Why is it wrong not to want children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marysdaughter22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,

I’d just like to make a quick post and say that I apologise if I was too quick to be on the defensive the other day… I did feel as if personal judgements were being made and that the responses were overly black and white, but on reflection I am sure that they came from the best of intentions - so thank you for taking the time.

I still don’t entirely agree - not that I can’t see where you were (all) coming from, as bringing a child into the world and lovingly bringing him/her up is wonderful, but where I diverge is in going that step further to say that because it’s good to have children in a marriage, it must be compulsory to at least try and have them, and very wrong if you don’t (selfish, incomplete or even mentally unhealthy).

I believe the married relationship can stand on its own, and be a great blessing even without children, if that’s what that couple decides and it’s not necessarily for anyone else to judge them for it, even the church (I know that idea won’t gain much popularity on here!) That’s my opinion, I could be wrong, and again thank you to those who replied.
And thank you for those remarks which are gracious. I do hope my remarks at least were indeed offered with good intentions and apologize if in any way they erred with lack of charity.

I agree that a married relationship without children can be a blessing. Certainly many couples have not been able to have children and they are no less ‘married’ (provided of course they have been open to children) than couples with children.

I think that maybe part of the problem comes with the use of words like ‘compulsory.’ A Catholic is not exactly ‘forced’ into having children. Thing is, we can use ‘natural’ methods like NFP in cases where, for example, having a child at a particular time might cause harm to the mother and/or the child. . .these methods are usually more reliable than barriers or chemicals. So if, for example, a woman has a psychiatric disorder like depression which goes into an acute stage right after marriage, such that she needs to take psychotropic medications which would cause harm to a developing infant, certainly she is not under ‘compulsion’ to have a child NOW because “she’s married and it’s expected.” She can use NFP with her husband until the acute depression stage has been successfully treated with medication and therapy, until she is able to go off the medications and to be off long enough to attempt a successful pregnancy, and then if she engages in relations, be ‘open to life’. Now it could be that, through no fault of her own, she will be on medications throughout her entire fertile years. . .and have to use NFP throughout the time, not because she doesn’t particularly ‘want’ children but in order to assure her (and the potential child’s) safety. Obviously there is still a ‘chance’ (but then again, there is a ‘chance’ of pregnancy even with the most sophisticated artificial contraception too), but if pregnancy occurs, we always know God has a reason (even if it seems to defy our limited, human reasoning).

And of course, we can’t really ‘judge.’ If I see a married couple of several years’ standing (but they do not have children) I wouldn’t dream of thinking that they must be ‘contracepting’.

Even if they told me, “Yeah, we never want the little rugrats so we’ve taken steps”. . .I don’t know if before they die they will ‘regret and repent’ so I have no idea of their final ‘destination’. I also don’t know if by ‘we never want’ there could be issues that they don’t want to share which would mitigate the decision (perhaps one or both were molested as infants, perhaps there are serious psychological problems, who knows?) I can only say (if asked) that as Catholics there are certain specific Church teachings, that I can refer them to the Catechism, their priest, etc., and finally, that I will love and pray for them no matter what, and then that’s the end of the discussion unless they start to argue that their decision is RIGHT (according to Catholic teaching). IOW, if I can provide authoritative Catholic teaching, I’ll do that, and if somebody says something that contradicts that teaching, I’ll point out that they contradict it. . .but I certainly won’t presume to judge their souls on it.
 
Interesting how people believe young folks will lose all morals when they get older. Is it so difficult to accept that some young adults might actually have a real moral foundation? :rolleyes:
You responded to a post about using contraception. If you read between the lines, what the other poster was *really *saying was: “Ah, the smug sanctimony of the Catholic Church!”…and using your youth as a scapegoat.

I say, go ahead and embrace that “smug sanctimony” if that’s what they want to call it; you’re in good company! 😃
 
Hi,

I’d just like to make a quick post and say that I apologise if I was too quick to be on the defensive the other day… I did feel as if personal judgements were being made and that the responses were overly black and white, but on reflection I am sure that they came from the best of intentions - so thank you for taking the time.

I still don’t entirely agree - not that I can’t see where you were (all) coming from, as bringing a child into the world and lovingly bringing him/her up is wonderful, but where I diverge is in going that step further to say that because it’s good to have children in a marriage, it must be compulsory to at least try and have them, and very wrong if you don’t (selfish, incomplete or even mentally unhealthy).

I believe the married relationship can stand on its own, and be a great blessing even without children, if that’s what that couple decides and it’s not necessarily for anyone else to judge them for it, even the church (I know that idea won’t gain much popularity on here!) That’s my opinion, I could be wrong, and again thank you to those who replied.
First off… I’m new to the thread and really haven’t been involved yet - so if this was already discussed I apologize. 🙂

Consider this… and let’s just think anthropologically here (:))… what is the purpose of sex?
Well, we all know the answers to this… it’s pretty clear! Sex is both unitive and procreative! This doesn’t even need to be discussed under the umbrella of religion… it has a clear twofold purpose.

But, since we believe that sex is only MORALLY acceptable within marriage, we have to go back to the religious side and see the SACRAMENTAL nature of marriage.

But don’t let the “religion” of it take away the sheer anthropological understanding of the twofold nature of sex. In other words… you can’t BLAME the Church for making up this “rule”. 🙂 It’s natural… it’s the way it was designed to be… it’s twofold and you can’t separate those two aspects (unitive and procreative) without doing something UNnatural.

So in other words… it’s (anthropologically) UNnatural to assume that you can approach the Sacrament of marriage (since that’s the only morally acceptable opportunity for sex) and not “desire” children.
It just comes with the territory… and not because of some random “Church rule”. :rolleyes:
 
First off… I’m new to the thread and really haven’t been involved yet - so if this was already discussed I apologize. 🙂

Consider this… and let’s just think anthropologically here (:))… what is the purpose of sex?
Well, we all know the answers to this… it’s pretty clear! Sex is both unitive and procreative! This doesn’t even need to be discussed under the umbrella of religion… it has a clear twofold purpose.

But, since we believe that sex is only MORALLY acceptable within marriage, we have to go back to the religious side and see the SACRAMENTAL nature of marriage.

But don’t let the “religion” of it take away the sheer anthropological understanding of the twofold nature of sex. In other words… you can’t BLAME the Church for making up this “rule”. 🙂 It’s natural… it’s the way it was designed to be… it’s twofold and you can’t separate those two aspects (unitive and procreative) without doing something UNnatural.

So in other words… it’s (anthropologically) UNnatural to assume that you can approach the Sacrament of marriage (since that’s the only morally acceptable opportunity for sex) and not “desire” children.
It just comes with the territory… and not because of some random “Church rule”. :rolleyes:
“Unnatural” does not always equal “immoral” - that’s where the arbitrary aspect of the “Church rules” comes in.
 
“Unnatural” does not always equal “immoral” - that’s where the arbitrary aspect of the “Church rules” comes in.
My point is that the Church’s rule is NOT arbitrary!
It’s not just *randomly *pulled out of the air… it’s the *natural *assumption based on the design of humanity.
The Church’s rules aren’t arbitrary…
 
My point is that the Church’s rule is NOT arbitrary!
It’s not just *randomly *pulled out of the air… it’s the *natural *assumption based on the design of humanity.
The Church’s rules aren’t arbitrary…
Then what harm is caused when the rule is broken?
 
“Unnatural” does not always equal “immoral” - that’s where the arbitrary aspect of the “Church rules” comes in.
Wait . .so you’re claiming that first, unnatural does not always equal immoral (I’m not sure that you’re correct)
and then you’re claiming the Church is ARBITRARY by insisting that what it says is wrong, is wrong?

I don’t get it.

How is the Church arbitrary? If anything, the Church is consistent.
 
Then what harm is caused when the rule is broken?
You seem to be confused here.

The Church’s rules are not arbitrary. Therefore, ‘breaking a rule’ causes harm by definition. . .because the Church’s rules, not being ‘arbitrary’, are only for good. “Breaking” the rule then by definition creates harm, doesn’t it?
 
You seem to be confused here.

The Church’s rules are not arbitrary. Therefore, ‘breaking a rule’ causes harm by definition. . .because the Church’s rules, not being ‘arbitrary’, are only for good. “Breaking” the rule then by definition creates harm, doesn’t it?
An excellent example of circular reasoning!
 
Marriage by nature is ordered to the having and raising of Children.

One must be open to life…

Now of course little ones may not come along…but we need to be open to em…for they are very much part of the reason for marriage.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#IV

The openness to fertility

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."160
Code:
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.161
1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.162 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.163

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.
 
Then what harm is caused when the rule is broken?
The harm that is caused is that the sexual act is depleted to something that has no meaning. If it’s possible to remove the “procreative” aspect, then it likewise would be possible to remove the “unitive” aspect just as easily.

Would it be reasonable to have this thread if it were considered the other way around… such as “Why is it wrong to not want to be unified in sex?”… then we can go on talking about how it’s only useful for babymaking… why in the world would I want to connect with another human being in this sort of unitive way? :rolleyes: See? Pretty ridiculous. 😊

BOTH ASPECTS have such HUGE importance in our world! Having children ensures that generations of humanity go on! It allows us to be unified with our spouse in ways that far exceed how we connect with others in the world. Sex is an INCREDIBLY BEAUTIFUL gift… in BOTH aspects… and removing one of those just depletes it!
 
Ah, the smug sanctimony of the young (yes, I can tell).
Actually, “mutual masturbation” is the precise term used by the priest who taught our senior marriage class in high school. He was not young, neither was he smug about it.
 
Em:
It’s not just *randomly *pulled out of the air… it’s the *natural *assumption based on the design of humanity.
I think it is obvious from the design of humanity that the purpose of sex is twofold, as you have indicated. However, I don’t think it necessarily as obvious that the 2 purposes are inseparable…from a purely natural design of humanity view point, not necessarily from a theological one.
 
An excellent example of circular reasoning!
Let’s try again.

Rule X is not an arbitrary rule.

Rules which are not arbitrary by definition are reasonable and lawful.

Breaking of a reasonable and lawful rule is harmful due to the ‘breaking’ going against that which is reasonable and lawfu, That which is not reasonable is unreasonable, and that which is not lawful is unlawful. Both unreasonable and unlawful things are harmful by definition.

Therefore, breaking of a non-arbitrary rule X is harmful.
 
Let’s try again.

Rule X is not an arbitrary rule.

Rules which are not arbitrary by definition are reasonable and lawful.

Breaking of a reasonable and lawful rule is harmful due to the ‘breaking’ going against that which is reasonable and lawfu, That which is not reasonable is unreasonable, and that which is not lawful is unlawful. Both unreasonable and unlawful things are harmful by definition.

Therefore, breaking of a non-arbitrary rule X is harmful.
By “arbitrary” I mean that the rule has no demonstrable connection to achieving good or preventing harm. I would assert that a prohibition on non-procreative mutual sexual stimulation meets that criterion.
 
By “arbitrary” I mean that the rule has no demonstrable connection to achieving good or preventing harm. I would assert that a prohibition on non-procreative mutual sexual stimulation meets that criterion.
Actually - that goes against the very nature of being “unified”. It depletes sex to something selfish, regardless of who is taking the action. The underlying tone is “I want this awesome feeling”, but I don’t want you fully.
Over time… this depletes the entire nature of marriage.
What’s the *purpose *of marriage at that point? It becomes just an image, a paper contract… meaning what?
 
Actually - that goes against the very nature of being “unified”. It depletes sex to something selfish, regardless of who is taking the action. The underlying tone is “I want this awesome feeling”, but I don’t want you fully.
Over time… this depletes the entire nature of marriage.
What’s the *purpose *of marriage at that point? It becomes just an image, a paper contract… meaning what?
How is it selfish for a man and woman to mutually give pleasure to each other?
 
“Unnatural” does not always equal “immoral” - that’s where the arbitrary aspect of the “Church rules” comes in.
Then what harm is caused when the rule is broken?
How is it selfish for a man and woman to mutually give pleasure to each other?
The answer lies in what good is achieved when the rule is followed, not merely in letter, but in spirit, because it is true that the rule is not arbitrary. That does not mean that a couple can’t fail the spirit of the rule just as much by following it as by ignoring it.

The question you seem to be asking is this: What is wrong with making sex just about me, or with my spouse and I deciding that our marriage is just about us and not anyone else’s business? What does it hurt if we make our sexual relations not partly about our own pleasure but in making it about our pleasure and about nothing but our own pleasure?

What harm indeed? What harm does it do for a Christian to make self-satisfaction his or her habitual outlook? Does it hurt anyone else if I am self-centered or selfish, if I “keep boundaries” on it? Why can’t I make myself the center of my own attention, at least some of the time? Why can’t we, as a couple, decide that what we do does not concern anyone but us? Why does God and God’s intentions for all of the world have to always be the center of everything we do, all of the time? Can’t we just have some time to ourselves?

I would argue that a couple who centers their outlook beyond themselves in every aspect of their marriage, to the Body of Christ and to the good of all mankind, even in the bedroom, will make a different marriage for themselves. Of course a couple whose sex lives revolve around the two of them do not necessarily render their sexual acts “meaningless” in the sense of having no sentimental or unitive aspect left whatsoever. Neither does a couple who confines themselves to certain positions or certain acts guarantee a united outlook, centered on the will of God. Of course not! It doesn’t work that way for any other acts we can perform as Christians. Why would sex be different?

You seem to ignore, however, that an unity that is not made with any connection to anyone else is a different unity than one that is forged in the context of the couple’s relationship to and responsibility toward the rest of the Body of Christ, the rest of humanity, and the rest of time, into eternity. Both couples might be very much bound to each other, but the nature of each couple’s bond is going to be very different. One unity makes saints. The other…does not.

IOW, the “rules” the Catholic Church describes for sex in marriage do not make sense outside the entire context of having the goal of a life centered on God and the work of the Holy Spirit in history and eternity. Just following the rules for sex aren’t going to make you into a Christian couple. I hope you don’t think that is what anyone here is saying. Rather, you have to look at the question as one part of a whole shared life that marriage is intended to be.

I guess I’m saying this: Think bigger. Aim higher. Imagining marriage requires that you imagine the splendid and united work of love and mutual care that God intends all of humanity to be. Imagine the big picture, then imagine marriage in that context. Then you’ll see it, I think. That is the way the Church sees it. It is a point of view that makes all of the difference in the world.
 
How is it selfish for a man and woman to mutually give pleasure to each other?
By removing that procreative aspect, they underlying tone is always insulting.
It says:
“I don’t want to see your beautiful genetics carried on for future generations to love and enjoy.”
“I don’t think you’re worthy of receiving my entirety.”
“I don’t love how you are made.”

But I still want you to make me feel really good for a while.

Sounds selfish to me… 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top