Must a married couple attempt to have children?

[Advocatus_Fidei]

This logic would also apply to those who are infertile, yet the Catholic Church allows those suffering from sterility to marry and then have sex.

No it wouldn’t because the infertile can still want to have children and be marrying to create children. They are still marrying with the right intentions.

A couple marrying who do not want to have children however are not marrying for the right intentions.

And on top of that plenty of couples classed as infertile at the time of marriage do successfully have children at some point.

 

[ac_claire]

No it wouldn’t because the infertile can still want to have children and be marrying to create children. They are still marrying with the right intentions.

A couple marrying who do not want to have children however are not marrying for the right intentions.

Yeah I think this is what it comes down to. The hypothetical couple who carry CF and want to use NFP to avoid forever do not want to have natural children. Even though it’s definitely more understandable than other situations/couples I can think of, that fact still remains.

 

[BillP]

What’s posted here is the Church’s position

Nonsense. Whats posted here is your interpretation of the Church’s position. And it certainly seems to be a poorly catechized interpretation as well.

Nothing in any encyclical demands that at some point a couple attempt to have children, if they have grave or serious reasons for not having them.

In fact, Pius XII specifically allowed for indefinite use of NFP under certain circumstances

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.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

As did Paul VI in Humanae Vitae

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Nor does the Church prevent infertile (whether from age or some inherent physical defect) couples from being married.

Puhleeez!

 

[Just_Lurking]

Yeah I think this is what it comes down to. The hypothetical couple who carry CF and want to use NFP to avoid forever do not want to have natural children. Even though it’s definitely more understandable than other situations/couples I can think of, that fact still remains.

I disagree. The couple who carry CF might desperately want to have children, and should medical science come up with a cure for CF tomorrow, they would love to have dozens. We don’t know the future, only God does. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a prudent or moral choice to use NFP given the current state of CF medical treatment, and it’s not a reason that the couple should avoid marrying each other if they are in love.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Nonsense. Whats posted here is your interpretation of the Church’s position. And it certainly seems to be a poorly catechized interpretation as well.

Nothing in any encyclical demands that at some point a couple attempt to have children, if they have grave or serious reasons for not having them.

In fact, Pius XII specifically allowed for indefinite use of NFP under certain circumstances

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

As did Paul VI in Humanae Vitae

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Nor does the Church prevent infertile (whether from age or some inherent physical defect) couples from being married.

Puhleeez!

It is you who speak nonsense, you pick parts of the teaching and ignore the rest, the Church teaches clearly over its entire history that the purpose of marriage is children, the teaching concerning NFP does not contradict that, however what you say does and is false. The very sacrament itself demands that a couple marry with the desire to have children or the sacrament is INVALID which is why such marriages can later be annulled, that is declared to have never actually taken place.

Nor did anyone say that the Church prevents infertile couples from marrying, the reason she does not was explained previously.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

I disagree. The couple who carry CF might desperately want to have children, and should medical science come up with a cure for CF tomorrow, they would love to have dozens. We don’t know the future, only God does. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a prudent or moral choice to use NFP given the current state of CF medical treatment, and it’s not a reason that the couple should avoid marrying each other if they are in love.

You don’t need to marry to love each other. What you are calling prudent, moral choices is nothing of the sort it is self imposed selective breeding, in a word eugenics, and it is not compatible with the Christian understanding of the need to surrender to Gods Divine will, the purposes of the sacrament of marriage or the sanctity of life which includes the life’s of children born with CF.

 

[BillP]

It is you who speak nonsense,

Yet my “learned” friend from the UK provides no cites, only, once again, an opinion. One that is at odds with, well, everyone except himself.

No one ever “needs” to marry anyone. It is not your place to unilaterally attempt to impose your “prudential” judgement on anyone else. The Vatican did not delegate the task of determining who may and may not marry to you. Nor were you charged with determining whether those seeking marriage were doing so for the “right” reasons.

I don’t know how or why you formed your opinions but they are at odds with Catholic teaching. You are mis-informed.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Yet my “learned” friend from the UK provides no cites, only, once again, an opinion. One that is at odds with, well, everyone except himself.

No one ever “needs” to marry anyone. It is not your place to unilaterally attempt to impose your “prudential” judgement on anyone else. The Vatican did not delegate the task of determining who may and may not marry to you. Nor were you charged with determining whether those seeking marriage were doing so for the “right” reasons.

I don’t know how or why you formed your opinions but they are at odds with Catholic teaching. You are mis-informed.

How about the fact that entering into a marriage with no desire for children causes the marriage to be invalid and is grounds for annulment, that such a marriage never even actually takes place?

Anyone who is married should be aware of the above as it is made clear to the couple by any decent priest during their preparation for marriage.

What you believe is not compatible with the sacrament of marriage nor with the Catholic Faith you speak of things which you do not understand.

 

[PJM]

=StJudePray4Me;6744536]I believe people with CF are often infertile, but carriers of the disease are not. To have a child with CF, the child must inherit the genes from both parents.

***My understanding is that this is a valid marriage? [1083 #3] I beleieve both parties ahve to b aware of it and approve of it?

**CHAPTER II : DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS IN GENERAL ***

**Can. 1073 **A diriment impediment renders a person incapable of validly contracting a marriage.

**Can. 1077 §1 **The local Ordinary can in a specific case forbid a marriage of his own subjects, wherever they are residing, or of any person actually present in his territory; he can do this only for a time, for a grave reason and while that reason persists

Can. 1078 §1 The local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects wherever they are residing, and all who are actually present in his territory, from all impediments of ecclesiastical law, except for those whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See.

Can. 1083 §3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.**

 

[Rach620]

It’s not that they would have to try to have a child but they would have to be open to life. Planning from the get-go to use strict NFP to avoid for the duration of your marriage isn’t really being open to life, is it? That’s when we’re talking about a normal couple.

At the risk of contradicting my earlier post, I think we need to be careful about how we talk about NFP and being “open to life”. NFP, by default, IS ALWAYS “open to life,” whether it is being used to avoid or achieve pregnancy. So the question really is, is a couple obligated to use NFP to try to achieve pregnancy at some point in their marriage? Although I said in my earlier post that I think couples are “obligated” to “attempt” to have children at some point in their marriage, I’m not sure we want to say that they are “obligated” to use NFP to achieve pregnancy at some point in their marriage. So then are we saying that couples must just not use birth control of any kind at some point in their marriage…? I don’t know. I was trying not to be absolute in my earlier post because everyone’s situation is unique.

I guess this goes to the heart of a debate I have seen here often – can NFP be used to avoid pregnancy altogether? A lot of people say “no”-- but others seem to say yes, that using NFP is always open to life because there is not ABC in the equation and is OK as long as you have a really good reason. (And it should be a reason you have discussed with your priest, who can help you determine if your reason is good!)

I think that there is a different answer to the question of whether NFP can be used to avoid pregnancy altogether for people of different circumstances. If a married couple finds out after the wedding that one of them suffers from severe psychological issues that would make them ill-suited to be parents, they could be justified in avoiding pregnancy for the rest of their marriage, using NFP. But if this same couple knew this before the wedding, than I would say in that situation that they should rethink whether marriage is really their vocation, as you simply cannot enter into the sacrament of matrimony planning to NEVER have children (that’s my understanding of canon law, anyway).

Tricky question and interesting responses!

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Nonsense. Whats posted here is your interpretation of the Church’s position. And it certainly seems to be a poorly catechized interpretation as well.

Nothing in any encyclical demands that at some point a couple attempt to have children, if they have grave or serious reasons for not having them.

In fact, Pius XII specifically allowed for indefinite use of NFP under certain circumstances

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

As did Paul VI in Humanae Vitae

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Nor does the Church prevent infertile (whether from age or some inherent physical defect) couples from being married.

Puhleeez!

Thank you, Bill P. I went to the links and read the sections in full (as well as some of the other sections) , and I understand them as you do.

Any other recommendations for reading?

 

[ac_claire]

Nonsense. Whats posted here is your interpretation of the Church’s position. And it certainly seems to be a poorly catechized interpretation as well.

Nothing in any encyclical demands that at some point a couple attempt to have children, if they have grave or serious reasons for not having them.

In fact, Pius XII specifically allowed for indefinite use of NFP under certain circumstances

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

As did Paul VI in Humanae Vitae

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Nor does the Church prevent infertile (whether from age or some inherent physical defect) couples from being married.

Puhleeez!

No, sorry but it is Church teaching. You are saying that it’s nonsense and “puhleeze” and whatnot but you don’t actually say where it’s wrong. You link to entire documents which we’ve already referenced, not actual citations that tell us that a couple can enter into a valid marriage not ever intending to have children. Could you point out to me where it says that?

Not talking about the certain unique, special circumstance thing, because as we’ve established all throughout this thread, nobody is contradicting that. I’m not sure what exactly has been posted here that you are in such disagreement with?

Every single church document about marriage will say that marriage and children go hand in hand. And that, exceptional circumstances aside, a marriage entered into where one or both parties intends from the start to not have children isn’t a valid marriage, as it’s in direct contradition to the marriage vows.

 

[ac_claire]

Thank you, Bill P. I went to the links and read the sections in full (as well as some of the other sections) , and I understand them as you do.

Any other recommendations for reading?

He’s just linked to the same papal documents that were referenced earlier. None of them tell us that a couple can enter into a valid marriage not ever intending to have children.

Nobody has denied that the Church offers different guidelines/options for extremely rare, special health circumstances. But the actual, standard teaching on marriage is that a marriage entered into where one or both parties intends from the start to not have children isn’t a valid marriage, as it’s in direct contradition to the marriage vows. So…I’m not sure at all where the big disagreement is here.

 

[BillP]

The “big disagreement” comes when you misrepresent the teaching of the Church, either through ignorance or to advance your own agenda.

As to your assertion that couples must “intend” to have children at the time of their marriage to constitute a valid marriage, that is simply wrong. There are any number of infertile couples, either through physical defect or simply age, who know full well they will never have children, yet they are free to marry in the Church.

Second, your assertion that

the Church teaches clearly over its entire history that the purpose of marriage is children,

Is simply incorrect. The purpose of marriage is BOTH the good of the spouses AND the procreation of children. note which one comes first. That is why those who are sterile or beyond childbearing years are permitted to marry.

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”[84]

christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/matri.html

Heck, according to Canon Law even those who are about the die may marry and you can’t possibly assert that they intend to have children!!

Canon 1079.1 When danger of death threatens, the local Ordinary can dispense his own subjects, wherever they are residing, and all who are actually present in his territory, both from the form to be observed in the celebration of marriage, and from each and every impediment of ecclesiastical law, whether public or occult, with the exception of the impediment arising from the sacred order of priesthood.

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

Finally your assertion that the wedding vows require an intention to have children is also incorrect. The presider at the wedding does ask the couple whether they will accept children that God chooses to send them:

     (*Name*) and (*Name*), have you come here freely and without reservation to          give yourselves to each other in marriage? 
               
              Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your          lives?

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

But there is nothing whatever about children in the vows themselves:

     *Groom: *
                      I, (*Name*), take you, (*Name*), for my lawful wife, to          have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for          richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
                       
                      *Bride:*
                      I, (*Name*), take you, (*Name*), for my lawful husband, to          have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for          richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

catholicweddinghelp.com/topics/text-rite-of-marriage-mass.htm

So a valid marriage simply requires acceptance of any children God chooses to bestow upon the couple, not an active seeking out of them on the part of the couple. If a couple choose, for grave and serious reasons, (see the cites from two Pope’s in previous posts) not have children they are free to marry validly, provided they remain open to God’s plan for life, which the Church teaches they can do by practicing NFP.

QED

For you to assert otherwise is simply incorrect.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

The “big disagreement” comes when you misrepresent the teaching of the Church, either through ignorance or to advance your own agenda.

Bill I just got married last year, before the priest would agree to marry me he asked me if I intended to have children if I didn’t he wouldn’t have married me. If I had got married without wanting children it would have made a mockery of the prayers said over me and wife that we have a fruitful marriage and God grant us many children on our wedding day.

I am neither ignorant of what the sacrament of marriage entails nor do I have agenda, what possible agenda could I possibly have? It is of no benefit to me one way or another whether people have children or not.

As to your assertion that couples must “intend” to have children at the time of their marriage to constitute a valid marriage, that is simply wrong. There are any number of infertile couples, either through physical defect or simply age, who know full well they will never have children, yet they are free to marry in the Church.

Couples must desire children even infertile couples, anyone familiar with the process of annulments can confirm to you that this lack of desire for children invalidates a marriage.

Second, your assertion that
Is simply incorrect. The purpose of marriage is BOTH the good of the spouses AND the procreation of children. note which one comes first. That is why those who are sterile or beyond childbearing years are permitted to marry.

Firstly Bill the teaching of Church has always been that the primary purpose of marriage is the begetting and education of children, however which comes first is really irrelevant to the discussion as if a couple does not desire children ever then they are planning a marriage that will not fulfil one of its purposes, surely you can understand that?

Do you understand what a dispensation is Bill? For you need a dispensation is to need to be given permission to not have to follow the law, you are dispensed from obeying the law, for you to need a dispensation their must be a law which you can be dispensed from, possible dispensations do not confirm your point they confirm that there are laws in existence against what you are arguing is the norm.

 

[BillP]

Bill I just got married last year, before the priest would agree to marry me he asked me if I intended to have children if I didn’t he wouldn’t have married me.

Then he would have been wrong as well. Doesn’t surprise me.

If I had got married without wanting children it would have made a mockery of the prayers said over me and wife that we have a fruitful marriage and God grant us many children on our wedding day.

Good for you (and I mean that) I hope God blesses you with many children. But that doesn’t mean that everyone has the same vocation. Nor does the Church insist that all those who marry share that vocation. She just requires that married couples accept the children that come.

Couples must desire children even infertile couples, anyone familiar with the process of annulments can confirm to you that this lack of desire for children invalidates a marriage.

This is simply wrong. I challenge you to find me one single document of the magisterium that requires couple to “desire” children.

Firstly Bill the teaching of Church has always been that the primary purpose of marriage is the begetting and education of children,

It doesn’t teach that now, as I have amply demonstrated by references to both the current catechism and no less than two separate Papal documents. You on the other hand, have provided no cites or evidence whatever. Repetitive assertion without evidence isn’t argument. Even if the Church taught that in the past, she doesn’t teach that now.

Do you understand what a dispensation is Bill? For you need a dispensation is to need to be given permission to not have to follow the law, you are dispensed from obeying the law, for you to need a dispensation their must be a law which you can be dispensed from, possible dispensations do not confirm your point they confirm that there are laws in existence against what you are arguing is the norm.

This is completely and totally irrelevant because** no dispensations are required for elderly, sterile or others who can’t have children to marry**. There are many issues that do require dispensation, “disparity of cult”, one party being in sacred orders or having taken a vow of chastity, but sterility isn’t one of them. In fact, Canon law specifically says that:

Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

…so no dispensation is required.

Again. QED.

 

[sheilathebard]

I’ve got to agree with BillP here … I was going to quote those same documents myself. What makes the avoidance of conception moral or immoral has nothing to do with whether or not you intend to have children “someday.” It’s whether you use the right means (NFP or abstinence) for the right reason (a sufficiently serious one).

A bit more from the Pius XII quote, kind of long but I think it’s necessary:

Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

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. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

In other words, as long as the RIGHT to the marital act is exchanged – meaning they are consenting to it without making an exception for times when a child could be conceived – the couple may AGREE not to exercise that right. However, since the right is exchanged, both of the spouses must be in agreement in order for them to use NFP.

However, in my opinion you’d need a pretty darn serious reason to use NFP for the whole marriage though. The CF example works fine for me … especially considering that the couple probably wouldn’t even know they were both carriers until after they were married. But I think that it would also be okay for a couple to get married even if, for example, the woman has a serious pre-existing condition meaning having a child would endanger her life. Adoption would be a good choice for a couple in that situation.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

OK Bill priests are wrong and you know better than priests fine I understand you a lot better now, you also know better than the canon lawyers who declare marriage invalid and grant annulments because of refusal to have children ,clearly if you are more clued up than priests and canon lawyers I have no chance to compete as you clearly have a far greater intellect than me, in fact greater than anyone I have ever met.

 

[dans0622]

A few somewhat random thoughts.

It is perhaps a subtle distinction but there is no requirement for a couple to “desire” children. If that were so, how would anyone be able to determine if they desired enough or not enough?

What is required of a couple is that they not make a positive act of the will to exclude children and/or refuse to hand over and accept the right to acts which are, in themselves, apt for the generation of offspring.

Procreation is what marriage is ordered toward but it is not a necessary element of marriage. What is necessary is procreativity.

In answer to the topic of the thread, yes, a couple must attempt to have children in that they must engage in natural relations.

This is the perspective of a particular canon lawyer. Moral theologians might have something else to say.

Dan

 

[ac_claire]

The “big disagreement” comes when you misrepresent the teaching of the Church, either through ignorance or to advance your own agenda.

As to your assertion that couples must “intend” to have children at the time of their marriage to constitute a valid marriage, that is simply wrong. There are any number of infertile couples, either through physical defect or simply age, who know full well they will never have children, yet they are free to marry in the Church.

Yet they must be open to life. Going in to the marriage with the intention to never have children would be a direct contradiciton to the marriage vows. An infertile couple couple can marry and enjoy sex, but they still have to remain open to life; ie: can’t get sterilized, or use ABC as a back-up, etc. Many previously infertile couples, including one couple very close to me, ended up having children spontaneously after years of unexplained infertility.

Finally your assertion that the wedding vows require an intention to have children is also incorrect. The presider at the wedding does ask the couple whether they will accept children that God chooses to send them:

(Name) and (Name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?

Nothing whatsoever about children in the vows themselves…? Except for the part of the vows which you just quoted that deals with children?

Second, your assertion that “the Church teaches clearly over its entire history that the purpose of marriage is children” Is simply incorrect. The purpose of marriage is BOTH the good of the spouses AND the procreation of children. note which one comes first. That is why those who are sterile or beyond childbearing years are permitted to marry.

Sorry…again, you’re wrong in saying I was incorrect. The **primary **purpose of marriage is the generation and nurturing of offspring. I didn’t come up with that. Look over all the legitimate Catholic resources that you can find that deal with what marriage is. Marriage is ordered to the creation of children. The secondary purpose of marriage is for mutual help/bonding of the spouses and the third is to remedy concupiscence (or promiscuity). The “good of the spouses” only “comes first” as you say because that’s how you typed it! LOL

They are all purposes for marriage, in that you are correct. You only err when you say that procreation is not the primary purpose among them. Look at Casti Connubii again, then your CCC (1652) and CCC (2367). Here’s an article from CA that cites more resources if you need them.

Basically, you can emphasize the other purposes and goals of marriage all you want, but they don’t outweigh the first. All together, they are all the purpose of marriage.

Again, I honestly don’t quite understand what you so vehemently disagree with that I’ve posted so far.