Question About Catholicism and Childfreedom

[Tiziana]

Hello Everybody
Browsing the forum, I have started to wonder about the possible position of Catholicism on the matter of Childfreedom.

A Childfree person is, basically, somebody who could have children but doesn’t want them.
This is different from being childless, wich implicate a lack of choice (thouch “Childless by Choice” is also a way to say “Childfree”. But Childfree -or CF- is shorter )

Before the rally of bingoes started, I would kindly remember that CF can indeed be married, but they can also be single.

A though-provoking idea: what if a couple choose to stay CF, but open they home for fostering? Or decide to avoid pregnancy and adopt instead? (as the only way to procreate, I mean).
Would it be considered “being open to children”?

I am mighty curious.

Thank you all very much, Best wishes

Tiziana

 

[anruari]

This is my opinion:

If a person wants to not engage in the procreatave part of life - that was Gods first commandment to us (Go forth and multiply) then they should give very carefull consideration to not seeking marriage. Christian Marriage is by definition the environment which is ordered towards procreation.

In our current world I would question whether the reasons for that desire not to procreate comes from selfish motives. we live i a world which bombards us with messages of the individuals desires being more important than the individuals responsibilities to society. The view of children as being a burden comes from this message and is a very large part of it.

A desire to be “Childfree” might be a symptom of being contaminated with this sin of selfishness.

On the other hand, a desire to be “Childfree” may be part of a call by the Lord to a vocation which would be difficult or impossible with children. traditionally many of these vocations would be part of a vocational call to the Ordained or Religious Life - but that is not mandatory.

 

[Tiziana]

Hello Ms (or MR?) Anuari,

I know that “Go forth and multiply” is a Comandament of God to his people, though I do question the wisdom of it in an age in which we are merrily killing our enviroment through (also) overpopulation.

I was interested in knowing if other forms of “having children” (aside from IVF) are considered “just as good” as childbearing in the wiev of the Catholic Faith

So it would appear that “biological” children are the only good choice, and other choices (like adoption or fostering) are to be pursued only if the aforementioned good choice is, for any reason, unpraticable, am I correct?

It is not a personal question: I am not Catholic. It is a mere curiosity, a whim if you will.

Thank you for your answer.

 

[dans0622]

… A though-provoking idea: what if a couple choose to stay CF, but open they home for fostering? Or decide to avoid pregnancy and adopt instead? (as the only way to procreate, I mean).
Would it be considered “being open to children”? …

Hello,

“Openness to children” is related to the way the couple engage in conjugal relations moreso than the results of those relations (the procreation, or not, of children). If the couple exchange the right to engage in natural, conjugal relations at any and all reasonable times, and accept the consequences ( i.e., no abortion), then they are exhibiting an openness to life. A knowingly infertile couple, then, can certainly marry as long as they exchange this right and do what married people do.

Since marriage is, by its nature, ordered to the good of the spouses and the procreation of children, the spouses are to act in ways that pursue those ends. If they actively intend to impede the ends, they are not acting in accord with the nature of marriage. If a couple wants to adopt/foster, great. But such is never required of any couple.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Hello Ms (or MR?) Anuari,

I know that “Go forth and multiply” is a Comandament of God to his people, though I do question the wisdom of it in an age in which we are merrily killing our enviroment through (also) overpopulation.

I was interested in knowing if other forms of “having children” (aside from IVF) are considered “just as good” as childbearing in the wiev of the Catholic Faith

So it would appear that “biological” children are the only good choice, and other choices (like adoption or fostering) are to be pursued only if the aforementioned good choice is, for any reason, unpraticable, am I correct?

It is not a personal question: I am not Catholic. It is a mere curiosity, a whim if you will.

Thank you for your answer.

I don’t know what this whole “Child Free” thing is about. But, if you come to CAF to understand Catholic Doctrine… then I’d be happy to enlighten you.

First of all, IVF programs are not approved by the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that sex must be both unitive and procreative. In this case, it’s obviously not unitive. IVF and artificial insemination both separate the procreative act from the sexual act, and are therefore immoral. Why? Basically because it’s unnatural.

Secondly, seeing as many countries have very few children, we are not experiencing overpopulation. For instance, look at these population charts from Russia and Bulgaria:




The world needs more children, not less. Many countries have populations which are dying and dwindling off. The U.S. would be awfully close to that if not for immigration

Lastly, the Church has no problem with adoption. In fact, the Catholic Church facilitates many orphanages and adoption services. Which, are in jeopardy because governments don’t want us to have adoption services if we don’t give children to gays. Some have already been closed down in the United Kingdom and Illinois.

P.S.
If a “Child Free” couple is having sex with contraception… then that goes against Catholic Doctrine is well. Sex becomes sinful if it is only for pleasure and is deliberately closed to procreation.

 

[anruari]

Quoted:
I know that “Go forth and multiply” is a Comandament of God to his people, though I do question the wisdom of it in an age in which we are merrily killing our enviroment through (also) overpopulation.

---

I think you will find that most Catholics would maintain that the concept of “Overpopulation” is a Lie. There are a small number of specific areas which have problematic population densities. but the world is capable of sustaining a much greater population than we currently have. A search on this forum will lead you to a lot of material on this topic.

Quoted:
I was interested in knowing if other forms of “having children” (aside from IVF) are considered “just as good” as childbearing in the wiev of the Catholic Faith

So it would appear that “biological” children are the only good choice, and other choices (like adoption or fostering) are to be pursued only if the aforementioned good choice is, for any reason, unpraticable, am I correct?

---

I think you misunderstood me. For most people, within a normal marriage, having children naturally is assumed to be and ought to be one of the goals of that marriage. If it is not something is wrong. Assuming both parties have normal fertility there should be grave reasons for them to practice NFP, and other forms of “family planning” are universally prohibited within catholic marriage.

Choosing to Foster or Adopt, however is not a “second best” from a moral choice. in fact taking the opportunity to give a home to a child in such need would certainly constitute a suitably “Grave Reason” to postpone having children naturally. (provided the Adoption or fostering agencies will go along with this some of them are funny if you are not sterile or chemically contracepting - on the grounds that the fostered or adopted child should not need to compete for attention with a pregnancy / newborn in the period close to the start of the Fostering / adoption. this is a valid concern… they just need to accept that NFP has similar efficasy (sorry spelt wrong) to the Pill.
Fostering and adopting by couples who are not in-fertile is an act which is fully in keeping with the teachings of the Church. It is Laudible, and something which many more people should consider. (there is a serious shortage of Foster and adoptive parents in the country where I live… More people, including more Catholics should volunteer. My wife & I hope to in the future… but right now we’re trying to have naturally conceived children while my wife still has her Health and fertility. Those blessings are time limited. and Childbirth is reliant on them.

Your question was about being “Childfree” … stated as deliberately choosing not to have any children. I assumed you were not discussing the possibility of fostering or adoption therefore didn’t think to include them in my original post.

note: My replies to this are my personal opinion, which is incompletely educated regarding official teachings in this area. I have not had the time to compare these answers to any specific teachings of the Magisterium - however I would be surprised if I deviated in any major ways. If you want a definintive answer on the official teaching I would, as a first port of call, look up the subject in the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church.

or in the specific encyclicals:

Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, and Dignitas Personae
I haven’t had time to do this, so not all of those will be directly relevant.

Quoted:
It is not a personal question: I am not Catholic. It is a mere curiosity, a whim if you will.
It might not be personal to you, but we all know people to whom my answer would be deeply personal - whether they agree with me - or even more so if they don’t. - especially those who subscribe to the concept of world “Overpopulation”

 

[Tiziana]

Hello Zelare,

I understand your point, but talking about the whole World, the popolation is rising drammatically. Not in the same way, true (some countries are decreasing in population and other are increasing). Some, like the US and mine, Italy, are indeed decreasing. However, the global number of people is drammatically high.

I understand the point and thank both Zelare and dans0622 to have help me.

Best wishes

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This “Childfree” label…Catholics who CHOOSE not to have children, not to be open to life with every marital act, are in serious violation of our Church’s teachings, and especially God’s commandments.

The world is not overpopulated. In fact, over 50 million children have been killed in the US alone since 1973 when the Supreme Court made a very wrong decision. God provides for us and the earth is His creation, why would He allow us to overpopulate it?

Purposely NOT having children is NOT freedom! It is demographic DEATH.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Hey Tizania, I’m half Italian myself.
Anyways, you said you’re not Catholic. What is your religion?

If you’ve left the Catholic Church, I’d definitely encourage you to come back! Don’t forsake your Italian heritage! Think of all the people who died for the Catholic Church to still exist today… the early Christians in the catacombs of Rome… don’t just throw that all away.

You obviously have some respect for the Church’s opinion on things, or else you wouldn’tve posted here. So, there must be a part of you that sees that the Church still holds authority on moral issues. If that is the case, then why not look into becoming Catholic?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Hello,

“Openness to children” is related to the way the couple engage in conjugal relations moreso than the results of those relations (the procreation, or not, of children). If the couple exchange the right to engage in natural, conjugal relations at any and all reasonable times, and accept the consequences ( i.e., no abortion), then they are exhibiting an openness to life. A knowingly infertile couple, then, can certainly marry as long as they exchange this right and do what married people do.

Since marriage is, by its nature, ordered to the good of the spouses and the procreation of children, the spouses are to act in ways that pursue those ends. If they actively intend to impede the ends, they are not acting in accord with the nature of marriage. If a couple wants to adopt/foster, great. But such is never required of any couple.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

THIS…

This “Childfree” label…Catholics who CHOOSE not to have children, not to be open to life with every marital act, are in serious violation of our Church’s teachings, and especially God’s commandments.

The world is not overpopulated. In fact, over 50 million children have been killed in the US alone since 1973 when the Supreme Court made a very wrong decision. God provides for us and the earth is His creation, why would He allow us to overpopulate it?

Purposely NOT having children is NOT freedom! It is demographic DEATH.

And THIS…

 

[Calliso]

This “Childfree” label…Catholics who CHOOSE not to have children, not to be open to life with every marital act, are in serious violation of our Church’s teachings, and especially God’s commandments.

The world is not overpopulated. In fact, over 50 million children have been killed in the US alone since 1973 when the Supreme Court made a very wrong decision. God provides for us and the earth is His creation, why would He allow us to overpopulate it?

Purposely NOT having children is NOT freedom! It is demographic DEATH.

Well the OP is not Catholic so she is not disobeying church teachings. I think as for it being freedom or not it depends on the person.I feel free for instance being childess by choice, but someone that wanted children but couldn;t have them would not feel the same know what I mean? As for it being demographic death I would agree if the majority of people were childfree. The truth is only a very small percentage of married couples are childfree. So the problem isn;t childfree couples. I mean me deciding to have a kid or kids really wouldn;t change anything about demographic issues you know? Besides I there is a about a near 100% chance my kid would just end up a detriment to society anyway. Really I think the issue is more in people getting married much later and life and only being able to have one or two kids before fertility is gone. Or people that want kids but only choose to have one or two kids. Really those that want kids need to have more kids on average if the demographic issues are goign to be solved not childfree having kids which would probably just end badly.

 

[manualman]

Catholicism sees Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies NOT as three separate subjects, but as an intertwined tangle that can’t be intentionally unwound. When you try to separate out one or two and keep the other, all that happens is that you mangle all three.

A couple entering marriage with the intention of never having children doesn’t actually get married, regardless of how pretty the dress is, how beautiful the ceremony or how official the marriage certificate. Purposeful intention never to have children is grounds for annulment, which means the marriage never really was a sacramental marriage in its true, full meaning. This seems harsh when you come from an understanding of marriage that is purely romantic. That isn’t the traditional definition of marriage, though. Marriage involves the feelings of the couple (of course), but ultimately is a relationship ordered towards increasing capacity for self-sacrifice. The ability to procreate children is just a physical manifestation of this innate part of what marriage IS.

I actually don’t know how intention to adopt instead of having your own would affect this situation. My gut says it would still be gravely problematic because you are still attempting via the will to make marriage, intimacy and procreation permanently and utterly divorced, which tends to have a much more profound effect on people than they suspect. But I admit that part is my gut, not anything I have particular knowledge about.

I encourage the OP to go to the Population Research Institute website and learn the facts about ‘overpopulation.’ We have had explosive population growth in the last century, but this has been a natural part of the urbanization and civilization cycle. Western history shows clearly that this runs a course over a couple generations and then settles down to stable population WITHOUT any external pressures or social advocacy needed (much less abortions and contraception). The contraception culture created by population alarmists will cause a horrendous problem in the lifetimes of our children as the world completes its urbanization cycle and population densities shift to old age and population decline due to the widespread popularity of zero and one child families combined with the economic barriers present for those who would LIKE to have a larger family. Although earth’s population is still growing strongly, we have passed an inflection point in which the growth rate is coming down at the natural rate, but is accelerated by the unnatural “childfree” social movements being pushed by some. Once the third world completes stable urbanization, where will the immigrants come from? Who will challenge the established economic system that badly punishes those who have kids to reverse the declining populations of EVERY western nation on earth? Who will reverse the suicidally low fertility rates now common throughout Europe?

This isn’t wild eyed alarmism. Google CIA World Factbook Total Fertility Rates. Every stable, affluent western nation on earth has a sub replacement total fertility rate (2.1 is replacement rate). Most of the developing world far along that process is also below replacement. Only the truly third world nations still have positive total fertility rates. Ironic, no? Once people truly can afford to feed, clothe, house and educate their kids they find “better” things to do with the money. Humans are weird.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well the OP is not Catholic so she is not disobeying church teachings. I think as for it being freedom or not it depends on the person.I feel free for instance being childess by choice, but someone that wanted children but couldn;t have them would not feel the same know what I mean? As for it being demographic death I would agree if the majority of people were childfree. The truth is only a very small percentage of married couples are childfree. So the problem isn;t childfree couples. I mean me deciding to have a kid or kids really wouldn;t change anything about demographic issues you know? Besides I there is a about a near 100% chance my kid would just end up a detriment to society anyway. Really I think the issue is more in people getting married much later and life and only being able to have one or two kids before fertility is gone. Or people that want kids but only choose to have one or two kids. Really those that want kids need to have more kids on average if the demographic issues are goign to be solved not childfree having kids which would probably just end badly.

The OP asked about Catholic teaching on the matter. I was not addressing HER specifically but answering her questions. And whether people believe it or not, God’s commandments are the same for all of us whether one is Catholic or not.

Not going to comment on the rest of your post as it would take us too far off topic.

 

[Calliso]

Catholicism sees Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies NOT as three separate subjects, but as an intertwined tangle that can’t be intentionally unwound. When you try to separate out one or two and keep the other, all that happens is that you mangle all three.

A couple entering marriage with the intention of never having children doesn’t actually get married, regardless of how pretty the dress is, how beautiful the ceremony or how official the marriage certificate. Purposeful intention never to have children is grounds for annulment, which means the marriage never really was a sacramental marriage in its true, full meaning. This seems harsh when you come from an understanding of marriage that is purely romantic. That isn’t the traditional definition of marriage, though. Marriage involves the feelings of the couple (of course), but ultimately is a relationship ordered towards increasing capacity for self-sacrifice. The ability to procreate children is just a physical manifestation of this innate part of what marriage IS.

I actually don’t know how intention to adopt instead of having your own would affect this situation. My gut says it would still be gravely problematic because you are still attempting via the will to make marriage, intimacy and procreation permanently and utterly divorced, which tends to have a much more profound effect on people than they suspect. But I admit that part is my gut, not anything I have particular knowledge about.

I encourage the OP to go to the Population Research Institute website and learn the facts about ‘overpopulation.’ We have had explosive population growth in the last century, but this has been a natural part of the urbanization and civilization cycle. Western history shows clearly that this runs a course over a couple generations and then settles down to stable population WITHOUT any external pressures or social advocacy needed (much less abortions and contraception). The contraception culture created by population alarmists will cause a horrendous problem in the lifetimes of our children as the world completes its urbanization cycle and population densities shift to old age and population decline due to the widespread popularity of zero and one child families combined with the economic barriers present for those who would LIKE to have a larger family. Although earth’s population is still growing strongly, we have passed an inflection point in which the growth rate is coming down at the natural rate, but is accelerated by the unnatural “childfree” social movements being pushed by some. Once the third world completes stable urbanization, where will the immigrants come from? Who will challenge the established economic system that badly punishes those who have kids to reverse the declining populations of EVERY western nation on earth? Who will reverse the suicidally low fertility rates now common throughout Europe?

This isn’t wild eyed alarmism. Google CIA World Factbook Total Fertility Rates. Every stable, affluent western nation on earth has a sub replacement total fertility rate (2.1 is replacement rate). Most of the developing world far along that process is also below replacement. Only the truly third world nations still have positive total fertility rates. Ironic, no? Once people truly can afford to feed, clothe, house and educate their kids they find “better” things to do with the money. Humans are weird.

I assume you just mean you aren;t really married if you are Catholic and choose to be childfree right? What about someone who chooses to be childfree after marriage but before they were open to the idea? Does their marriage become invalid?

 

[Calliso]

The OP asked about Catholic teaching on the matter. I was not addressing HER specifically but answering her questions. And whether people believe it or not, God’s commandments are the same for all of us whether one is Catholic or not.

Not going to comment on the rest of your post as it would take us too far off topic.

Perhaps but then the argument is is God really against childfree married couples? But that is off topic I think so… And yeah I was just addressing the demographic issue in the rest of my post since the OP further comments seem to have sparked a discussion about that. But I think the OP question has been answered you can;t be Catholic and childfree. So hopefully the OP isnt planning on becoming Catholic! and remaining childfree. Assuming she/he is childfree. He or she did sound like she/he was though. I mean bingos is common lingo in the the childfree world.

 

[manualman]

I assume you just mean you aren;t really married if you are Catholic and choose to be childfree right? What about someone who chooses to be childfree after marriage but before they were open to the idea? Does their marriage become invalid?

Second part first ('cause it’s easier!): A sacramental marriage can never be broken (Jesus said so, not me). If a couple validly marries (a lot of definition in that word valid), but later something happens and they decide that they will never have children (for example they find out they are both recessive carriers for a horrible genetic condition), I believe catholicism says that would have no impact on the validity of their marriage. If one or both later says “Nah, I changed my mind I don’t want kids” that would depend on where and when that mindset truly came from. If it was present, but hidden from the very beginning of the marriage, it may be grounds for anulment, but that’s a tough one to demonstrate conclusively.

The first question is one of vocabulary. What IS marriage? To some, it might just mean a nice public ceremony in which a couple celebrates how they feel about one another in front of friends and family and expresses the confidence and trust that that feeling will last the rest of their lives. But if you are a christian and believe that marriage is a sacred bonding in which God, through the couples consent, creates a lifelong bond of self-sacrificial love so profound that it by its very nature is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life, then being closed to children is being closed to a basic component of what marriage is. It is a contradiction to the vows being made; an oxymoron. So the answer to your question depends on how you define the word.

The catholic definition of marriage, btw, is why government ever got involved in the first place. Why on earth would you need a government license for your feelings? The government established legal favor, perks and recognition for married couples precisely BECAUSE it was recognized that this relationship generates and nurtures the next generation of healthy responsible citizens in a way no amount of public money or programs ever could. So governments incentivized this behavior that they saw as so crucial to civilization.

 

[Calliso]

Second part first ('cause it’s easier!): A sacramental marriage can never be broken (Jesus said so, not me). If a couple validly marries (a lot of definition in that word valid), but later something happens and they decide that they will never have children (for example they find out they are both recessive carriers for a horrible genetic condition), I believe catholicism says that would have no impact on the validity of their marriage. If one or both later says “Nah, I changed my mind I don’t want kids” that would depend on where and when that mindset truly came from. If it was present, but hidden from the very beginning of the marriage, it may be grounds for anulment, but that’s a tough one to demonstrate conclusively.

The first question is one of vocabulary. What IS marriage? To some, it might just mean a nice public ceremony in which a couple celebrates how they feel about one another in front of friends and family and expresses the confidence and trust that that feeling will last the rest of their lives. But if you are a christian and believe that marriage is a sacred bonding in which God, through the couples consent, creates a lifelong bond of self-sacrificial love so profound that it by its very nature is ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new life, then being closed to children is being closed to a basic component of what marriage is. It is a contradiction to the vows being made; an oxymoron. So the answer to your question depends on how you define the word.

The catholic definition of marriage, btw, is why government ever got involved in the first place. Why on earth would you need a government license for your feelings? The government established legal favor, perks and recognition for married couples precisely BECAUSE it was recognized that this relationship generates and nurtures the next generation of healthy responsible citizens in a way no amount of public money or programs ever could. So governments incentivized this behavior that they saw as so crucial to civilization.

Thanks for answering my questions. Yeah I think I lean more towards I married my husband in a nice public ceremony to celebrate our feelings for each other side of things. I am a Christian but never really got any teachings on marriage and what not growing up and grew up in a rather nonreligious household. To be honest until I started reading more online about Catholics and other branches of christianity as well I didn;t even really think that it would be considered wrong/sinful to be married and not have kids. Now trying to remember if the vows I said had anything about kids in them…hmm

 

[holyrood]

To the OP, I am curious why you ask. It’s no secret at all what the Catholic church teaches about sex and procreation. And this:

So it would appear that “biological” children are the only good choice, and other choices (like adoption or fostering) are to be pursued only if the aforementioned good choice is, for any reason, unpraticable, am I correct?

honestly seems a little disingenuous. Forgive me if I’m being overly cyncial after some of the things I’ve seen on the internet. *Of course *it would be admirable to care for children through adoption or fostering even in addition to bearing biological children. Why in the world would anyone say differently? Thousands, perhaps millions, of Christians and Catholics do so. I have nine biological children and would have adopted more in a heartbeat.

I looked up bingo childfree and stumbled across this gem: forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453610 Can you feel the hate tonight? I firmly believe that 'by your fruits you shall know them," and any philosophy that produces such hatred cannot be of God.

That being said, I have relatives and very dear friends who are childless by choice–who do not feel this way about other people’s children. One friend in particular, chose not to have children because he and his wife feel they wouldn’t be good parents. I think he’s wrong, however, if you’re interested in a Catholic’s response to someone who’s childfree, here it is: I think as long as they’re living with kindness to others, their choice about children is between them and God. My only caveat would be that I think they’ve passed up a lot of happiness with their choice and they would have been surprised by the joy, love, growth and lessons that children bring.

I work with elderly people, and I have heard plenty of them say they wish they’d had more children.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I was interested in knowing if other forms of “having children” (aside from IVF) are considered “just as good” as childbearing in the wiev of the Catholic Faith

So it would appear that “biological” children are the only good choice, and other choices (like adoption or fostering) are to be pursued only if the aforementioned good choice is, for any reason, unpraticable, am I correct?

It is not a personal question: I am not Catholic. It is a mere curiosity, a whim if you will.

Thank you for your answer.

Hello and welcome. Since you asked if we Catholics believe in "other forms of ‘having children’ ", I must point out that Catholicism embraces and encourages something termed “spiritual fatherhood” (for a man) or “spiritual motherhood” (for a woman). Yes, people can have spiritual children–and this is precisely why we call our priests “Father” and why a woman who runs a convent is called “Reverend Mother”.

It’s not the type of child-free that you mentioned, because Catholic teachings are quite clear that marriage and biological parenting is something very good. Yet Catholic teachings recognize that some things are even better. Catholic teachings quite enthusiatically support and encourage a consecrated, chaste life. Our religious fathers, brothers and sisters dedicate themselves to serving God through service to others. They give up marriage and the potential for having their own families for something better–caring for the Family of God.

 

[anruari]

I looked up bingo childfree and stumbled across this gem: forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3453610 Can you feel the hate tonight? I firmly believe that 'by your fruits you shall know them," and any philosophy that produces such hatred cannot be of God.

I really wish I had NOT clicked on that link. How Hatefull… Downright evil - in every sense of the word.
I Hope the OP does not associate their idea of “Childfree” with the truly evil ideas expressed on that website.