NFP, & brides "of a certain age"

[mistfall]

I understand that an infertile woman may validly marry and be considered “open to life”. I also understand that a couple may use NFP if a pregnancy would be a serious risk to the mother’s health.

What if a woman is of such an age when she marries that there is a small chance she could be fertile, but her age would automatically make her a high-risk pregnancy - to ensure the validity of her marriage, is she obliged to enter it with the intention to NOT use NFP, since she knows that any postponement of pregnancy is the equivalent of ensuring she will never become pregnant?

I’m asking this in all sincerity, not as a “stumper” question, since I may find myself in that situation some day.

 

[AdriannaJean]

No, if it is dangerous for a woman to become pregnant then it is never a sin to use NFP.

 

[StCsDavid]

NFP is simply a prudent use of the gift of fertility God has given humanity. There does come a time when it physically imprudent to pursue having children. Also one can be open to life without ever physically having children. For example, adoption is certainly another way of opening oneself to life.

So if it would not be prudent for a woman of your age (sorry, not meaning to make you sound old) to have kids, but you’re at the tail end of fertility, NFP is an excellent option to employ.

 

[ML561]

Grace and Peace to you all. I am contemplating marriage but am going through menopause which means that bearing children is extremely unlikely. I have been told that the only purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. Does this mean that I should not marry, as I will probably not have children? Does the Catholic Church sanction marriage between two Catholics who are otherwise free to marry, if no children will result?
What about people who marry and are young enough to have children, but for whatever reason are unable to? Does this render their marriage invalid?

 

[Seatuck]

Grace and Peace to you all. I am contemplating marriage but am going through menopause which means that bearing children is extremely unlikely. I have been told that the only purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. Does this mean that I should not marry, as I will probably not have children? Does the Catholic Church sanction marriage between two Catholics who are otherwise free to marry, if no children will result?
What about people who marry and are young enough to have children, but for whatever reason are unable to? Does this render their marriage invalid?

The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring. This is important but it is not the only end.Whoever told you that was mistaken. If you are unable to fulfull this end through no fault of your own that is ok. There are the secondary ends of marriage which you will be able to fulfill- the mutual help and support of the spouses and also the remedy of concupiscence. Therefore the church does not see infertility as an impediment to marriage. Canon law reflects this teaching.

To the OP(Mistfal)-

A couple is called to be open to life if God should ask that of you . This means you do not contracept but may use NFP if you along with your spouse prayerfully discern that it is not a good time to have a child. It means you as a couple and through prayer carefully analyze the resources that you have and discern if you are able have a child. These resources are a variety of things and may include medical help if there is risk involved. Having a risky pregnancy does not automatically mean that pregnancy should not be undertaken. Only prayer and discussion can discern that . These days women well into their forties are able to have healthy pregnancies with proper medical care. This was not the case 20 +years ago. There is also trust in God’s grace to carry us through a difficult situation if that is what the couple discerns.

 

[1ke]

What if a woman is of such an age when she marries that there is a small chance she could be fertile, but her age would automatically make her a high-risk pregnancy - to ensure the validity of her marriage, is she obliged to enter it with the intention to NOT use NFP, since she knows that any postponement of pregnancy is the equivalent of ensuring she will never become pregnant?

She is obligated to enter marriage open to children. She is not obligated to actively attempt to get pregnant.

Regarding licit use of recourse to the infertile time-- the Church teaching is that one must have a just reason in conformity with objective moral criteria.

I would suggest that the idea that a person is “automatically” a high risk pregnancy just because of a particular age misrepresents “high risk” and is certainly something to consider but also something to research and discuss with one’s doctor. Merely being a certain age isn’t “high risk” except to lawsuit-averse doctors who have classified everyone that way to protect their own butts.

If an individual is healthy and physically fit, they should talk with their doctor about their own situation as *part *of their discernment process. They should also include prayer, discussion with their spouse, and possibly consultation with their spiritual advisor.

 

[1ke]

Grace and Peace to you all. I am contemplating marriage but am going through menopause which means that bearing children is extremely unlikely. I have been told that the only purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. Does this mean that I should not marry, as I will probably not have children? Does the Catholic Church sanction marriage between two Catholics who are otherwise free to marry, if no children will result?
What about people who marry and are young enough to have children, but for whatever reason are unable to? Does this render their marriage invalid?

The Church does not teach that the ONLY purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. The Church teaches that the *primary *end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. There is a distinct difference.

The Church has NO prohibition on those who are near menopause or even beyond it entering into marriage. Such a marriage would be a valid marriage.

And, no, infertility is not an impediment to marriage.

 

[St_Francis]

I understand that an infertile woman may validly marry and be considered “open to life”. I also understand that a couple may use NFP if a pregnancy would be a serious risk to the mother’s health.

What if a woman is of such an age when she marries that there is a small chance she could be fertile, but her age would automatically make her a high-risk pregnancy - to ensure the validity of her marriage, is she obliged to enter it with the intention to NOT use NFP, since she knows that any postponement of pregnancy is the equivalent of ensuring she will never become pregnant?

I’m asking this in all sincerity, not as a “stumper” question, since I may find myself in that situation some day.

One problem is that high-risk pregnancy does not necessarily mean that the risk is to the mother.

There are certain problems associated with having children at a later age; however, you should discuss which problems are more likely, and how much more likely they are, and the options with a *high-risk pregnancy *doctor. *Do not rely on a regular ob/gyn, not even a pro-life one; they simply do not have the specialized training that a HRP doctor does.

The other problem is that they tend to say things which make the potential of having a problem worse. I found this out when reading an unrelated statistic of the risk for something doubling under certain circumstances. But they didn’t mention that the original risk was only 2%–instead, they made it sound like a certain class of people would almost certainly be affected. So try to find out the *real *statistics rather than the ones some group out there wants you to see.

Here’s a link to an article. Some of the statistics are good, their entry on still born babies is not–they give no numbers at all.*

 

[bilop]

The Church does not teach that the ONLY purpose of marriage is to bear and raise children. The Church teaches that the *primary *end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. There is a distinct difference.

The Church has NO prohibition on those who are near menopause or even beyond it entering into marriage. Such a marriage would be a valid marriage.

And, no, infertility is not an impediment to marriage.

Actually, I don’t think either of the ends of marriage is primary. The Catechism states:

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

Good of the spouses (especially salvation) and childbearaing are presented as equal goods, at least by my reading.

One could even argue that the salvation of the spouses is more important, since it is more important to achieve salvation than it is to have children. That’s why as a Catholic, you would never use IVF, since obeying God’s commandments trumps having children.

God Bless

 

[Seatuck]

Actually, I don’t think either of the ends of marriage is primary. The Catechism states:

Good of the spouses (especially salvation) and childbearaing are presented as equal goods, at least by my reading.

One could even argue that the salvation of the spouses is more important, since it is more important to achieve salvation than it is to have children. That’s why as a Catholic, you would never use IVF, since obeying God’s commandments trumps having children.

God Bless

This is a relatively new concept. The previous Code of Canon Law specifically designated the traditional hierarchy of the ends.
Canon 1013 of the 1917 stated that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children and the secondary is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence.

books.google.com/books?id=X5rcnhLnRYMC&lpg=PA1238&ots=ExnaopIIXB&dq=canon%20law%20%20ends%20of%20marriage&pg=PA1238

I have heard several speakers say that the hierarchy of the ends remains but they consider that the second ends come in at a close second so they don’t find it useful to expand upon it.

 

[1ke]

Actually, I don’t think either of the ends of marriage is primary. The Catechism states:

I suggest reading all of the section in Gaudium Et Spes dealing with marriage. That is the document from which the quote you posted comes from. I suggest starting at paragraph 47 of Chapter 1 in Part 2.

The context of the entire section does not support the conclusion you have drawn from that one statement.

Certainly there is more than one end to marriage, and those are valid and meaningful ends, but the Church teaches the *primary *end is procreation and education of children. It is from that epicenter that the other goods flow.

 

[bilop]

I suggest reading all of the section in Gaudium Et Spes dealing with marriage. That is the document from which the quote you posted comes from. I suggest starting at paragraph 47 of Chapter 1 in Part 2.

The context of the entire section does not support the conclusion you have drawn from that one statement.

Certainly there is more than one end to marriage, and those are valid and meaningful ends, but the Church teaches the *primary *end is procreation and education of children. It is from that epicenter that the other goods flow.

I heard/read that analysis too, but it makes little sense to me.

I guess it makes no practical difference, but it seems to me the spiritual good of the spouses always comes first, i.e. their salvation. Nothing can ever take priority over salvation.

Maybe the distinction is that the primary end of marriage **as an institution **is the bearing and raising of children, as opposed to everyone being celibate. So, in general, children is the primary end, but, in any particular marriage, the salvation of the spouses is a higher priority.

God Bless