Later deciding not to have children

[Flopfoot]

A hypothetical Catholic couple gets married. They are open to the idea of having children at some point in the future, so the marriage is valid. Later, they change their mind and decide they don’t want children (assume they are practicing NFP and would still accept a child if they had one “by accident”). Is this a problem? What would happen at this point?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Nothing would happen. One can’t make a blanket decision if it is a ‘problem’ or not based on the facts given.

 

[AdamP88]

It would be an abuse of NFP to approach it with a “contraceptive” mentality. It possibly would be sinful to do this with no good reason, as NFP to avoid pregnancy is supposed to be used “with just reason”.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Nothing would happen. One can’t make a blanket decision if it is a ‘problem’ or not based on the facts given.

^Right.

The key is their reason for not wanting children, and what God is calling them to do in that particular situation.

To use a rather extreme and equally hypothetical example: is the reason they don’t want children that they’re currently living in a war zone, are being bombed regularly, the husband has leukemia, and they haven’t eaten more than once in the last two weeks? Well, they have several quite just reasons to avoid, but they also might not have a duty to avoid: they should pray about it and see what God’s calling them to do.

On the other hand, and to use another extreme example, is the reason that they don’t want kids solely the desire for each of them to purchase, with cash, a new top-of-the-line BMW each year to add to their collection? In and of itself, that’s unlikely to be a just reason to avoid. Again, however they should pray about it and see what God’s calling them to do. Perhaps the insistence on purchasing two 50K cars each year comes from a deep-seated, unreasonable terror of financial instability, one that they need to work on in prayer and counseling? Only they and God know, which is why those with common sense mind their own business when it comes to such things.

 

[pensmama87]

^Right.

The key is their reason for not wanting children, and what God is calling them to do in that particular situation.

To use a rather extreme and equally hypothetical example: is the reason they don’t want children that they’re currently living in a war zone, are being bombed regularly, the husband has leukemia, and they haven’t eaten more than once in the last two weeks? Well, they have several quite just reasons to avoid, but they also might not have a duty to avoid: they should pray about it and see what God’s calling them to do.

On the other hand, and to use another extreme example, is the reason that they don’t want kids solely the desire for each of them to purchase, with cash, a new top-of-the-line BMW each year to add to their collection? In and of itself, that’s unlikely to be a just reason to avoid. Again, however they should pray about it and see what God’s calling them to do. Perhaps the insistence on purchasing two 50K cars each year comes from a deep-seated, unreasonable terror of financial instability, one that they need to work on in prayer and counseling? Only they and God know, which is why those with common sense mind their own business when it comes to such things.

One thing too, that I like to point out with worries about using NFP selfishly, is that frequently it can be a self-correcting problem. Abstinence is not easy. And with NFP, you have the ability to re-evaluate basically whenever you want. I know several people who have decided after a few months, “You know what? I think maybe those reasons aren’t so good after all.”

 

[GEddie]

To use a rather extreme and equally hypothetical example: is the reason they don’t want children that they’re currently living in a war zone, are being bombed regularly, the husband has leukemia, and they haven’t eaten more than once in the last two weeks?

Under such enormous physical stress, it would seem conception was very unlikely whether they avoided or not.

ICXC NIKA

 

[pensmama87]

Under such enormous physical stress, it would seem conception was very unlikely whether they avoided or not.

ICXC NIKA

That may be true in some cases but not all. There are babies being conceived and born all the time in areas where everyday life is very, very difficult and stressful.

 

[Rau]

…Later, they change their mind and decide they don’t want children (assume they are practicing NFP and would still accept a child if they had one “by accident”). Is this a problem? What would happen at this point?

What matters is the reason to avoid children, and whether the “choice” is to permanently avoid or just “for now”.

In general, the choice to avoid is for a particular “just” reason(s), and most reasons come and go with time. Proximity of recent births, economic circumstances, medical circumstances etc. The expectation is that these things all evolve and thus one is expected to reevaluate them from time to time.

There may be circumstances where a choice to avoid is made with the full expectation that the driving circumstances are fixed (permanent). Extreme medical situations may be an example.

You give no insight into the basis for the adoption of the changed position - after marriage - of “not wanting” children. Is the reason “just”? That question is for the couple to answer.

 

[Anthony_Perlas]

A hypothetical Catholic couple gets married. They are open to the idea of having children at some point in the future, so the marriage is valid. Later, they change their mind and decide they don’t want children (assume they are practicing NFP and would still accept a child if they had one “by accident”). Is this a problem? What would happen at this point?

Honestly, as Catholics we need to improve homeschooling families as well as to improve the conditioning process in which priests, monks and nuns are raised. Essentially having families of 25+ kids all homeschooled is the future generation of the youth. He who owns the youth owns the future.

Why are you persecuting and preventing the birth of more Christians? What is your name?

 

[GEddie]

Honestly, as Catholics we need to improve homeschooling families as well as to improve the conditioning process in which priests, monks and nuns are raised. Essentially having families of 25+ kids all homeschooled is the future generation of the youth. He who owns the youth owns the future.

Why are you persecuting and preventing the birth of more Christians? What is your name?

Are you really suggesting that families of 25 or more children should become the norm?

Good luck pitching that to modern women!!!

ICXC NIKA

 

[GEddie]

There is no way to control “how priests and nuns are raised,” as no-one is formed from birth to those vocations.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rau]

…Essentially having families of 25+ kids all homeschooled is the future generation of the youth. He who owns the youth owns the future.

Interesting criteria you establish here for a wife. And for the family breadwinner. Good luck with that.

 

[pensmama87]

Honestly, as Catholics we need to improve homeschooling families as well as to improve the conditioning process in which priests, monks and nuns are raised. Essentially having families of 25+ kids all homeschooled is the future generation of the youth. He who owns the youth owns the future.

Why are you persecuting and preventing the birth of more Christians? What is your name?

For most women this would be flatly impossible.

 

[Xantippe]

For most women this would be flatly impossible.

Michelle Duggar would no doubt have loved 25 children, but even she could not reach 20 liveborn children.

There are more than a few providentialists on CAF, and they rarely get very far into double digits–the biggest CAF family I remember hearing of has 11 children. A certain number of people get to 8-10, but beyond that, it becomes very, very uncommon.

 

[chevalier]

A hypothetical Catholic couple gets married. They are open to the idea of having children at some point in the future, so the marriage is valid.

I do not want to sow doubts without need, but this proposition does not appear 100% safe to me, though still mostly safe.

So, if they initially have the openness that is required for validity, then losing it later does not impact the validity of the marriage (a valid marriage can’t subsequently become invalid). However, appearing undecided first and then deciding negatively later potentially casts doubts on what the frame of mind had previously been, i.e. before the decision crystallized. A not initially fully realized mental closeness to procreation, for example, one that continued to exist all the time but progressed from being unseen to being clearly stated, would still invalidate.

In terms of any tribunal deciding the validity of the marriage, there would be a presumption in favour of the marriage, as well as additional presumptions against the idea (simplifying things a bit) that one doesn’t know or mean what one says. This should make that marriage probably withstand challenge and put people’s consciences at ease for treating it as valid — except if the circumstances show that the openness has never met the requisite level. (Very unlikely in this case. See below.)

Later, they change their mind

So if they really have changed their mind, which necessarily means they were indeed open before, not merely undecided about the issue before making a negative decision, then that would make the marriage appear to be valid. However, still see the above. Making (realizing, putting in words etc.) a negative decision after a long period of indecision wouldn’t be the same as having changed one’s mind. One would need to distinguish between the two scenarios.

and decide they don’t want children (assume they are practicing NFP and would still accept a child if they had one “by accident”)

To me, that would preclude closeness and keep them in the open range, since acceptance and not enthusiasm is the minimum requirement. I can’t guarantee that all tribunals would agree though, since one could interpret this distinction as a technicality. Even so, in order to decide that such as marriage were invalid, one would still also need to demonstrate that there hadn’t been a change of mind from initial openness but only progression on the path toward a clear decision to close. These two difficulties compounding each other would make it very difficult to find for invalidity.

What else? If the decision were not mutual, then that lack of mutuality would be evidence of other problems with the consent, i.e. withholding parts of the exchange of rights and obligations in marriage, where marriage makes those decisions belong to the couple and not just either individual on his or her own.)

Is this a problem? What would happen at this point?

NFP used with the goal of (hopefully) totally precluding conception and without a good enough justifying reason could still result in a sin, perhaps even mortal sin, and while mortal sins are not all equal, there are lighter and heavier mortal sins certainly, one still goes to hell for the light ones. So I wouldn’t feel safe in that sort of decision without getting some serious reassurance from qualified people (priests, theologians, confessor especially, any spiritual director one may have) and without feeling at peace in conscience about it.