Marriage, children, and age

[TheDoctor]

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.

If I may throw another option in: Why does it have to be a baby? There are thousands of older children in state and foster care who would love nothing more than to be loved and to have a safe place to call “home”. If God is calling you to share your mutual love for a new child perhaps this would be something to consider?

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

A couple who choose to avoid for a serious reason which might include eugenics or age related capacity or psychological issues for example… but do not do anything to deliberately render the conjugal act sterile, could legitimately answer that in the affirmative.

In pastoral practice, I know that even someone who has had a vasectomy or tubal ligation is not barred from a sacramental marriage or conjugal relations if they sincerely repent of that action and are able to legitimately answer that question in the affirmative.

This is from the official Australian Catholic Bishops guidelines…

1. I’VE HAD A VASECTOMY/TUBAL LIGATION. CAN I HAVE A VALID CHURCH MARRIAGE?

Catholic teaching regards any form of contraception or sterilisation, including vasectomies
and tubal ligations, as morally wrong. In this case the sterilisation is in the past. Provided it has been sincerely repented of in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the sterility due to the operation is not a barrier to a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

If I may throw another option in: Why does it have to be a baby? There are thousands of older children in state and foster care who would love nothing more than to be loved and to have a safe place to call “home”. If God is calling you to share your mutual love for a new child perhaps this would be something to consider?

In fact the widower himself has a 12 year old without his mother and an immature 20 year old who would undoubtedly benefit from the parenting of loving spouses.

 

[nodito]

A couple who choose to avoid for a serious reason which might include eugenics or age related capacity or psychological issues for example… but do not do anything to deliberately render the conjugal act sterile, could legitimately answer that in the affirmative.

In pastoral practice, I know that even someone who has had a vasectomy or tubal ligation is not barred from a sacramental marriage or conjugal relations if they sincerely repent of that action and are able to legitimately answer that question in the affirmative.

This is from the official Australian Catholic Bishops guidelines…

1. I’VE HAD A VASECTOMY/TUBAL LIGATION. CAN I HAVE A VALID CHURCH MARRIAGE?

Catholic teaching regards any form of contraception or sterilisation, including vasectomies
and tubal ligations, as morally wrong. In this case the sterilisation is in the past. Provided it has been sincerely repented of in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, the sterility due to the operation is not a barrier to a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church.

Yes, I understand that infertility (even self-induced infertility or sterilization) is not in itself an impediment to marriage.

I’m not convinced that a couple can enter in to marriage intending to practice NFP to avoid children for the entirety of the marriage. I see this as distinct from the situation of a couple who intends to welcome children but discovers they are unable to, the couple who knows in advance that they are unlikely to have children because of age, or the couple who wants children, intends to practice NFP for a serious reason in the beginning, and later discovers that the serious reason is perpetual.

 

[Xantippe]

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.

That sounds reasonable.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, I understand that infertility (even self-induced infertility or sterilization) is not in itself an impediment to marriage.

I’m not convinced that a couple can enter in to marriage intending to practice NFP to avoid children for the entirety of the marriage. I see this as distinct from the situation of a couple who intends to welcome children but discovers they are unable to, the couple who knows in advance that they are unlikely to have children because of age, or the couple who wants children, intends to practice NFP for a serious reason in the beginning, and later discovers that the serious reason is perpetual.

I think that the idea is that the practicing Catholic couple with serious reasons is entering into marriage intending to practice NFP to avoid…as long as necessary, and not a minute longer. It’s just that “as long as necessary” may be a very long time.

They’re not simply entering into marriage with the idea of avoiding for the entirety of their marriage. For one thing, if they are married long enough, it will eventually be a moot point.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think that the idea is that the practicing Catholic couple with serious reasons is entering into marriage intending to practice NFP to avoid…as long as necessary, and not a minute longer. It’s just that “as long as necessary” may be a very long time.

They’re not simply entering into marriage with the idea of avoiding for the entirety of their marriage. For one thing, if they are married long enough, it will eventually be a moot point.

If a woman’s been advised that a pregnancy may kill her, while some women would have a disposition to take that risk, others wouldn’t. There is no hard and fast rule about what to do and the Church stresses that only the couple can make that decision. But the couple must achieve that only by natural family planning. In doing that they remain open to life and willing to accept children if it happens. That would be a valid marriage.

The same with age related issues. People can never get younger. For instance into the 50’s even, a woman could still be fertile but considering a child takes at least 18 years of support and the prospect of still having paid work into the 70’s are slim… it is reasonable to marry with the intention of avoiding pregnancy for the entirety of fertility and still be open to life and willing to accept children.

The decision is to be strictly left to the couple who know their capacities and incapacities. So excluding the procreative intent is strictly related to the use of artificial barriers to the fertility of the conjugal act… not to avoiding pregnancy.

 

[MomaMary8]

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.

I’ll let others chime in on canon law, but really the couple needs to tell their priest their intent towards children and let him ponder the finer points. It is good the couple is discerning this part of their potential marriage

As to being 40+ and pregnant, yes there are risks to a pregnancy when older. A woman who has never had children is a bit more of an unknown factor. She may be at risk for high blood pressure, or premature labor, but she could have had this risk with a pregnancy at 25 or 30. The risk a younger woman has increases as she ages. So with the 40 year old women, we don’t know where her risk level starts because she has never been pregnant. Now for me, 45 and pregnant, my risks are low for blood pressure, preterm labor and such, because I have a history of good pregnancies. My risk for hemorrhaging increases with the increase number of pregnancy, not my age.

Yes, pregnancy and infancy years are tiring. Very tiring as you age, but in reality it lasts a short time. One to two years of exhaustion is well worth the joy a little person can give, jmho.
As for my background, I’ve had 2 babies, 2 miscarriages and one current pregnancy (7weeks) at the age of 40 and over. It CAN happen, so they are wise to discuss such possibilities.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I’ll let others chime in on canon law, but really the couple needs to tell their priest their intent towards children and let him ponder the finer points. It is good the couple is discerning this part of their potential marriage

As to being 40+ and pregnant, yes there are risks to a pregnancy when older. A woman who has never had children is a bit more of an unknown factor. She may be at risk for high blood pressure, or premature labor, but she could have had this risk with a pregnancy at 25 or 30. The risk a younger woman has increases as she ages. So with the 40 year old women, we don’t know where her risk level starts because she has never been pregnant. Now for me, 45 and pregnant, my risks are low for blood pressure, preterm labor and such, because I have a history of good pregnancies. My risk for hemorrhaging increases with the increase number of pregnancy, not my age.

Yes, pregnancy and infancy years are tiring. Very tiring as you age, but in reality it lasts a short time. One to two years of exhaustion is well worth the joy a little person can give, jmho.
As for my background, I’ve had 2 babies, 2 miscarriages and one current pregnancy (7weeks) at the age of 40 and over. It CAN happen, so they are wise to discuss such possibilities.

Congratulations!!! (and I agree, discuss with a priest, I know so many 44+ dads having babies that I may be biased in my opinion about whether not wanting to be tired is a good reason)

 

[MomaMary8]

Congratulations!!! (and I agree, discuss with a priest, I know so many 44+ dads having babies that I may be biased in my opinion about whether not wanting to be tired is a good reason)

You caught that :blushing: Thank you:heart: