Marrying someone who mustn't have children

  • Thread starter Thread starter ClaireS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

ClaireS

Guest
My nephew is very close friends with a woman with a bad heart defect (transplant is not an option). Although she is fairly well at present, the doctors are agreed that her lifespan will be much shorter than normal. They also are agreed that her heart could not possibly survive a pregnancy. My nephew wants children but he is content with the idea of adoption and so is she. Although he is keeping an emotional distance for now, he thinks that he could easily love her and consider marriage. In this case,could NFP be used indefinitely?
 
I know there is a grave reason. It is the indefinitely part I wonder about.
 
As long as there is a strong reason for not to have offspring it is licit (ok, allowed) not to have it. I would not use the word ‘indifinitely’ for your resolution since circumstances may arise that could change the situation.

As a matter of fact, you should bear in mind that, with adequate care and strict observance of a correct medical treatment, heart is one of the strongest organs, if we leave apart liver.

Let me tell you the history of my father.

My father had its heart strongly damaged since he was 16 due to a terrible rheumatic arthritis. He passed exam after exam to get to work as bank clerk. But he failed time after time to pass the medical explorations. My grandfather took a loan and sent my father to one of the best heart doctors in Barcelona, Spain. After one year of treatment he finally passed a medical exam, worked 45 years for the Banco de Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (BBVA), had a son (that’s me) and cared of his wife, my mother, that, sadly, developed a schyzophrenia after her 31st birthday.

My father worked 8 hours every day, 6 days a week. But he followed strictly all medical advices.

He ate a lot of veggies, boiled fish, and white meats (chicken, turkey). He avoided salt, fat, fried meals, and red meats. He loved salami, but he never ate it. He never ate an hamburguer, or poured ketchup or mustard. Every mornig he ate two big slices of bread with olive oil and a glass of half skinned milk with brown sugar and some granulated soya lecitin, but not cookies, butter or margarine. He ate some cake at weddings but no sweets. He never smoke a cigarette, and never drank tea, coffe, or alcohol (nor wine, nor beer).

He did a lot of aerobic exercises (time-measured breathing, inspiration/expiration). He always slept 8 hours or more at night. He always got to bed and woke up about the same hour. He loved, I mean was driven crazy by, soccer. But I never remember him watching a match at TV, or hearing it by radio, o reading an sports newspaper. He loved films, but he never lost an hour of sleep by them.

He died at 68 by lack of medical attention at a public hospital during a week-end. Here in Spain, public hospitals are bigger, with more trained personal than most private ones. But they are run by civil servants. Someone took him out his daily SIMTROM pill and forgot to prescribe him a daily HEPARINA injection instead. Brilliant. Four days before I buried my father.

In Spain there are no trial lawyers since almost every service is public and all demands against public services are usually lost. Here in Murcia nobody has won a case against a hospital since 1975. Yes, at that time the dictator General Francisco Franco was still alive. Please, do not let anybody to fool you: public medicine is a public shame.

My father’s spartan struggle with his illness rendered him victory. His ability to keep on going gave to his only son, madly spoiled, time to get back on Our Lord tracks. After endless searching, his wife got finally proper (private) medical treatment. At last both, my father and my mother, enjoyed more than 10 years of happines. Finally, both of them were able to enjoy their first grandson. Now my father enjoys two more grandsons from heaven. He played his cards, and he won the match.

Now my mother is in her 70s and, believe it or not, she is able to live alone (two streets down my house, of course). Some months ago I asked her about my father’s illnes. She said that she always knew that he was very ill and that she would had to cope with his early death. He has lived until 68. Although everyday she wish he would still be with her, she says that she is satisfied to have spent her life with him up until 68.

Some years ago I worked with a woman at her mid 60s. She had to retire due to her heart illness. She was severily ill since she was a child. She married and wished a baby. She got pregnant against all medical opinion. She got her baby when she was 26. Now her “baby” is fortysomething. I remember that it was a sharp contrast to watch her always tired face and see the sparks on her eyes when she spoke of her daughter! When I switched to another work I lost contact with her.

That’s the history of my father’s heart with a little addenda (addition). I know that you weren’t asking for all that I have told you, but in such circumstances more questions will arise. Sometimes there is no better practical advice that hear of somenone’s way of coping with similar problems.

Now you can decide what you should do. You must be wise, but you must not let fear reign over your heart and your life. Since Christ gave His blood for all of us, what should we have fear of?

Remember: Deus providebit! (God will provide).

Forgive me the extension of my reply.

LAUS DEO VIRGINIQUE MATRI.
(Glory be to God and to the Virgin mother).
 
Marriage is a marriage; with love or without; some people marry to avoid being alone. Their is no sin in that.
I would like to see where the Bible says you MUST marry for love and kids.
My nephew is very close friends with a woman with a bad heart defect (transplant is not an option). Although she is fairly well at present, the doctors are agreed that her lifespan will be much shorter than normal. They also are agreed that her heart could not possibly survive a pregnancy. My nephew wants children but he is content with the idea of adoption and so is she. Although he is keeping an emotional distance for now, he thinks that he could easily love her and consider marriage. In this case,could NFP be used indefinitely?
 
Very interesting story, serrlorca. And what a wonderful example you had for a father.🙂
 
When I hear somebody, just chattin’, criticising someone else, I can’t help but wonder if I wouldn’t be a million times worse than the worst human being, far worse than the poor criticised person, if just my father would have been another kind of person.

We both fought against my mother illness. We were a father and his son. We were two men standing together strugglin’ for just one reason: to live a normal family life.

I’ve the inmense luck of having my father’s role model burnt within my soul.
 
And hey, your nephew is actually going to be acting in an extremely Christian manner by taking in and caring for another human being who is less well off. AND he isn’t going to be responsible for overpopulation too!

I personally have alot of respect for people who adopt,
(with the exception of celebrities who seem to use adoption as a means of attaining another fashion item, sunglasses: check, expensive shoes: check, adopted baby: check)

Your nephew is morally fine IMO!
 
The “indefinite” part is only as long as she’s fertile… eventually she’ll reach menopause… 😉
 
In this case,could NFP be used indefinitely?
Are you suggesting that NFP can’t be used indefinitely in any situation??? Since when were there limits placed on NFP? Were such limits dogmatically declared? What if a couple outright doesn’t want to have any children? What Apostolic or early Church Fathers teaching would say that they must??? The whole be fruitful and multiply thing was a commandment given to Adam and Eve, not the rest of us. Otherwise, Jesus Christ would be guilty of not following that commandment, as would St. Paul, and the vast majority of priests and bishops. Yes, contraception and intentional sterilization are sinful in that they are operating apart from that which God has designed; but since when does the statement, “The Catholic Church approves of NFP” suddenly get an asterisk placed next to it??? NFP in no way violates the way God has naturally designed us. We are neither adding to or taking from God’s design for our bodies by opracticing NFP. Since when were there limits placed upon it? Please cite sources.(Don’t even think of citing Scripture, because you’d have to really twist Scripture around in order for the Church to back this one up.)
 
Are you suggesting that NFP can’t be used indefinitely in any situation???
Um… hello… she’s asking. Which means she doesn’t know. That’s the point of her post.
Since when were there limits placed on NFP? Were such limits dogmatically declared? What if a couple outright doesn’t want to have any children?
Yes, the Church does place limits on the use of NFP. NFP cannot be used for just any reason. It can only be used for a just reason that conforms to objective moral criteria. And, if you look further in the same section of the Catechism you will find that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring.

Simply “not wanting” children does NOT conform to the objective moral criteria set out by the Church.
The whole be fruitful and multiply thing was a commandment given to Adam and Eve, not the rest of us. Otherwise, Jesus Christ would be guilty of not following that commandment, as would St. Paul, and the vast majority of priests and bishops.
The commandment is within the context of marriage, so it is applicable to the vocation of marriage. It is not applicable to the vocation of Holy Orders.
“The Catholic Church approves of NFP” suddenly get an asterisk placed next to it??? NFP in no way violates the way God has naturally designed us. We are neither adding to or taking from God’s design for our bodies by opracticing NFP. Since when were there limits placed upon it?
Read Humanae Vitae and the Catechism-- both specify that use of recourse to the infertile time does require a just reason.
Please cite sources.(Don’t even think of citing Scripture, because you’d have to really twist Scripture around in order for the Church to back this one up.)
Whoa… is there some hostility flaming off this page or what?

Your ugly attitude is not called for – AT ALL.
 
Just because she shouldn’t get pregnant now, does not mean there won’t be medical advances in the future to change the diagnosis. —KCT
 
Observing the Natural Law.
  1. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.’’ It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
Union and Procreation
  1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

Faithfulness to God’s Design
  1. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one’s partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that*** an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.***
ChangingHeart, as you asked, here is a source that it is not part of the Bible:

Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, points 11-13:
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Since it seems that the system shortens the address of the encyclical, here I quote it splitting it in two lines in case someone wanted to type it by hand:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/
“documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html”

Point 14 is even more interesting but I had to leave it off due to size limits posed to the reply mechanism.
 
Unlawful Birth Control Methods
  1. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it —in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, ***it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive ***and so intrinsically wrong.

Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, point 14.
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Since it seems that the system shortens the address of the encyclical, here I quote it splitting it in two lines in case someone wanted to type it by hand:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/
“documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html”
 
Um… hello… she’s asking. Which means she doesn’t know. That’s the point of her post.

Yes, the Church does place limits on the use of NFP. NFP cannot be used for just any reason. It can only be used for a just reason that conforms to objective moral criteria. And, if you look further in the same section of the Catechism you will find that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring.

Simply “not wanting” children does NOT conform to the objective moral criteria set out by the Church.

The commandment is within the context of marriage, so it is applicable to the vocation of marriage. It is not applicable to the vocation of Holy Orders.

Read Humanae Vitae and the Catechism-- both specify that use of recourse to the infertile time does require a just reason.

Whoa… is there some hostility flaming off this page or what?

Your ugly attitude is not called for – AT ALL.
If the OP is also under the false impression that my opening statement was meant critically towards her, please realize that it wasn’t. I was not outraged at the messenger, just the message, so I apologize to the OP if my response came across that way.

As for 1ke, please cite an official infallible source that says that “Be fruitful and multiply” was meant towards ALL married people.

I happen to know that the Church believes that the conjugal act is unitive, not merely procreative.

When the concept of NFP was initially presented to me, no one mentioned any asterisks next to it, as if it was only licit in SOME situations.

Were these limits on NFP dogmatically declared??? If so, as a devout Catholic, I am forced to accept them and accept the reality that marriage is not what I dreamed it could be. This would truly depress me, but I want to know the truth, and will accept it, because I accept the authority of the Church (which incidentally is the ONLY reason that I believe that contraception in marriage is wrong.)

There still may yet be hope… Is it licit to specifically seek out a wife who has been medically declared infertile??? I realize that taking acts to make someone infertile is intrinsically disordered, but is there anything wrong with seeking “infertile” in a future wife, alongside such traits as say, “doesn’t smoke?”

As for 1ke, I forgive you for your unCatholic attitude and comments. After all, that’s what we are called to do.(forgive others, as we have been forgiven, that is.)
 
As for 1ke, I forgive you for your unCatholic attitude and comments. After all, that’s what we are called to do.(forgive others, as we have been forgiven, that is.)
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but you need to chill out there, Pridey Priderson. Preemptive forgiveness is a way to elicit zero repsonses from people, and comes off as exteremly arrogant.

Take it easy and people will provide any info you want.
 
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but you need to chill out there, Pridey Priderson. Preemptive forgiveness is a way to elicit zero repsonses from people, and comes off as exteremly arrogant.

Take it easy and people will provide any info you want.
I forgive you for your uncharitable comments, too.
 
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
  • Conjugal fidelity
2364 The married couple forms “the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent.” Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.
Code:
St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.
  • The fecundity of marriage
2366 ***Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. ***A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. “Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility.”

ChangingHeart, as you asked, here is another source that it is not part of the Bible:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, points 2363-2367:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/
“archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm”
 
2363 **** The fecundity of marriage

So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."***

Thank you for this, serrlorca. The old cliche, “This world has nothing to offer,” never felt more real to me before than it does now. If children are the price of marital sex, then marriage doesn’t even seem worth it.

Just to give everyone some background on me, I teach special education, and after interacting with some of those children, and knowing what their parents have to go through, I am terrified at the notion of ever having any children of my own. I know that the Bible tells us that God will never give us more than we can handle, but the Bible also tells us not to put God to the test.

Still, though, what is the licitiness of seeking an infertile woman to marry. Is that acceptable by the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top