Openness to life when children aren't possible?

[DarkLight]

I’m curious, especially from you ladies - what would openness to life look like if you knew you couldn’t have children? Say in a situation where a woman had a prior hysterectomy and then gets married. How would you go about being open to life in a marriage knowing that biologically you couldn’t conceive?

 

[pensmama87]

Well, obviously there isn’t a requirement that married couples have children, but if a woman was infertile and knew it, adoption may be an option, or foster care. My husband and I have discussed doing this when our children are older…but maybe that’s not what you mean.

I read Colleen Carroll Campbell’s My Sisters the Saints this year and it discussed the idea of “spiritual motherhood” as she dealt with her own infertility - being nurturing, loving, and caring in ways besides bearing and raising children. It was a fascinating read even for me as a mother.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

If one is married, sex should be ordered to life and there are a zillion threads on what this means. I don’t think there is any obligation to consider adoption or foster care but something prayerfully considered. If I were younger and thinking about marrying I would want to discuss adoption with the man I was serious about even if I was somehow guaranteed super-fertile. I just think it’s a good idea to find out how the other person feels adoption, and how someone might react to infertility. Some couples experience secondary infertility.

Now for both married and single, for everyone really, I think our attitude toward children, unmarried parents, etc. are the kind of thing that show our openness to life. How do we talk about a woman who is pregnant and not married? What do children and young adults hear? Is she being judged or condemned? What do those kids get out of those comments? Do they mainly hear that sex outside of marriage is a wrong or do they get message that being pregnant is the sin.

 

[bsroufek]

If I’m not mistaken, a woman who is physically unable to conceive and bear children may not marry in the Church. If it happens after marriage, that’s different.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

If I’m not mistaken, a woman who is physically unable to conceive and bear children may not marry in the Church. If it happens after marriage, that’s different.

This is incorrect. Fertility is not an impediment to marrying in the Church.

EDIT: I should have said “sterility” is not an impediment to marrying in the Church. Here is the relevant Canon:

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

 

[maryjk]

I’m curious, especially from you ladies - what would openness to life look like if you knew you couldn’t have children? Say in a situation where a woman had a prior hysterectomy and then gets married. How would you go about being open to life in a marriage knowing that biologically you couldn’t conceive?

If one is married, sex should be ordered to life and there are a zillion threads on what this means. I don’t think there is any obligation to consider adoption or foster care but something prayerfully considered. If I were younger and thinking about marrying I would want to discuss adoption with the man I was serious about even if I was somehow guaranteed super-fertile. I just think it’s a good idea to find out how the other person feels adoption, and how someone might react to infertility. Some couples experience secondary infertility.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Somehow, somewhere, “ordered toward life” has morphed into “open to life.” I don’t know when it happened, but I wish it would go back.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Somehow, somewhere, “ordered toward life” has morphed into “open to life.” I don’t know when it happened, but I wish it would go back.

Yes. I don’t even know what “open to life” should mean. I think I went on to describe being pro-life, sort of. It’s another misapplied, misused phrase that needs to be retired along with “contraceptive mentality.”

 

[maryjk]

Yes. I don’t even know what “open to life” should mean. I think I went on to describe being pro-life, sort of. It’s another misapplied, misused phrase that needs to be retired along with "contraceptive mentality."

Yes. And that is another phrase I hate. “Contraceptive mentality.”

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Yes. And that is another phrase I hate. “Contraceptive mentality.”

I feel like I’m on a personal crusade against that one.

I have a friend who is married and can’t conceive. She and her husband have decided, after a lot of prayer, to not do anything about it and just let nature do its thing. If she miraculously gets pregnant - wonderful! If not - they will accept that and live without children. They have decided not to adopt or foster because of their circumstances. She has told me that because she is childless she feels like a mother hen to young single people at her parish, and does what she can to make them feel welcome, especially if they are students living far away from home. She is also quite keen to help mothers with young children.

 

[1ke]

I’m curious, especially from you ladies - what would openness to life look like if you knew you couldn’t have children? Say in a situation where a woman had a prior hysterectomy and then gets married. How would you go about being open to life in a marriage knowing that biologically you couldn’t conceive?

What the Church means regarding chastity and proper use of our sexual faculties is that each marital act is properly ordered to procreation-- a completed act of vaginal intercourse.

People toss around the phrase “open to life” but within Church teaching this has a specific meaning in the conjugal act, not a broad meaning.

Couples who are infertile can express generosity (as the Catechism puts it) towards others through adoption or through service:

2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.

 

[thewanderer]

People toss around the phrase “open to life” but within Church teaching this has a specific meaning in the conjugal act, not a broad meaning.

Actually, “open to life” doesn’t exist within Church teaching at all. Its a phrase started by individual Catholics which has spread widely and leads to enormous confusion about what the Church actually teaches because it is such a misleading phrase. I agree with the above posters that it needs to be retired completely. It would be a huge help to explaining Catholicism if people just quit using this phrase altogether.

 

[1ke]

Actually, “open to life” doesn’t exist within Church teaching at all. Its a phrase started by individual Catholics which has spread widely and leads to enormous confusion about what the Church actually teaches because it is such a misleading phrase. I agree with the above posters that it needs to be retired completely. It would be a huge help to explaining Catholicism if people just quit using this phrase altogether.

Well, yeah, it does: 2366 … every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life…

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Well, yeah, it does: 2366 … every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life…

I have encountered this phrase of being open to life in the Catholic blogs and it means desiring and having many children. It goes with the phrase ‘contraceptive mentality’, which suggests that if a couple does not desire and have many children they are not really open to life, even if they use NFP.

I don’t think that these two phrases are what the church actually teaches about the matter.

 

[1ke]

I have encountered this phrase of being open to life in the Catholic blogs and it means desiring and having many children. It goes with the phrase ‘contraceptive mentality’, which suggests that if a couple does not desire and have many children they are not really open to life, even if they use NFP.

I don’t think that these two phrases are what the church actually teaches about the matter.

Oh, I agree.

The PP said that the phrase “open to life” or “openness to life” is nowhere in Church teaching. It is, BUT if you look at it in context it says each marital act must be per se open to (ordered to) the transmission of life. Not the same thing at all as simply being “open to life”.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

The PP said that the phrase “open to life” or “openness to life” is nowhere in Church teaching. It is, BUT if you look at it in context it says each marital act must be per se open to (ordered to) the transmission of life. Not the same thing at all as simply being “open to life”.

Right. I missed that part of the discussion. I think that the two meanings got confused somewhere along the line.

 

[thewanderer]

Well, yeah, it does: 2366 … every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life…

Huh, thanks for that, I had missed that in reading through it. So I guess the phrase did come from the Church originally. I still think its a terrible word to use, even when you use it as the Church does because it just causes too much confusion. There are much better ways to explain it, such as ordered towards life, which are less confusing.

 

[1ke]

Huh, thanks for that, I had missed that in reading through it. So I guess the phrase did come from the Church originally. I still think its a terrible word to use, even when you use it as the Church does because it just causes too much confusion. There are much better ways to explain it, such as ordered towards life, which are less confusing.

When you use it as the Chuch uses it, it is clear: each marriage act must be open per se too the transmission of life.

When people say it, they say the couple must be open to life.

 

[angell1]

When you use it as the Chuch uses it, it is clear: each marriage act must be open per se too the transmission of life.

When people say it, they say the couple must be open to life.

lol sorry but i’m even more confused now. order to the transmission of life makes it sound like sterility and infertility aren’t encompassed in that. as far as i’m aware, the only thing that is an impediment to marriage when it comes to biological circumstances if permanent impotence; where the marital act can’t even be performed.

 

[thewanderer]

When you use it as the Chuch uses it, it is clear: each marriage act must be open per se too the transmission of life.

When people say it, they say the couple must be open to life.

Even then, hardly anyone understands what “per se” means. I know it was used in the Catechism once, but there really are better and clearer phrases to use that will not cause nearly as much confusion. I say we will all be better off if we let the phrase die out. Ordered towards life is just as precise and isn’t nearly as easy to misinterpret.

 

[1ke]

lol sorry but i’m even more confused now. order to the transmission of life makes it sound like sterility and infertility aren’t encompassed in that. as far as i’m aware, the only thing that is an impediment to marriage when it comes to biological circumstances if permanent impotence; where the marital act can’t even be performed.

a completed act of vaginal intercourse is ordered to the transmission of life, per se.