to the marriage, while still intending to exchange the mutual right to conjugal relations … but those who are impotent are considered unable to marry since they aren’t able to exchange a right to something they are unable to engage in. Sex is not the only way to be unitive nor the only way to be procreative. The first we knew all along; the second has come to light with technology. So, IMO this new scientific data should cause a reevaluation of the theology of marriage and sex – so that sex is not considered a crucial component of the marriage vows. After all, I don’t think it is necessary nor even ideally a good idea nor even universal for a couple to be consciously thinking of sex when exchanging marriage vows. Marriage is about romantic, beauty-producing love. Sex is just one way to be romantically united and to be beauty-producing. It is special in terms of it being able to be beauty producing a unique way in natural procreation. But other beauty-producing activies abound as do other romantic activities.

Marital love is when a hand is held and in that act one body is formed.

Focusing on how intercourse creates an anatomocial unity misses the point IMO.

 

[JimG]

Hmm… I will look for some scripture passages that will support marriage without the condition of sex. Marriage is so much more than that!

Yes, it is. And you won’t have to look far. Mary and Joseph were married but did not have sex.

Yet, they were not incapable of sex. So the marriage would have been valid. And there have been instances of validly married couples who never consummated their marriage. The marriage is valid with the vows, just not consummated.

But since the nature of marriage itself presumes sexual complementarity and an ability to consummate the marriage by engaging in sexual relations, the ability is a precondition to contracting a valid marriage.

 

[jfhh]

And there have been instances of validly married couples who never consummated their marriage. The marriage is valid with the vows, just not consummated.

Yes and probably some today too. There have also been marriages which have been consummated but where the couple decide to forgoe indefinitely or for the remainder of their lives conjugal relations as mutually agreed for the sake of what they feel God calling them to (not to be nun or monk, still married life, just no sex – more prayer in marriage). IIRC, St. Therese of Lisieux’s parents were wanting to do this and may have for a little while but someone convinced them to resume normal marital relations.

 

[Melissa]

And don’t count on “diagnosed infertile” anyways. My mom was diagnosed infertile prior to her marriage to my father. I also have a younger brother.

The drs were so sure that my mom couldn’t become pregnant that they wouldn’t even test when she started having symptoms of pregnancy (they started in with things like testing for brain tumors!), and only when everything else was ruled out did they consider a pregnancy test.

 

[JimG]

Yes and probably some today too. There have also been marriages which have been consummated but where the couple decide to forgoe indefinitely or for the remainder of their lives conjugal relations as mutually agreed for the sake of what they feel God calling them to (not to be nun or monk, still married life, just no sex – more prayer in marriage). IIRC, St. Therese of Lisieux’s parents were wanting to do this and may have for a little while but someone convinced them to resume normal marital relations.

I remember reading this story. This quite holy couple had decided at the very outset of their marriage to forgo sexual relations. It was their parish priest who eventually convinced them that this was not God’s plan for them, and they went on to have somethng like 8 or 9 children, including St. Therese. (I think that the parents cause for canonization is also being considered.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Entering marriage with the intent to avoid children is what makes the marriage invalid.

One can marry an infertile person without that intent. My DH and I did; as I am menopausal, it would take a miracle like Sarah’s or Elizabeth’s for me to have children. We’re open to that.

Well, that’s all I meant. What if a person who preferred not to have children, married someone diagnosed “infertile”, but still had relations open to children. I don’t see anything wrong with that, since the person leaves the miracle in God’s hands.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So here’s how I am saying the conversation would go:

COUNSELOR: So, why are you marrying Suzy?

GROOM: Because I desire heaven for her. And I do not feel called to have children and she’s infertile.

COUNSELOR: Would you ever use birth control to inhibit pregnancy to ensure this would happen?

GROOM: No, if it be God’s will, then so be it. Our relations will be in accord with Church teaching.

Where in Canon Law would it forbid such a person from entering a valid marriage?

 

[JimG]

So here’s how I am saying the conversation would go:

COUNSELOR: So, why are you marrying Suzy?

GROOM: Because I desire heaven for her. And I do not feel called to have children and she’s infertile.

COUNSELOR: Would you ever use birth control to inhibit pregnancy to ensure this would happen?

GROOM: No, if it be God’s will, then so be it. Our relations will be in accord with Church teaching.

Where in Canon Law would it forbid such a person from entering a valid marriage?

From the Q&A, a counselor could infer that the couple was open to life, though not expecting pregnancy due to infertility.

A valid marital intention includes the intentions of fidelity, permanence, and openness to new life.

Infertility would not in itself preclude an intention to be open to life, if that were God’s will. So I’m guessing that there would be nothing to prevent the marriage. (By the same token, they’d better not come seeking a decree of nullity down the road on the basis that one or the other was not open to life. If they enter the marriage NOT being open to life, that would not constitute a valid marital consent.)

 

[Leeta]

You have to be open to children. Yes, if you turn out not to be able to have children through no deliberate impeding act of your own, then it is certainly a valid marriage. Advanced age of course would undoubtedly preclude any fertility.
Not being open to children when a marriage is contracted is grounds for an annulment, so it can’t be right to go into marriage not being open to having children. If it turns out that after the marriage, there arises some grave health or other situation then one may abstain from relations during the fertile time. But one must continue to pray and reevaluate the circumstances which caused this delay in having children.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, it is. And you won’t have to look far. Mary and Joseph were married but did not have sex.

Yet, they were not incapable of sex. So the marriage would have been valid. And there have been instances of validly married couples who never consummated their marriage. The marriage is valid with the vows, just not consummated.

But since the nature of marriage itself presumes sexual complementarity and an ability to consummate the marriage by engaging in sexual relations, the ability is a precondition to contracting a valid marriage.

Mary conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit - in a sense she was already espoused to God before being married to Joseph. In any event, you’d agree that being the Mother and Foster-Father of God are unique and privileged position - it’s quite possible that different rules applied to them.

 

[ChristineMac]

Sex is not the only way to be unitive nor the only way to be procreative. The first we knew all along; the second has come to light with technology. So, IMO this new scientific data should cause a reevaluation of the theology of marriage and sex – so that sex is not considered a crucial component of the marriage vows. After all, I don’t think it is necessary nor even ideally a good idea nor even universal for a couple to be consciously thinking of sex when exchanging marriage vows. Marriage is about romantic, beauty-producing love. Sex is just one way to be romantically united and to be beauty-producing. It is special in terms of it being able to be beauty producing a unique way in natural procreation. But other beauty-producing activies abound as do other romantic activities.

Marital love is when a hand is held and in that act one body is formed.

Focusing on how intercourse creates an anatomocial unity misses the point IMO.

:

confused:

Actually the Church teaches us that the only moral avenue for procreation is within the marital act, IVF is not a moral alternative for Catholics.

May I humbly suggest you study the Church’s teachings on marriage and the meaning of love a little more closely, especially helpful are JPII’s writings of Theology of the Body.

 

[Wogglebug]

I know that some people feel like having children is not for them. It’s an understandable feeling. Kid’s just aren’t “your thing.” Maybe you don’t have the patience or maybe your career would make it difficult. There are many reasons to feel like children don’t fit into your life or plans. And many of these concerns are valid and normal.

Now on the other hand…

Maybe Noah had other things to do than build a giant ark in the middle of dry land. Many of the apostles had things they were doing when Christ asked them to drop everything and follow Him. And I’m sure that if you had asked Jonah what he wanted to do in life, being swallowed by a great fish would’ve probably been somewhere near the bottom of the list.

Consider this: Their lives became better- not worse. (Closer to God.)

And this: No one is asking you to build a giant ark. All God asks in this particular case is that you be open to the gift of the most wonderful and amazing people who will ever enter your life, your children. When you invite children into your life, you invite love. You invite God. And if you ask me, that sounds like a much better way to get close to God than getting swallowed by a great fish.

Whenever I’ve just done my own thing and ignored what I thought God wanted me to do, I’ve always ended up screwing things up. But when I listened to God (against what felt like my own “better judgement”) everything ultimately fell into place in ways I didn’t expect. We can’t control the world around us but God can. Therefore, we don’t alway know what is a good decision for ourselves because we don’t know the outcome like God does.

The point: God knows what is best for us and He will deliver if we let him. We are not as qualified to make those decisions. It is for the same reason that when you fly in an airplaine, you let the pilot do the flying because the pilot knows how to get you where you want to be better than you do. And rather than spending our time and energy trying to fight our way into the cockpit and ultimately most likely crashing the plane, sometimes it’s better to sit back in first class and enjoy the peanuts and not worry. It’s a lot less stress.

 

[Reepicheep]

I am under the impression that if a couple goes to a priest to be married, he asks them whether they are fertile. If one of them is known to be infertile before the wedding, they can’t be married in the Catholic Church.

I am sure that this is not the case. Sterile people are still free to marry.

 

[jfhh]

I know that some people feel like having children is not for them. It’s an understandable feeling. Kid’s just aren’t “your thing.” Maybe you don’t have the patience or maybe your career would make it difficult. There are many reasons to feel like children don’t fit into your life or plans. And many of these concerns are valid and normal.

For me I’d just want to have more fun with and spend more time with my lover (wife). For some reason I also don’t have any paternal instinct (desire to have children). I was told that when I grew older I would develop one but I still haven’t. Those are two separate issues for me. The first issue is kind of moot due to the second though.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Maybe this is one better for the ask the Apologist, but as I understand, the sin of being “not open to children” is if they practice artificial forms of birth control. Marrying an infertile person, even if that was a quality you liked, does not constitute artificial birth control. So how can that be sinful?

Of course marrying a person who *happens *to be infertile does not constitute being “not open to children.”

Seeking out and marrying a person because he or she is infertile does seem to constitute being “not open to children.”

I am under the impression that if a couple goes to a priest to be married, he asks them whether they are fertile. If one of them is known to be infertile before the wedding, they can’t be married in the Catholic Church.

No, I know for a fact that that’s not true. If you want to make sure, take the question over to the Ask an Apologist forum, but I already know what they’ll say.

I don’t know. But I have heard of people with war injuries, etc., being denied the Sacrament of Marriage in the Church.

In the examples to which you refer, that person was probably denied the Sacrament of Matrimony because he was impotent, not because he was infertile.

Impotence is the inability to engage in sexual intercourse at all, and is - if perpetual and irreversible - an impediment to marriage in the Catholic Church.

Sterility/infertility, in which you can have sex but just cannot conceive children, is not an impediment.

I am sure about this.

I don’t think that’s correct either. Not automatically anyway. I believe a marriage can be valid apart from consummation, like Mary and Joseph. I skimmed over Canon Law on marriage, and saw stuff like: Canon 109.1 Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and it exists between the man and the blood relations of the woman, and likewise between the woman and the blood relations of the man.But I’m no expert either! I’d still like to know if the Church would marry anyone who is capable of relations, but sterile. I tend to say yes, because the marriage would still be open to life if God so willed.

Yeah - the Church considers a marriage valid once the vows are exchanged. We’re just supposed to assume that the marriage will be consummated.

And with regard to impotence, it is true that the Church presumes that a person is able to have intercourse if they say so. The burden of proof is never on the man to prove he is not impotent; the default is to accept that he can have intercourse.

I don’t know the medical facts, but I would assume that truly irreversible impotence is very rare. In any case, as I said, the Church will never presume that that is the case.

But if perpetual and irreversible impotence is established, then that does unfortunately constitute an impediment to marriage. Go ahead and check this in the Ask an Apologist forum if you’re unsure.

 

[MarcoPolo]

So my understanding is this, regarding the OP’s question. If a person does not feel called to children, and deliberately marries someone diagnosed “sterile”, but still fully intends to have relations that are open to children, then there are no problems with that. Correct?

 

[coco2]

So my understanding is this, regarding the OP’s question. If a person does not feel called to children, and deliberately marries someone diagnosed “sterile”, but still fully intends to have relations that are open to children, then there are no problems with that. Correct?

From what I am reading here, that would be correct.

Question…If people are to remain chaste before marriage, how does a man know if he is able to consummate the marriage until the wedding night? What if he can’t!!! It could happen. The marriage isn’t valid until that happens. Then what do you call the couple, living in sin? That cannot be possible.

 

[jmcrae]

From what I am reading here, that would be correct.

Question…If people are to remain chaste before marriage, how does a man know if he is able to consummate the marriage until the wedding night? What if he can’t!!! It could happen. The marriage isn’t valid until that happens. Then what do you call the couple, living in sin? That cannot be possible.

You don’t have to consummate the marriage straight away. It’s normal for people to take a couple or three days, even maybe a week, to get it done. It takes time to get to know each other’s bodies; you don’t go from virgin to lover in one minute.