Marriage, children, and age

[agapewolf]

I know that serious reasons to avoid pregnancy are subjective to the couple. I know that discussing hypotheticals are difficult. I’m hoping for a discussion of issues that could help this discernment.

44 year old widower who originally wanted lots of kids now has her (needy and emotionally immature) 20 year old that he took on as dad, and his/her 12 year old. Considering marrying a 40 year old never married woman.

In the grieving and evaluating process, he is coming to the conclusion that he’s pretty sure he doesn’t want any more kids. His reasoning is that he’s physically tired, wears out faster now, noticing when wrestling with the 12 year old. He is very healthy. The idea of going back to diapers and the possible risks with older pregnancies is a huge deterrent.

As I said, he is physically healthy, financially very stable. She is physically healthy. Age, if it is, would be the only serious reason to avoid children at this point. Contraception is in no way on the table.

Can there be a discussion on any issues that would help this discernment? I know when it comes down to it, direction from a spiritual director is best. This is simply for hashing out and discussion points at this point.

 

[jmjZelie]

Yes there are some things to consider that might help discernment.

How much support does said couple have from family and friends? Some couples have lots of family living nearby, while other couples have no family whatsoever. If something were to happen (bed rest, C-section, etc) who would be there to assist the family?

Your post doesn’t say how the 40yo wife-to-be feels about it. Is she open to the idea of trying for a baby, or is she unsure, or is she opposed?

What about the financial situation, and the position of the woman in her job/career? Would she want/need to leave her job if she got pregnant? Do they offer maternity leave? Would she be able to return to her job and would she need to find childcare? Would she WANT to use childcare? Or would she prefer to stay home with a baby?

Is she already in perimenopause, or is she still cycling normally? Her own potential fertility would be a good thing to talk about, to discern if trying for a baby is even possible, or if it would be unlikely.

Those are the only questions that I can think of that might help discernment right now. Hope that is helpful to you!

 

[Xantippe]

I know that serious reasons to avoid pregnancy are subjective to the couple. I know that discussing hypotheticals are difficult. I’m hoping for a discussion of issues that could help this discernment.

44 year old widower who originally wanted lots of kids now has her (needy and emotionally immature) 20 year old that he took on as dad, and his/her 12 year old. Considering marrying a 40 year old never married woman.

In the grieving and evaluating process, he is coming to the conclusion that he’s pretty sure he doesn’t want any more kids. His reasoning is that he’s physically tired, wears out faster now, noticing when wrestling with the 12 year old. He is very healthy. The idea of going back to diapers and the possible risks with older pregnancies is a huge deterrent.

As I said, he is physically healthy, financially very stable. She is physically healthy. Age, if it is, would be the only serious reason to avoid children at this point. Contraception is in no way on the table.

Can there be a discussion on any issues that would help this discernment? I know when it comes down to it, direction from a spiritual director is best. This is simply for hashing out and discussion points at this point.

How does she feel about it?

Is she eager to have a child of her own or scared? A woman that age is almost certain to have a strong opinion in either direction.

Also, bear in mind that pregnancy might not even be an option.

 

[holyrood]

Are you one of the people in question?

I would say that I have what they have–and more. A ‘needy’ and possibly ‘immature’ adult child (Aspbergers) plus four younger children still at home–two with special needs. My youngest uncle was born when my grandmother was 45, and he’s been an incredible blessing and joy to everyone he’s ever touched (youngest of 10, by the way, to a family that was not what anyone today would consider financially stable.)

Given these things–if I were married, I would continue to follow my faith and be open to children.

 

[agapewolf]

She thought she wanted kids, but is coming to the point of possibly grieving not having them. Somewhat relieved, but also conflicted. She would like to simply be open to whatever for awhile, rather than purposely avoid.

She would love to stay at home, and can freelance work on the side. It’s a perfect set up for kids. Hence the discussion needed…is age/being tired a serious enough reason, when everything else seemingly makes a clear path to having a child. I realize it could be a serious reason…which is why I’m asking for items for discussion.

 

[holyrood]

…is age/being tired a serious enough reason, when everything else seemingly makes a clear path to having a child. I realize it could be a serious reason…which is why I’m asking for items for discussion.

To me, no. You say they’re both in good health. I’m in pretty good health, and at about the age you’re talking about, yes I think I’d get tired with a new baby. But I wouldn’t consider that a ‘serious’ reason. As I said, my grandmother had a brand new baby at my age, and thank God she did. She would say the same. All that child’s siblings say the same.

But…are you one of the people in question? If not, have they asked for your (name removed by moderator)ut? I guess I just feel it makes a difference if this is you trying to discern for yourself, or being asked for your (name removed by moderator)ut by this couple, or if it’s just someone you know.

 

[St_Francis]

How upset would the widower be if he married and his wife bacame pregnant?

 

[agapewolf]

How upset would the widower be if he married and his wife bacame pregnant?

He would be ok… Must be God’s plan. Wouldn’t be resentful.

 

[nodito]

The couple should be probably be made aware that a permanent intention against children (planning to use NFP for the entirety of the marriage until menopause, for example) would render the marriage invalid. Marriage is by its nature ordered to the procreation and education of marriage, and this is true even if a person comes to marriage already having conceived children.

 

[Convert_in_99]

The couple should be probably be made aware that a permanent intention against children (planning to use NFP for the entirety of the marriage until menopause, for example) would render the marriage invalid. Marriage is by its nature ordered to the procreation and education of marriage, and this is true even if a person comes to marriage already having conceived children.

This isn’t true. A couple may very well have serious reasons to avoid having children (using only NFP) from the time they are married. Those serious conditions may or may not ever improve. If they don’t improve they can continue to use NFP until those circumstances improve. If they never improve the couple may continue using NFP to avoid indefinitely. This is much different then simply not wanting to have children.

 

[Xantippe]

This isn’t true. A couple may very well have serious reasons to avoid having children (using only NFP) from the time they are married. Those serious conditions may or may not ever improve. If they don’t improve they can continue to use NFP until those circumstances improve. If they never improve the couple may continue using NFP to avoid indefinitely. This is much different then simply not wanting to have children.

Right.

 

[nodito]

This isn’t true. A couple may very well have serious reasons to avoid having children (using only NFP) from the time they are married. Those serious conditions may or may not ever improve. If they don’t improve they can continue to use NFP until those circumstances improve. If they never improve the couple may continue using NFP to avoid indefinitely. This is much different then simply not wanting to have children.

Because marriage is by its nature ordered to the procreation of children (Canon 1055), a couple cannot marry validly if they intend to exclude the possibility of having children, for example, by having a conversation prior to marriage where one or both of the spouses says, “Let’s get married but because of our age or inclinations or circumstances, we will exclude procreation.” This would be considered partial simulation of marriage and is in fact grounds for annulment.

This is a different from a couple who intends marriage while knowing they are unlikely to conceive (because of age or infertility, for example), or a couple who intends children at some point in their marriage but discerns just reasons to practice NFP from the beginning, even if these reasons turn out to be perpetual.

Emphasis mine:

Partial Simulation of Marriage: (canon 1101) Defect of consent because at least one of the parties, by a positive act of the will, withheld from consent the right to an essential element of marriage such as children, fidelity or permanence. These three bona, or gifts, lead to a fourth, the good or wellbeing of the other spouse.

An intention against children (prolis) would involve withholding the right to sexual acts open to the begetting of children and/or withholding the right to the education of offspring not only academically but also religiously. This can take several forms: an outright intention to have no children in the marriage, a delay or postponement of children for illicit reasons, sterilization or consistent use of birth control to avoid pregnancy.** The result usually is that no children are conceived after the wedding day or the number of children was deliberately and intentionally limited from the beginning.**

See cathdal.org/GRDSSEQ.pdf and dioceseofcheyenne.org/pdfs/tribunal/groundsforinvalidity9.pdf

 

[agapewolf]

The couple should be probably be made aware that a permanent intention against children (planning to use NFP for the entirety of the marriage until menopause, for example) would render the marriage invalid. Marriage is by its nature ordered to the procreation and education of marriage, and this is true even if a person comes to marriage already having conceived children.

This couple is very aware of this. That’s the difficulty of the circumstances. If the marriage would occur 10 years from now, it would be a non- issue. It’s right on the line of “crossing over” if you will.

 

[St_Francis]

Given what Nodito wrote, istm that the widower should not marry someone who is still fertile since he wants to avoid having children just because he’s tired (which is understandable, don’t get me wrong!). But he could talk with a priest about it, maybe even one of the canon lawyers in his diocese.

 

[Xantippe]

This isn’t true. A couple may very well have serious reasons to avoid having children (using only NFP) from the time they are married. Those serious conditions may or may not ever improve. If they don’t improve they can continue to use NFP until those circumstances improve. If they never improve the couple may continue using NFP to avoid indefinitely. This is much different then simply not wanting to have children.

I wish somebody had chapter and verse, but you are quite correct.

If there is a serious reason not to have children, the couple is still free to marry if they would be willing to have children if the serious reason were not there.

For example, imagine a poorly controlled Type 1 diabetic who has been told by her specialists that she must not get pregnant. That’s with current technology a life sentence, but it is conceivable that there would be some sort of medical breakthrough that would make childbearing much safer for her.

Or, let’s imagine a person who has a serious mental illness that requires medication that isn’t supposed to be taken by pregnant women. If there were some sort of medical breakthrough, she would be able to safely have children in future.

So, it isn’t the case that people with serious medical conditions aren’t allowed to get married. There is always the possibility of some sort of major improvement in medical technology.

(I wish somebody would chime in with the appropriate cites, but what I’ve just mentioned is a standard orthodox Catholic ethical position.)

 

[LongingSoul]

I wish somebody had chapter and verse, but you are quite correct.

If there is a serious reason not to have children, the couple is still free to marry if they would be willing to have children if the serious reason were not there.

For example, imagine a poorly controlled Type 1 diabetic who has been told by her specialists that she must not get pregnant. That’s with current technology a life sentence, but it is conceivable that there would be some sort of medical breakthrough that would make childbearing much safer for her.

Or, let’s imagine a person who has a serious mental illness that requires medication that isn’t supposed to be taken by pregnant women. If there were some sort of medical breakthrough, she would be able to safely have children in future.

So, it isn’t the case that people with serious medical conditions aren’t allowed to get married. There is always the possibility of some sort of major improvement in medical technology.

(I wish somebody would chime in with the appropriate cites, but what I’ve just mentioned is a standard orthodox Catholic ethical position.)

Yes, from Pope Pius XII 1951 “Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives” on the use of NFP…

"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”​

Eugenics (sounds bad but) is the science of evaluating the risk of passing on through genetics or age, serious affliction. Fr Hardons definition…

Eugenics - The science of hereditary and environmental influences in order to improve the physical and mental qualities of future generations. As a term, it was first used by Francis Galton (1822-1911), cousin of Charles Darwin (1809-82). There are, in general, two types of eugenics. An extreme form advocates the compulsory breeding of the select, contraception among the poor, and sterilization and euthanasia for the unfit. Moderate eugenics promotes the study of how to reduce the number of mentally and physically handicapped without resorting to coercive measures. The Catholic Church strongly supports the idea that people have a right to use suitable, licit means to improve their own physical and mental condition and that of their children. but the Church condemns eugenicists who, in their narrow outlook, exalt eugenics as the supreme good and who, therefore, use illicit means to promote their goal. Eugenics has contributed substantially to the practice of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and euthanasia. (Etym. Greek eugen_s, well born.)​

 

[nodito]

Yes, from Pope Pius XII 1951 “Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives” on the use of NFP…

"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”​

I’m familiar with Pope Piux XII’s address. This doesn’t contradict what I wrote. A couple may well discern just reasons to avoid pregnancy that turnout to be perpetual. But this is different from a couple entering marriage with the intention to exclude children. Otherwise, how could we speak of that intention of welcoming children being necessary at all?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m familiar with Pope Piux XII’s address. This doesn’t contradict what I wrote. A couple may well discern just reasons to avoid pregnancy that turnout to be perpetual. But this is different from a couple entering marriage with the intention to exclude children. Otherwise, how could we speak of that intention of welcoming children being necessary at all?

I’m not 100% sure on this point and could well need correction, but I was under the impression that the intention to ‘exclude’ the procreative intention meant taking artificial steps to make the conjugal act sterile.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think the difference lies in the use of the term avoiding or excluding. Sometimes you hear people say that if you are avoiding pregnancy by doing NFP without good enought reasons, that equates with Catholic ‘conctraception’… which it doesn’t. Contraception excludes the possibility of pregnancy (the procreative intent) by taking measures to cause the act to be sterile.

If this couple are avoiding pregnancy by confining the act to infertile times, they are not technically excluding the procreative intent of their conjugal union.

 

[nodito]

I think the difference lies in the use of the term avoiding or excluding. Sometimes you hear people say that if you are avoiding pregnancy by doing NFP without good enought reasons, that equates with Catholic ‘conctraception’… which it doesn’t. Contraception excludes the possibility of pregnancy (the procreative intent) by taking measures to cause the act to be sterile.

If this couple are avoiding pregnancy by confining the act to infertile times, they are not technically excluding the procreative intent of their conjugal union.

It’s interesting; I hadn’t that of it that way. I’ll need to reflect on that a bit before I can confidently agree or disagree.

In your opinion, would a person who intends to never have children (by practicing, for example, abstinence or NFP), be able to answer this marriage vow in the affirmative?

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

I do agree that NFP is by its nature different than contraception, even when used for trivial reasons.