Question About Catholicism and Childfreedom

[manualman]

Calliso, you have thick skin. I admire that. Altogether too many people are not able to stand having their ideas challenged without feeling like their human worth is being challenged too. Good on ya’.

 

[Calliso]

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.

Not every childfree person is like that fortunately. As a childfree person I personally am not like that and people like that are what gives childfree a bad name.

 

[Calliso]

Calliso, you have thick skin. I admire that. Altogether too many people are not able to stand having their ideas challenged without feeling like their human worth is being challenged too. Good on ya’.

Thank you. I admit though in real life not so much lol! Though I donlt really talk about this sort of stuff in real life. The closest comes when on occasion people ask me if I am going to have kids and I tell them no and they ask me why and I say because I really donlt want them. Which is of course over simplifying things but it is also my way of saying lets change the subject. I suppose that could be different if I have any Catholic friends in real life thoguh!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I wondered what the OP meant by “bingoes” and I guess I found out by reading that link…



So there is a whole population of people who call parents “breeders” and children “brats” and “crotchfruit?”

I mean, I had heard the “breeder” term being used by militant angry homosexuals but never people who are straight but who hate children!

Thanks, internet, for giving sick and twisted people a forum to spread their hatred through society…

I’m actually pretty glad people with this much hatred inside them AREN’T having children.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Juliane, adding to your post, isn’t it odd really for an adult to show up to a *children’s *book signing in a costume and be jealous and annoyed that kids were there?

It’s like going to the bakery and complaining, “They just had too many foods with carbs”

 

[Calliso]

I wondered what the OP meant by “bingoes” and I guess I found out by reading that link…



So there is a whole population of people who call parents “breeders” and children “brats” and “crotchfruit?”

I mean, I had heard the “breeder” term being used by militant angry homosexuals but never people who are straight but who hate children!

Thanks, internet, for giving sick and twisted people a forum to spread their hatred through society…

I’m actually pretty glad people with this much hatred inside them AREN’T having children.

Well to be fair like I said not all childfree people are that hateful. Of course I am understand some of the attitude to a degree especially since some of the bingoes I have heard can get pretty rude themselves. I admit I have been lucky in that regard in rl at least I have never had anything worse then someone asking me why I donlt want kids. But yeah I agree people like that shouldn;t have kids.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Juliane, adding to your post, isn’t it odd really for an adult to show up to a *children’s *book signing in a costume and be jealous and annoyed that kids were there?

It’s like going to the bakery and complaining, “They just had too many foods with carbs”

Yes, it’s like the blog poster wants to be THE ONLY child in any situation. Because there are other children, REAL children, she feels like an impostor.

 

[Calliso]

Yeah I just read that one bingo and wow talk about over reacting. Ok I would agree it was probably a bit unfair he didn;t win. I mean it was best costume wins. But he should have understood it was an event geared towards children I mean the books were childrens books. So of course a child would be favored over an adult. Yeah it sucks but reacting like that isn;t going to make people sympathetic to you./

 

[HonoraDominum]

I know of a couple who came into the church after being married. Before they were Catholic, the husband had a vasectomy and for years the couple lived an openly “childfree” life. Now that they are in the church, they have been told as long as they are open to life (even if it is not physically possible) that they are living within the bounds of the vows made at marriage and convalidation, and the act of procreation within said marriage is not sinful.

As they are now on the border of childbearing age (late 30’s, early 40’s), getting the procedure reversed is not an option and would most likely be fruitless anyway. They also consider themselves too old to start a family with adoption.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well the OP is not Catholic so she is not disobeying church teachings…

Not quite, because it is the work of the Church to teach the truth. A person who is granted the capacity to understand the truth about what moral law requires is bound to follow moral law to the best of their ability. All humans also have the duty to inform their consciences to the best of their ability. IOW, all people are bound to try to find out what is right and to try to do what is right.

This is why the Church has many moral teachings which are held to be generally applicable to all humanity, not just Catholics. (Actually, the vast majority of humankind is this way with regards to what they truly consider to be their moral code, rather than their particular life work.)

The Church recognizes that children are the natural fruit of marriage, one of the unmitigated good outcomes that flow from it. A person who does not see himself or herself as having a vocation to welcome and rear the children that marriage most often naturally produces is not a bad person. This is only a person who does not have the vocation to marry.

Having said that, a married couple does not have to refrain from adopting or being foster parents in order to “leave room” for biological children not yet conceived. Children in need of a permanent or temporary home are a blessing to a family, too, and the prospect of biological children does not have to be preferred over living but unrelated children who are available to join the family right away. Couples who are currently fostering or have adopted as many children as they can support would have a legitimate reason to abstain from relations likely to bring more children into their home than they can support, until such a time as they would be able to support another child, should one come along.

As for the term “childfree”, it would apply to those who eschew both marriage and family in order to devote themselves entirely to the service of God. It isn’t a freedom from the good of a child, but a freedom to devote one’s life to God alone.

Free to devote yourself to yourself alone? Humankind were not made for that; it is a false “freedom”. We were made for the freedom of the sons and daughter of God, made to be free to love, and that means being free to give ourselves away, not let loose to keep ourselves for ourselves.

 

[Calliso]

Not quite, because it is the work of the Church to teach the truth. A person who is granted the capacity to understand the truth about what moral law requires is bound to follow moral law to the best of their ability. All humans also have the duty to inform their consciences to the best of their ability. IOW, all people are bound to try to find out what is right and to try to do what is right.

This is why the Church has many moral teachings which are held to be generally applicable to all humanity, not just Catholics. (Actually, the vast majority of humankind is this way with regards to what they truly consider to be their moral code, rather than their particular life work.)

The Church recognizes that children are the natural fruit of marriage, one of the unmitigated good outcomes that flow from it. A person who does not see himself or herself as having a vocation to welcome and rear the children that marriage most often naturally produces is not a bad person. This is only a person who does not have the vocation to marry.

Having said that, a married couple does not have to refrain from adopting or being foster parents in order to “leave room” for biological children not yet conceived. Children in need of a permanent or temporary home are a blessing to a family, too, and the prospect of biological children does not have to be preferred over living but unrelated children who are available to join the family right away. Couples who are currently fostering or have adopted as many children as they can support would have a legitimate reason to abstain from relations likely to bring more children into their home than they can support, until such a time as they would be able to support another child, should one come along.

As for the term “childfree”, it would apply to those who eschew both marriage and family in order to devote themselves entirely to the service of God. It isn’t a freedom from the good of a child, but a freedom to devote one’s life to God alone.

Free to devote yourself to yourself alone? Humankind were not made for that; it is a false “freedom”. We were made for the freedom of the sons and daughter of God, made to be free to love, and that means being free to give ourselves away, not let loose to keep ourselves for ourselves.

Well if they are married they are free to devote themselves to their spouse.

 

[MomaMary8]

Hello OP! Welcome to CAF! I see that others have told you that the conjugal act must always be open to new life, but you addressed other questions in regards to adoption, etc. Catholics are also taught to perform what we call corporal and spiritual works of mercy. Much of what you were suggesting is already covered in other teachings. The corporal works of mercy are:

• feed the hungry
• shelter the homeless
• clothe the naked
• visit the sick and imprisoned
• bury the dead
• give alms to the poor

and the spiritual works of mercy are:

• instruct
• advise
• console
• comfort
• forgive
• bear wrongs patiently

As you can see, we Catholics are called to quite a life of love! I know many catholic families that have been blessed with not only their biological children but also adopted and foster children. Our life is not always easy, and we don’t all live a life of luxury, but I strongly urge you to open your heart to see if you can love as much as God calls you to love.

God bless!

 

[EasterJoy]

Well if they are married they are free to devote themselves to their spouse.

It is not in the nature of marriage for spouses to devote themselves to each other to the exclusion of being open to children. They have a shared life; that would be like a single person being devoted to his or her own self.

If you marry, you are not for yourselves alone; if you are not married, you are not for yourself alone. In either case, you have to devote yourself to loving service of others.

*"…True freedom implies that we are capable of choosing a good without constraint. This is the truly human way of proceeding in the choices–big and small–which life puts before us. The fact that we are also able to choose not to act as we see we should is a necessary condition of our moral freedom. But in that case we must account for the good that we fail to do and for the evil that we commit. This sense of moral accountability needs to be reawakened if society is to survive as a civilization of justice and solidarity…

“…It would be a great tragedy for the entire human family if the United States, which prides itself on its consecration to freedom, were to lose sight of the true meaning of that noble word. America: You cannot insist on the right to choose, without also insisting on the duty to choose well, the duty to choose the truth. Already there is much breakdown and pain in your own society because fundamental values essential to the well-being of individuals, families and the entire nation are being emptied of their real content.”*

Bl. John Paul II, Address at Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, S.C., September 11, 1987

There are married couples who are not blessed with children: some not yet, some not ever. The task of their married life is to find labors to devote themselves to as a Christian couple, over and above the good of concerning themselves with pleasing each other. That good is not meant to be a good unto itself, but is meant to be the foundation of their shared life, by which they bring love into the greater world together.

 

[LilyM]

Well if they are married they are free to devote themselves to their spouse.

But you have to wonder how devoted someone can really be to their spouse if they find the idea of parenting a child with them so repugnant that they’d deliberately choose not to do so?

It’s a really backhanded compliment from my POV - think about the messages it’s sending

‘I love you with all my heart and soul, honey, but you’re not so great that I want any of your DNA to spread at all’ or

‘You’re the greatest person on the planet schnookypoos - it’s just you’re SO difficult and demanding that it’s just too draining to do anything but look after you’ or even

‘yeah, love ya babes, but you’d be a c**p parent, so I don’t want you to be responsible for any children’ or reasoning along those lines.

 

[Calliso]

But you have to wonder how devoted someone can really be to their spouse if they find the idea of parenting a child with them so repugnant that they’d deliberately choose not to do so?

It’s a really backhanded compliment from my POV - think about the messages it’s sending

‘I love you with all my heart and soul, honey, but you’re not so great that I want any of your DNA to spread at all’ or

‘You’re the greatest person on the planet schnookypoos - it’s just you’re SO difficult and demanding that it’s just too draining to do anything but look after you’ or even

‘yeah, love ya babes, but you’d be a c**p parent, so I don’t want you to be responsible for any children’ or reasoning along those lines.

Umm what I donlt find the idea of having a child with my husband repugant. You are assuming here that childfree married people like me see something wrong with our spouse. And that is why we donlt want kids. That isn;t true. I think my husband is a wonderful person. The vast majority of the reasons I am not having kids have nothing to do with him. It has nothing to do with it being too much work to devote myself to him and his kids. He is not offended by my not wanting to have kids he doesn;t want them either! Well he pretty nuetral on the idea at least neither for or against. But either way he is not offended by my not wanting kids. So none of what you said applies here in anyway shape or form.

 

[LilyM]

Umm what I donlt find the idea of having a child with my husband repugant. You are assuming here that childfree married people like me see something wrong with our spouse. And that is why we donlt want kids. That isn;t true. I think my husband is a wonderful person. The vast majority of the reasons I am not having kids have nothing to do with him. It has nothing to do with it being too much work to devote myself to him and his kids. He is not offended by my not wanting to have kids he doesn;t want them either! Well he pretty nuetral on the idea at least neither for or against. But either way he is not offended by my not wanting kids. So none of what you said applies here in anyway shape or form.

Oh, so you’re the one who finds the idea of being a mother repugnant - that’s what ‘I don’t want to have children’ means. Why is that? I’m not asking you to tell me, just to think about it

Now, what part of ‘God said be fruitful and multiply’ do you two think is intended to be optional for married couples who have no serious physical, mental, or material barriers to having and raising children? And why exactly do you think God’s command is optional?

 

[Calliso]

Oh, so you’re the one who finds the idea of being a mother repugnant - that’s what ‘I don’t want to have children’ means. Why is that? I’m not asking you to tell me, just to think about it

Now, what part of ‘God said be fruitful and multiply’ do you two think is intended to be optional for married couples who have no serious physical, mental, or material barriers to having and raising children? And why exactly do you think God’s command is optional?

I donlt find the idea repugnant I mean that is not the word I would use. I have thought about it trust me. This is not a decision made lightly you know? Only after much thought and consideration. Not only of what I want but of how having a child would effect my husband not to mention the child itself. And I have concluded that it is best for all if I donlt become a parent.
As for Gods command was that really a command or a blessing? I have been told it was more a blessing then a absolute command. Not to mention it was a time when there was almost no one on the planet so of course he wanted peopel to procreate! But I donlt see how that one verse extends to all married couples for all time. So that is why I consider it optional. I could be wrong I accept that. But I donlt see al ot of evidence God would care about people like me not having kids you know?

 

[LilyM]

I donlt find the idea repugnant I mean that is not the word I would use. I have thought about it trust me. This is not a decision made lightly you know? Only after much thought and consideration. Not only of what I want but of how having a child would effect my husband not to mention the child itself. And I have concluded that it is best for all if I donlt become a parent.
As for Gods command was that really a command or a blessing? I have been told it was more a blessing then a absolute command. Not to mention it was a time when there was almost no one on the planet so of course he wanted peopel to procreate! But I donlt see how that one verse extends to all married couples for all time. So that is why I consider it optional. I could be wrong I accept that. But I donlt see al ot of evidence God would care about people like me not having kids you know?

I never said it was made lightly. People who think a lot about their decisions can still make them for the wrong reasons.

‘Fill the earth and subdue it’. Sounds like God telling us to do something - ie a command. And there’s the little story of Onan - killed for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow, was he not? Perhaps he too thought the world was populated enough and that God wouldn’t care about people like him having kids?

And I would think it’s up to God, not you or anyone else, to tell us when (if ever) the Earth is sufficiently ‘filled’ and ‘subdued’, no? I know I haven’t received the memo yet, and I doubt you have either. ALL Christian denominations were united in their condemnation of contraception until the Lambeth conference in 1930. I wonder what happened that year to make God change His mind about whether it was OK or not?

 

[Calliso]

I never said it was made lightly. People who think a lot about their decisions can still make them for the wrong reasons.

‘Fill the earth and subdue it’. Sounds like God telling us to do something - ie a command. And there’s the little story of Onan - killed for refusing to impregnate his brother’s widow, was he not? Perhaps he too thought the world was populated enough and that God wouldn’t care about people like him having kids?

And I would think it’s up to God, not you or anyone else, to tell us when (if ever) the Earth is sufficiently ‘filled’ and ‘subdued’, no? I know I haven’t received the memo yet, and I doubt you have either. ALL Christian denominations were united in their condemnation of contraception until the Lambeth conference in 1930. I wonder what happened that year to make God change His mind about whether it was OK or not?

OH I agree but the thing is nothing good would come of me having a child. Not only would my life most likely be ruined I would also ruin that childs life you know? So even if I am wrong about what God commands in this situation to be honest I am willing to take that chance. I donlt think Onan cared about population lol. Also I am not using any sort of contraception unless abstaining counts. But really me having a kid would not be a good thing period. So I am wiling to take the chance what I am doing is sinning. Besides like I said not using any contraception to avoid children. *though admittingly if my husband got a vascetomy I would be very happy lol. but he not willing to sighes So right now just hoping menopause comes quickly.

 

[LilyM]

OH I agree but the thing is nothing good would come of me having a child. Not only would my life most likely be ruined I would also ruin that childs life you know? So even if I am wrong about what God commands in this situation to be honest I am willing to take that chance. I donlt think Onan cared about population lol. Also I am not using any sort of contraception unless abstaining counts. But really me having a kid would not be a good thing period. So I am wiling to take the chance what I am doing is sinning. Besides like I said not using any contraception to avoid children. *though admittingly if my husband got a vascetomy I would be very happy lol. but he not willing to sighes So right now just hoping menopause comes quickly.

Interesting. Forgive me for jumping to conclusions about contraception, but few non-Catholics (and indeed too many Catholics as well) would think twice about using ABC in your situation. Congrats - abstinence ain’t always easy!

Now it sounds like there’s more to your circumstances than I first thought. And I wouldn’t think of someone like you, who has real concerns for whatever reason about parenthood, as being childless entirely by choice - there seems to be a fair bit of circumstance involved too.

‘Childless by choice’ for me conjures up images of couples who are personally well-placed emotionally, financially and in every other way to have and raise children but decide not to because of dubious things like concern about overpopulation, desire for a more luxe lifestyle (better house/car/more travel) or a selfish desire to avoid ‘sharing’ themselves or spouse with a child (as if one can’t have enough love for spouse and children). Or because they see children in general as nothing but undesirable and a burden.

For all I know, your reasons may be sufficiently serious that the Church itself would see nothing wrong with you using abstinence - although the vasectomy would be a no-no under any circumstances.