Must a married couple attempt to have children?

[ac_claire]

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.

Thank you, this is a good way of describing it I think.

 

[LilyM]

BillP, I think a problem lies in this part of the wedding ceremony:

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

If a couple go into a marriage actively planning to spend their whole married lives avoiding having children, even though it is entirely possible for them to have them, it casts doubt on the extent to which they actually DO ‘accept children lovingly from God’.

A marriage where one or both parties are sterile is different. Abraham and Sarah had such a marriage, yet they both lovingly accepted Isaac when he came, even though these days a couple in their 90s would immediately assume they were incapable of raising a child, if by miracle the woman did fall pregnant.

Rather than planning to avoid Isaac ever being conceived, Sarah on the contrary went out of her way to give Abraham a child that was his, if not hers, and took the extraordinary step of offering her maid Hagar as mother. This speaks a very different attitude to children and a greater degree of ‘openness to life’.

Note I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a couple whose children will have serious medical issues necessarily shouldn’t get married, just that I have doubts as to whether a couple who intend to actively avoid having children for the duration of their marriage would indeed be sufficiently ‘open to life’.

 

[larkin31]

I tend to agree with others who have said that because procreation is one of the main purposes of marriage, and because Catholic spouses take a vow to be open to receiving children as blessings from God on their wedding day, …

Which “vow” is this? I married a Catholic in a Catholic church and did not make any such vow.

 

[SMHW]

Which “vow” is this? I married a Catholic in a Catholic church and did not make any such vow.

As part of the rite of marriage the priest asks, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

Each party to the marriage answers, “Yes.”

This is typically omitted if the couple is beyond the age where children are likely.

 

[Rach620]

As part of the rite of marriage the priest asks, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

Each party to the marriage answers, “Yes.”

This is typically omitted if the couple is beyond the age where children are likely.

Yes, this is what I was referring to in my earlier post.

 

[larkin31]

As part of the rite of marriage the priest asks, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

Each party to the marriage answers, “Yes.”

This is typically omitted if the couple is beyond the age where children are likely.

huh

Wasn’t in my wedding…

 

[StJudePray4Me]

huh

Wasn’t in my wedding…

That’s surprising, it has been in every Catholic wedding I have attended.

My position really hinges on what you have to do in order to be considered “accepting” – merely eschew ABC, or actively pursue a pregnancy?

 

[ac_claire]

That’s surprising, it has been in every Catholic wedding I have attended.

My position really hinges on what you have to do in order to be considered “accepting” – merely eschew ABC, or actively pursue a pregnancy?

As I understand it, you have to be open to life…eschewing ABC or NFP without cause. I’ve never read or heard anything suggesting you have to actively be trying to get pregnant at all times. (Such as, using NFP to try to conceive, etc.)

 

[BillP]

1st of all, the place in the wedding where the priest asks if the couple will accept chilkdren is in the “consent” part, not in the vows. The vows are made by the man and the woman to each other and do not include any reference to children.

2nd, the OP asked:

But my question is: If the “serious motives” continue to exist for the entire length of the couple’s marriage (until one of them dies), can they continue to use NFP indefinitely, and thus intentionally try to avoid having children for the duration of their marriage? Must a couple make a legitimate attempt to have kids at some point? Or is simply being open to the possibility of procreation all that is required (provided the serious motives persist)?

The answer to this question is clearly “yes, under certain circumstances”.

As to the rest of the discussion, consider three scenarios:

Scenario A
A couple who desperately want children get married and while they are on their honeymoon the wife falls ill with a viral infection which results in complications damaging her heart to the point where a pregnancy would be very dangerous. The couple, considering the risk to the woman’s life a “grave reason” uses NFP to prevent pregnancy throughout their entire marriage. Is this a valid marriage? Of course it is!

Scenario B
Same couple, same circumstances, but the illness happens three months before the wedding while the bride is on vacation with her parents. Can they get married validly? I submit that they can.

Scenario C
A couple comes to a priest to be married. very pious, committed Catholics who just don’t like children. Although they don’t want kids, and they pray every day that God doesn’t give them any, they are steadfast in their determination to put God in charge of whether they have children refusing to consider ABC (or even NFP) to avoid pregnancy. Can they be validly married? Again, I say yes, as long as they intend to accept whatever children God provides.

 

[ac_claire]

1st of all, the place in the wedding where the priest asks if the couple will accept chilkdren is in the “consent” part, not in the vows. The vows are made by the man and the woman to each other and do not include any reference to children.

That’s kinda splitting hairs, Bill. It’s all part of the marriage vows.

In fact, when my husband and I were being counseled about the ceremony before our wedding, we were told that the “consent” part was the most important part of the vows, and it was the one part that would invalidate the marriage if omitted. Father even said that he had to *read *that part exactly as written…wheras with the rest of the vows, (the other part that you quoted above), there were a couple different options/forms we could choose from.

2nd, the OP asked:

But my question is: If the “serious motives” continue to exist for the entire length of the couple’s marriage (until one of them dies), can they continue to use NFP indefinitely, and thus intentionally try to avoid having children for the duration of their marriage? Must a couple make a legitimate attempt to have kids at some point? Or is simply being open to the possibility of procreation all that is required (provided the serious motives persist)?

The answer to this question is clearly “yes, under certain circumstances”.

…which nobody has denied. Go back and read the posts. You still haven’t explained where I willfully misrepresented what the Church teaches.

As to the rest of the discussion, consider three scenarios:

Scenario A
A couple who desperately want children get married and while they are on their honeymoon the wife falls ill with a viral infection which results in complications damaging her heart to the point where a pregnancy would be very dangerous. The couple, considering the risk to the woman’s life a “grave reason” uses NFP to prevent pregnancy throughout their entire marriage. Is this a valid marriage? Of course it is!

Scenario B
Same couple, same circumstances, but the illness happens three months before the wedding while the bride is on vacation with her parents. Can they get married validly? I submit that they can.

Scenario C
A couple comes to a priest to be married. very pious, committed Catholics who just don’t like children. Although they don’t want kids, and they pray every day that God doesn’t give them any, they are steadfast in their determination to put God in charge of whether they have children refusing to consider ABC (or even NFP) to avoid pregnancy. Can they be validly married? Again, I say yes, as long as they intend to accept whatever children God provides.

From everything I’ve read so far, the prudency and validity of these kinds of situations as regards getting married seems to be handled on a case by case basis, with the priest or bishop counseling the couple on whether they should still get married and if so, what their course of action needs to be. All of this needs to happen because being open to life (ie: accepting children and/or not inhibiting pro-creation) is an essential part of a Christian marriage. Which is right there in the vows.

 

[BillP]

That’s kinda splitting hairs, Bill. It’s all part of the marriage vows.

Its not splitting hairs at all. a “vow” is a sacred promise. I made certain promises to my wife when I married her. Those promises are contained in the “vows” part of the ceremony. The consent part was totally different. For you to conflate the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what vows are and the very structure of the Catholic marriage rite.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

Its not splitting hairs at all. a “vow” is a sacred promise. I made certain promises to my wife when I married her. Those promises are contained in the “vows” part of the ceremony. The consent part was totally different. For you to conflate the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what vows are and the very structure of the Catholic marriage rite.

They are equally necessary for a valid marriage, no consent, no marriage so yes you are splitting hairs.

For you to hold the false opinions you do I assume you yourself have never been through the marriage process any time recently and have no experience of what on earth you are talking about.

 

[dans0622]

Its not splitting hairs at all. a “vow” is a sacred promise. I made certain promises to my wife when I married her. Those promises are contained in the “vows” part of the ceremony. The consent part was totally different. For you to conflate the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what vows are and the very structure of the Catholic marriage rite.

Hello BillP,

I would have to disagree for two reasons. First, unless I missed it, the link you provided earlier (post #33) presented the text of the Rite of Marriage. What you are calling the “‘vows’ part” is under the heading “Consent.”

Second, it is the *marital *consent of the couples that makes a marriage. People have commonly called this or that part of the expression of consent “the vows” but I do not see the importance of a distinction between one part of the Rite and another. What a couple consents to, in marriage, is a permanent, faithful, procreative, mutually assisting, conjugal life. All of that is inherent in the “vows” even if it isn’t explicitly mentioned.

I suspect that the three initial questions are there simply to make it more obvious to everyone that marriage is ordered to procreation, needs to be entered freely, and is a permanent, faithful, conjugal relationship.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[ac_claire]

Its not splitting hairs at all. a “vow” is a sacred promise. I made certain promises to my wife when I married her. Those promises are contained in the “vows” part of the ceremony. The consent part was totally different. For you to conflate the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what vows are and the very structure of the Catholic marriage rite.

Thanks for yet another groundless insult about my understanding of what the Church teaches. You haven’t yet proven the first one like I asked you to. The Consent is all part of the vows. And the marriage is invalid without it. You won’t find a source in the world to back up that the Consent is seperate from and/or less important than the vows.

 

[WilmaORTEGA]

What happens if two people like in their 60’s get married, they can’t have a child/children at that age obviously, should they not get married because they can’t have a child/children?

 

[LilyM]

What happens if two people like in their 60’s get married, they can’t have a child/children at that age obviously, should they not get married because they can’t have a child/children?

Of course they can get married. God gave Sarah a child well after her childbearing years were supposedly over - so clearly to HIM no-one is too old to have children, nor (it follows) to be married.

What IS a problem is when a couple are perfectly capable (physically) of having children, but go into the marriage planning to use means such as ABC or NFP to actively avoid having them - ever, for the entire duration of the marriage.

God’s first command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. If HE decides to deprive a couple of the gift of children for reasons that are none of their doing, that’s His decision. If the couple, on the other hand, decide permanently to reject that gift it’s another situation entirely, and they could possibly be sinning even if using methods other than artificial birth control to avoid it.

It’s a bit like the difference between me refusing to give any money to charity because I am dirt poor myself and have literally no money to give, and me refusing to give any money to charity because, although wealthy and well able, I am selfish and would rather spend the money on luxuries for myself. The first person is blameless, the second is very much to blame!

 

[larkin31]

Of course they can get married. God gave Sarah a child well after her childbearing years were supposedly over - so clearly to HIM no-one is too old to have children, nor (it follows) to be married.

What IS a problem is when a couple are perfectly capable (physically) of having children, but go into the marriage planning to use means such as ABC or NFP to actively avoid having them - ever, for the entire duration of the marriage.

God’s first command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply. If HE decides to deprive a couple of the gift of children for reasons that are none of their doing, that’s His decision. If the couple, on the other hand, decide permanently to reject that gift it’s another situation entirely, and they could possibly be sinning even if using methods other than artificial birth control to avoid it.

It’s a bit like the difference between me refusing to give any money to charity because I am dirt poor myself and have literally no money to give, and me refusing to give any money to charity because, although wealthy and well able, I am selfish and would rather spend the money on luxuries for myself. The first person is blameless, the second is very much to blame!

Do you believe that God has a hand in or some control over whether sperm successfully penetrate the ova of humans?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

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.

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.

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?

Okay, now I’m confused. My wife doesn’t like children, and never has. I don’t like children, and never have. Are you saying that we’re not actually married now?

 

[ac_claire]

Okay, now I’m confused. My wife doesn’t like children, and never has. I don’t like children, and never have. Are you saying that we’re not actually married now?

In the Catholic Church, a married couple must be open to having children as God sends them. The validity of the marriage is called into question if one or both of the parties (in direct contradiction to their marriage vows) enters into the marriage with the intention of not being open to life.

I notice your profile says you aren’t Catholic? In addition to reading the rest of this thread, here’s some articles from the CA website that might help you understand what the Church believes about marriage:

The Purpose of Marriage.

What’s Wrong with Contraception, Anyway?

Birth Control

 

[larkin31]

In the Catholic Church, a married couple must be open to having children as God sends them. The validity of the marriage is called into question if one or both of the parties (in direct contradiction to their marriage vows) enters into the marriage with the intention of not being open to life.

I notice your profile says you aren’t Catholic? In addition to reading the rest of this thread, here’s some articles from the CA website that might help you understand what the Church believes about marriage:

The Purpose of Marriage.

Honestly, some of this from this list is common sense. And some is just plainly a neurotic need for control. Humans of all cultures and religions erect elaborate control systems over the joining of men and women, and elaborate prescriptions against the joining of men with men and women with women. It is truly fascinating, and sometimes dismaying when the prescriptions are in the extreme.