Morality of Family Planning

[Timothy_486]

I guess my hangup comes from hearing people say that God is in total control of your life. They say God has an absolute plan for your life that you must follow or you’re sinning by turning your back on His plan. At the same time, I’m getting that His plan does not follow our desires. While focusing on our selfish pleasures is going too far, like you said, doesn’t God just want us to be happy? Do our instincts and desires count for nothing in God’s plan?

Example hypothetical situation: I have this, uh, friend who is engaged. He and his fiancee are very happy together, compliment each other and are really a great match. However, they are absolutely mortified at becoming parents. They have no parental instincts and are extremely awkward and anxious around any children. We’ve all heard the old adage, “they’re different when they’re your own”, but if they aren’t? What if they have the child like the Church tells them they must try, but it just doesn’t kick in and they remain cold and distant with their own child? I’m not talking about mere ambivalence or apathy towards children but a true uneasiness and anxiety when around any child. Could this possibly be God telling them that children aren’t for them, or is the only way God tells people they shouldn’t have children through infertility? Should they not get married, despite the wonderful, loving relationship that already exists? Do they have to ignore their instincts because the Church tells them that you are not morally allowed to avoid children in marriage?

What if they know, deep within their souls, discerned through prayer and mediation, that children are just not for them. Must they try to have children, and risk becoming a miserable wretch, or must they deny their love for each other and forgo marriage?

I’m not looking for a practical solution, and should this be a real scenario, obviously they should consult a priest. I’m just interested in your opinion and reaction.

While I’m sure most married couples do and will have children, obviously child raising is not for everyone, and in this case perhaps a child is not best for these two, and even without a child yes they still have an obligation to marry each other should they feel the need to and have the love to do so. Of course by doing so perhaps some years from the day they marry they will feel a change of heart and perhaps no longer feel alien to the concept of having kids. So as I mentioned earlier, just because they feel no desire for children at the moment they marry, doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind later, therefore either way they should marry.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I guess my hangup comes from hearing people say that God is in total control of your life… I’m getting that His plan does not follow our desires. While focusing on our selfish pleasures is going too far, like you said, doesn’t God just want us to be happy? Do our instincts and desires count for nothing in God’s plan?

“Totally” in control is different from being “ultimately” in control. God gives us much control over the choices in our lives, but sometimes life brings us to our knees, proving to us that we aren’t the ones running the show. At those tought times, people often turn to back to God and seek His help, but He offers His help all along and we don’t have to wait to ask Him what we should do.

Our instincts and desires count for a great deal in God’s plans as He placed those desires in our hearts to help us find Him and the joy that only He can bring. But those desires and instincts may be corrupted by our fallen nature, and we must elevate them back to a higher level He intended. We must examine our desires and use them for the glory of God. But we must almost constantly fight our tendency to sin, because sin corrupts those desires which God made good.

God created marriage good, but when people refuse to follow His general plans for it, they ultimately fail to find the happiness they seek. They may temporarily feel happy, but it doesn’t last, and deeper joy eludes them. For example: God intended marriage to last a lifetime. Some study a while back looked at couples who were on the brink of divorce; those who stayed in their “bad marriage” scored a higher “happiness” level a few years later compared to those who divorced.

…However, they are absolutely mortified at becoming parents. …I’m not talking about mere ambivalence or apathy towards children but a true uneasiness and anxiety when around any child. …What if they know, deep within their souls, discerned through prayer and mediation, that children are just not for them…

Jesus often spoke the words, “Be not afraid.” I think that’s the best advice for this couple. You began writing that “they are absolutely mortified at becoming parents”, and then said they concluded that through discernment they decided children aren’t for them. Fear is not the driving force of prayerful discernment. Setting aside their fears, where do they think God calls them and what do they want to do?

Also, do they dislike *all *people or simply young, highly dependent people? Exodus tells us the ancient Egyptians killed the Israelite boy babies; the ancient Egyptians knew what we often forget: babies and children grow up. Maybe this couple might have a very tough time parenting the first decade or so, but they also might be very good parents when their children become teens and young adults. The children that they fear today may bring them great comfort in their old age.

I think this couple really should study more about the nature of love, sex and marriage before they make any life-long decision. I assume they wish to marry because they think the other person will make them happy, but a bad marriage is a source of great unhappiness. If they agree to a childless marriage, that agreement will likely be a source of unhappiness for them at some point in the future. I’d recommend they read a book called Covenant Happiness, which offers some great insight into how to achieve happiness by following God’s plan for marriage.

 

[eponymic]

God created marriage good, but when people refuse to follow His general plans for it, they ultimately fail to find the happiness they seek. They may temporarily feel happy, but it doesn’t last, and deeper joy eludes them. For example: God intended marriage to last a lifetime. Some study a while back looked at couples who were on the brink of divorce; those who stayed in their “bad marriage” scored a higher “happiness” level a few years later compared to those who divorced.

Jesus often spoke the words, “Be not afraid.” I think that’s the best advice for this couple. You began writing that “they are absolutely mortified at becoming parents”, and then said they concluded that through discernment they decided children aren’t for them. Fear is not the driving force of prayerful discernment. Setting aside their fears, where do they think God calls them and what do they want to do?

Also, do they dislike *all *people or simply young, highly dependent people? Exodus tells us the ancient Egyptians killed the Israelite boy babies; the ancient Egyptians knew what we often forget: babies and children grow up. Maybe this couple might have a very tough time parenting the first decade or so, but they also might be very good parents when their children become teens and young adults. The children that they fear today may bring them great comfort in their old age.

I think this couple really should study more about the nature of love, sex and marriage before they make any life-long decision. I assume they wish to marry because they think the other person will make them happy, but a bad marriage is a source of great unhappiness. If they agree to a childless marriage, that agreement will likely be a source of unhappiness for them at some point in the future. I’d recommend they read a book called Covenant Happiness, which offers some great insight into how to achieve happiness by following God’s plan for marriage.

Not to attack, but you didn’t answer the question. Do you think they should get married? They aren’t “afraid” of children like it’s a fear of clowns or a fear of dogs. They just understand that they, as a couple, just do not have what it takes to be responsible for another human life. You can argue that they should ask God for help because it’s not supposed to be about them alone. However I’m sure you could come across many couples who do not have the emotional requirements to foster or adopt special needs children, but does that mean everybody should just ask God for help and do it anyway? Some people are given the gift to handle such a situation, others are not. It would be unfair to the couple, and especially the child, if you forced people into those kind of situations.

As for your thought that they’d get their joy later in life, that seems rather cruel to the child. If you put a child in a situation where its parents are having a hard time providing basic parenting needs during its formative years, it won’t grow up to be a normal adult. Maybe they have a hard time during the first decade or so? That’s almost the entire childhood when it needs actual parents. If you knew that the parents would be emotionally ill-prepared to be parents, would you really wish that upon a child?

The message I’m getting from what some of the things you saying is that there is only one way to achieve happiness in marriage, and that is to follow God’s plan for marriage, and that means that intentionally childless marriages are unhappy marriages in all cases. I would claim that this couple would be very happy without children, and very unhappy if one was foisted upon them. The existence of children in a family is not related to the level of happiness the couple experiences. However, if the couple knows they’d be happier without a child, do you think that they should get married?

 

[Timothy_486]

However, if the couple knows they’d be happier without a child, do you think that they should get married?

I think they should, yes, and as I have said in other posts, over time they may change their mind and have children after all

 

[eponymic]

I think they should, yes, and as I have said in other posts, over time they may change their mind and have children after all

I would tend to agree with that, although I’m not quite sure that official Catholic teaching would agree with that. Would the Church really agree with a couple whose plans for children were “yeah, maybe we’ll think it about it in a while, but maybe not”?

If the Church is really against that line of thought, then it really shouldn’t matter how many children the couple already has, which was the basis for my original question 5 pages ago. It seems like the focus has drifted a bit, but still an interesting discussion.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Not to attack, but you didn’t answer the question. Do you think they should get married? They aren’t “afraid” of children like it’s a fear of clowns or a fear of dogs. They just understand that they, as a couple, just do not have what it takes to be responsible for another human life.

Not to attack, but this was my answer.

…I think this couple really should study more about the nature of love, sex and marriage before they make any life-long decision…

Marriage is “for life” in both senses of the word. These hypothetical people do not demonstrate the emotional maturity to make a permanent, life long commitment to anyone yet. You further demonstrated by now adding they “don’t have what it takes to be responsible for another human life.” Marriage requires a responsibility for another human life because inherent in marriage is the mutual responsibility for the other. Maybe one day they will be ready for sex and marriage, but they really need to learn about the nature of sex and marriage before they participate in either.

The message I’m getting from what some of the things you saying is that there is only one way to achieve happiness in marriage, and that is to follow God’s plan for marriage…

Good, you understood me.

…. that means that intentionally childless marriages are unhappy marriages in all cases. I would claim that this couple would be very happy without children, and very unhappy if one was foisted upon them. The existence of children in a family is not related to the level of happiness the couple experiences. However, if the couple knows they’d be happier without a child, do you think that they should get married?

That means that in some cases intentionally childless marriages may not even be marriages. (The redefinition of the word “marriage” that our culture fights today did not begin with homosexual unions.) I would say these people might find physical pleasure in their sexual union for quite a while, but if they really don’t want children “foisted” upon them, they should not engage in sexual activity. Bottom line: you described two immature and selfish people, and unless they grow less selfish, they will likely not find long term happiness anywhere.

 

[Timothy_486]

you described two immature and selfish people, and unless they grow less selfish, they will likely not find long term happiness anywhere.

How are they selfish, so long as they stay true to each other in marriage? 2 people deciding to live together and devoted to each other for the rest of their lives is hardly selfish (if you were to use the negative meaning of that word)

 

[apricot_yogurt]

Selfish because they are excluding God from their marriage. They are also excluding their own children.

 

[eponymic]

Not to attack, but this was my answer.

I apologize for being snippy.

Marriage is “for life” in both senses of the word. These hypothetical people do not demonstrate the emotional maturity to make a permanent, life long commitment to anyone yet. You further demonstrated by now adding they “don’t have what it takes to be responsible for another human life.” Marriage requires a responsibility for another human life because inherent in marriage is the mutual responsibility for the other. Maybe one day they will be ready for sex and marriage, but they really need to learn about the nature of sex and marriage before they participate in either.

I guess I should have worded that differently. I’m not exactly sure how. I may have to think about that some more.

Good, you understood me.

That means that in some cases intentionally childless marriages may not even be marriages. (The redefinition of the word “marriage” that our culture fights today did not begin with homosexual unions.) I would say these people might find physical pleasure in their sexual union for quite a while, but if they really don’t want children “foisted” upon them, they should not engage in sexual activity. Bottom line: you described two immature and selfish people, and unless they grow less selfish, they will likely not find long term happiness anywhere.

I’m getting the feeling, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that marriage = intent of children. Obviously, not all marriages have children (as in the case of infertility, or the octogenarians), but one cannot enter marriage without the intent of having children. The problem I have with this is what logically falls out of such a statement:

-If marriage without intent of children is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how many children you already have. Deciding that “our family is big enough”, for whatever grave/just/viable reason, alters your marriage to intend not to have any more children.

A previous post in this thread posited that it’s the intent at the beginning of the marriage that matters, which I find to be very erroneous. A marriage is the rest of your lives, and must hold true for it’s entirety. The rules can’t change after your wedding day.

-If God decides that a couple shouldn’t have children, then He does so through infertility or other grave medical issue. I’ve seen nobody mention any other viable reasons for remaining childless that doesn’t get qualified as “selfish and immature”. For a couple to “discern” to stop having children, it must come with a doctor’s note since God only tells you this through such medical signs. Just reasons can be used to temporarily delay children, but cannot be used permanently. Therefore, if you’re both still fertile and healthy, it is immoral not to attempt to have one more child.

-If a couple knows beforehand that it would take a miracle not seen since biblical times for them to conceive, then are they really intending on having children? If I know my fiancee is infertile, then I’m not intending on having children with her. If God miraculously heals her and she gets pregnant, it wasn’t because we were intending on having children.

The Church acknowledges this since they state that couples must only be “open to life”, not “intending on having children”. There is a vast difference that is most obvious in the infertile and elderly examples, however it must apply to everybody equally. Saying otherwise is moral relativism.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I’m getting the feeling, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that marriage = intent of children. Obviously, not all marriages have children (as in the case of infertility, or the octogenarians), but one cannot enter marriage without the intent of having children.
…The Church acknowledges this since they state that couples must only be “open to life”, not “intending on having children”. There is a vast difference that is most obvious in the infertile and elderly examples, however it must apply to everybody equally. Saying otherwise is moral relativism.

Oh the Cathoic Church certainly has not an ounce of moral relativism on her teaching here. It’s not marriage=intent of children. It’s more like marriage=man + woman in lifelong relationship that agree to accept the children lovingly from God that result from their sexual union, which reflects in a small way the relationship Christ has with His bride, the Church. Big difference.

The Church does not place having children as a requirement to marriage. She even teaches against IVF and reproductive technologies that separate the creation of children from the sexual union of husband and wife. The sexual act and the creation of children should not be separated from way God designed it. The Church does not list the specific reasons a couple may justly limit their family size, but leaves it up to their prayerful discernment and sets the requirement that the sexual act must not be intentionally made infertile. Some couples avoid the sexual act during the womans fertile time because of medical conditions that makes pregnancy difficult; other avoid it then to better afford Catholic education for their existing children. God looks at our hearts, not at our doctors’ notes. Outwardly, the number of children doesn’t always tell the real story of what’s in their hearts, but the Church does state that a large family is traditionally viewed as a sign of generosity towards God.

There are some extremely rare situations when two mature, very generous people prayerfully discern that they should live together in a celibate marriage so they can devote themselves selflessly to the larger community. The term for that is a “Josephite marriage”, named in honor of the marital relationship St. Joseph had with the Blessed Mother, Mary. But in the hypothetical example you gave, even though you said the couple prayed about it, you made other statements that led me to believe the decision to not have children was based on fear, dislike of children and immaturity rather than a true prayerful discernment.

 

[Timothy_486]

Selfish because they are excluding God from their marriage. They are also excluding their own children.

How are they excluding God? And you can’t “exclude” what you do not have (or what doesn’t even exist)

The Church does not place having children as a requirement to marriage. She even teaches against IVF and reproductive technologies that separate the creation of children from the sexual union of husband and wife. The sexual act and the creation of children should not be separated from way God designed it. The Church does not list the specific reasons a couple may justly limit their family size, but leaves it up to their prayerful discernment and sets the requirement that the sexual act must not be intentionally made infertile. Some couples avoid the sexual act during the womans fertile time because of medical conditions that makes pregnancy difficult; other avoid it then to better afford Catholic education for their existing children. God looks at our hearts, not at our doctors’ notes. Outwardly, the number of children doesn’t always tell the real story of what’s in their hearts, but the Church does state that a large family is traditionally viewed as a sign of generosity towards God.

Good points

 

[LittleDeb]

I am too sick to post much right now, but I don’t have to anyway because gardenswithkids you are so right on the mark! Thumbs up!! In our years together on this board I have yet to find something that I disagree with you, especially on this topic.

eponymic, your answer lies in Church teaching. I hope you and gardens are able to continue this very charitable and fruitful thread.

Kudos to everyone participating. The charity and deep discussion here is exemplary!

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I guess my hangup comes from hearing people say that God is in total control of your life.

I’d get hungup on that statement too. It is not true. What is true is that God only has the control we yield to Him.

They say God has an absolute plan for your life that you must follow or you’re sinning by turning your back on His plan. At the same time, I’m getting that His plan does not follow our desires. While focusing on our selfish pleasures is going too far, like you said, doesn’t God just want us to be happy? Do our instincts and desires count for nothing in God’s plan?

If you assume that God wants us happy in this life, you err. God wants us happy with Him in heaven. He wants us to conform to his will in this life. That will ULTIMATELY make us happy, but not while we are fighting with our fallen selves.

Example hypothetical situation: I have this, uh, friend who is engaged. He and his fiancee are very happy together, compliment each other and are really a great match. However, they are absolutely mortified at becoming parents. They have no parental instincts and are extremely awkward and anxious around any children. We’ve all heard the old adage, “they’re different when they’re your own”, but if they aren’t? What if they have the child like the Church tells them they must try, but it just doesn’t kick in and they remain cold and distant with their own child? I’m not talking about mere ambivalence or apathy towards children but a true uneasiness and anxiety when around any child. Could this possibly be God telling them that children aren’t for them, or is the only way God tells people they shouldn’t have children through infertility? Should they not get married, despite the wonderful, loving relationship that already exists? Do they have to ignore their instincts because the Church tells them that you are not morally allowed to avoid children in marriage?

What in the world are they trying to accomplish? God did not ordain marraige for just sexual relations, but this is what they would be attempting to make it, if they were to marry. If they have no interest in being parents, they are either selfish, or are not being called to become parents. They can have every other part of their “wonderful, loving relationship”, licitly, except for the sex. They can live as brother and sister, vow to each other that they will be there always for each other, just as Christ is for us. It appears all they want from the marriage is ‘license’ to engage in sterile sex. That is not the purpose of marriage.

What if they know, deep within their souls, discerned through prayer and mediation, that children are just not for them. Must they try to have children, and risk becoming a miserable wretch, or must they deny their love for each other and forgo marriage?

They don’t have to deny their love, just the marriage. Sex intentionally without children is abuse of the spouse. Read Pope John Paul II.

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

While I’m sure most married couples do and will have children, obviously child raising is not for everyone, and in this case perhaps a child is not best for these two, and even without a child yes they still have an obligation to marry each other should they feel the need to and have the love to do so. Of course by doing so perhaps some years from the day they marry they will feel a change of heart and perhaps no longer feel alien to the concept of having kids. So as I mentioned earlier, just because they feel no desire for children at the moment they marry, doesn’t mean they won’t change their mind later, therefore either way they should marry.

What happens to the children of this couple? If they marry, and have no desire for children, but do what naturally creates children, what then? Do the children suffer? Do they have the parents they deserve, parents that will love them unconditionally, give their very lives up for their protection? This is what parents are called to do. Not even artificial birth control is 100% effective. Is this couple playing Russian roulette with their sexuality, with the children getting the shaft? How can this be for the glory of God. It appears it is only for their disordered sexual desires. Or do you recommend that they sterilize themselves? I am sure you will show me the way, but it appears you focus on the couples interests and not where it should be, on the children.

Dan

 

[Timothy_486]

What in the world are they trying to accomplish? God did not ordain marraige for just sexual relations

True, but sexual relations are part of the package, whether you like it or not

they are either selfish

There we go again with that “selfish” word. Why not stop resorting to using name calling and at least give an argument without that word. After all, do you believe in having lower taxes? Well then I guess that makes you “selfish” since you want more money for yourself. Do you work? Well stop being “selfish” and realize that your taking a work position that someone else can have. Do you eat? Well thats being “selfish” because that food can go to someone else plus your doing nothing but sustaining your own self by eating. Do you seek salvation? Well then your being “selfish” because all your doing is seeking your own survival, your own eternal happiness… have I made my point?

They can have every other part of their “wonderful, loving relationship”, licitly, except for the sex. They can live as brother and sister, vow to each other that they will be there always for each other

Sounds like a great relationship… if the two of you are castrated sheep!

Sex intentionally without children is abuse of the spouse.

No it is not, just recently me and you even agreed on this. If what your saying is true, then NFP would be forbidden 100% of the time, no exceptions (plus it would mean people who are biologically not able to have children would be forbidden to marry). Many couples are called to children, some are not.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I’m getting the feeling, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that marriage = intent of children. Obviously, not all marriages have children (as in the case of infertility, or the octogenarians), but one cannot enter marriage without the intent of having children. The problem I have with this is what logically falls out of such a statement:

-If marriage without intent of children is wrong, then it doesn’t matter how many children you already have. Deciding that “our family is big enough”, for whatever grave/just/viable reason, alters your marriage to intend not to have any more children.

In the case of existing children, if their welfare is at risk with the addition of an additional child at the present time, the Church teaches that the act of spacing children using NFP is OK. The primary responsibility that parents have is to their exising children, not to their future children. This is a different situation as intending to have and raise no children.

A previous post in this thread posited that it’s the intent at the beginning of the marriage that matters, which I find to be very erroneous. A marriage is the rest of your lives, and must hold true for it’s entirety. The rules can’t change after your wedding day.

Au contrair. It is what exists at the time of marriage that matters." What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." If the marriage was valid, it does not matter what happens to intent later. You can try to 'change your mind", but that does not change the fact you are really married. Likewise if the marriage was not valid on the day it was attempted, it by definition, never existed.

-If God decides that a couple shouldn’t have children, then He does so through infertility or other grave medical issue. I’ve seen nobody mention any other viable reasons for remaining childless that doesn’t get qualified as “selfish and immature”. For a couple to “discern” to stop having children, it must come with a doctor’s note since God only tells you this through such medical signs. Just reasons can be used to temporarily delay children, but cannot be used permanently. Therefore, if you’re both still fertile and healthy, it is immoral not to attempt to have one more child.

Not quite correct. It is irresponsible to 'have one more child" if the existing children will materially suffer.

-If a couple knows beforehand that it would take a miracle not seen since biblical times for them to conceive, then are they really intending on having children? If I know my fiancee is infertile, then I’m not intending on having children with her. If God miraculously heals her and she gets pregnant, it wasn’t because we were intending on having children.

Why would it no be because they were praying for children?

The Church acknowledges this since they state that couples must only be “open to life”, not “intending on having children”. There is a vast difference that is most obvious in the infertile and elderly examples, however it must apply to everybody equally. Saying otherwise is moral relativism.

You ignore the very first teaching of the Church on God’s plan for marriage. Marriage is ordered towards the procreation of children. How can a couple entering a marriage accept that purpose and work intently on not fulfilling it?

Dan

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

True, but sexual relations are part of the package, whether you like it or not

It is interesting that you would think that I don’t think so. All I said was that it was not JUST about the sex. How can that mean that it is NOT about the sex.

There we go again with that “selfish” word. Why not stop resorting to using name calling and at least give an argument without that word. After all, do you believe in having lower taxes? Well then I guess that makes you “selfish” since you want more money for yourself. Do you work? Well stop being “selfish” and realize that your taking a work position that someone else can have. Do you eat? Well thats being “selfish” because that food can go to someone else plus your doing nothing but sustaining your own self by eating. Do you seek salvation? Well then your being “selfish” because all your doing is seeking your own survival, your own eternal happiness… have I made my point?/

To accept all the natural results of the actions you specify above is unselfish. What is the natural purpose of sex? Rejecting the children (do you know the sacrifices they demand?), but participating in the pleasure would seem to be a good enough definition of selfish.

Sounds like a great relationship… if the two of you are castrated sheep!

Yes, you make the point. A couple has natural desires for the activity that naturally leads to children. It is unnatural any other way. Possible, but unnatural.

No it is not, just recently me and you even agreed on this. If what your saying is true, then NFP would be forbidden 100% of the time, no exceptions (plus it would mean people who are biologically not able to have children would be forbidden to marry). Many couples are called to children, some are not.

Couples who licitly use NFP to space their children are not intending their sex to exclude all children. I will agree with a modification, I am sorry for the confusion.

Engaging in sexual relations with the intent of no children is abuse of the spouse.

Dan

 

[Timothy_486]

Rejecting the children (do you know the sacrifices they demand?), but participating in the pleasure would seem to be a good enough definition of selfish.

But if that is true then using NFP at any time for any reason would be what you claim right above, so yet again you seem to be saying NFP is forbidden. (BTW eating snacks is not a part of sustainment but is for pleasurable purposes, do you oppose that as well?)

Couples who licitly use NFP to space their children are not intending their sex to exclude all children. I will agree with a modification, I am sorry for the confusion.

Engaging in sexual relations with the intent of no children is abuse of the spouse.

Yet again you use that phrase and yet again that would mean (if taken literally) that NFP is forbidden in all circumstances and many people would be forbidden to marry based on other circumstances not through their own fault.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Timothy, I’ll work on a reply later, but there is a post in the apologetics forum concerning the question you and others have posed about the validity of a marriage if there is no intent to have children, even in the case of a marriage involving an older person. The apologist refers to a possible impediment to the marriage if the intent is not to have children.

Dan

 

[eponymic]

A few days away from the boards may have helped me understand things better.

(The redefinition of the word “marriage” that our culture fights today did not begin with homosexual unions.)

However, I did want to revisit this statement. Marriage, as our society takes it, has changed drastically over the years. It is not a static thing by any means. Old Testament marriage was a business transaction. In Exodus, the punishment for a man seducing a virgin was to either marry the woman as if she were a virgin, or pay the woman’s father the dowry he would have received as if she were a virgin bride (Exodus 22:15-16). The woman is a commodity, owned by men to be bought and sold. This slowly evolved into arranged marriages, dealing between the fathers for political or business reasons and the bride and groom had little say in the matter. The aristocracy in Europe for the last thousand years or so have basically been inbred through such arrangements. During the Renaissance, the concept of marrying for love came into existence. Previously, people learned to love their spouses, they didn’t marry their loves. The old ways didn’t die, however. Up until extremely recently, if a man wanted to marry a woman, he still had to ask her father for permission. It is only within the last 50 years or so that the bride is allowed to have complete and final say in who she chooses to marry. Even in the Church, the concept of marriage has changed over the last few generations. The Church does not state that marriage means children anymore, but it used to. The definition changed slightly to allow for infertile and elderly couples, who could not have children, to have legal marriages. I’m absolutely not advocating that the Church needs to recognize homosexual marriages, but I am saying that the concept of marriage does indeed change. Most people who want to protect marriage from being redefined don’t want to turn the clock back to Exodus, but where do you want the clock to have stopped?

Oh the Cathoic Church certainly has not an ounce of moral relativism on her teaching here. It’s not marriage=intent of children. It’s more like marriage=man + woman in lifelong relationship that agree to accept the children lovingly from God that result from their sexual union, which reflects in a small way the relationship Christ has with His bride, the Church. Big difference.

The Church does not place having children as a requirement to marriage. She even teaches against IVF and reproductive technologies that separate the creation of children from the sexual union of husband and wife. The sexual act and the creation of children should not be separated from way God designed it. The Church does not list the specific reasons a couple may justly limit their family size, but leaves it up to their prayerful discernment and sets the requirement that the sexual act must not be intentionally made infertile. Some couples avoid the sexual act during the womans fertile time because of medical conditions that makes pregnancy difficult; other avoid it then to better afford Catholic education for their existing children. God looks at our hearts, not at our doctors’ notes. Outwardly, the number of children doesn’t always tell the real story of what’s in their hearts, but the Church does state that a large family is traditionally viewed as a sign of generosity towards God.

Love takes on many forms. In marriage, the Church teaches that the greatest expression of love between a couple is a child. However, does that mean that the infertile couple does not love each other to the same extent that a couple with children do? Absolutely not, it just means that the infertile couple has different expressions of their love that are all equally valid and just as meaningful between the couple. The love between a married couple and God can only be measured by those involved, and may or may not be evident in any outward signs that other people can measure. A large family may be a sign of generosity, but is a couple with a single child less generous than a couple with twenty? You cannot say based on that information alone. There is no earthly measuring stick for love, especially of love towards God.