Why is it wrong not to want children?

[sharmin]

Children deserve and need to be wanted, and to have a loving home with two parents.

I do not believe that children are a penance for sinful adults, nor that God sends children to couples as a plague.

Children and families are of utmost importance. This is why I believe that only couples who want children should have them.

I am a man of mature years who did not ever desire to marry or to have children. So I avoided these things. For me, that was the best choice.

If some people want to have a childfree marriage, I believe that choice should be available also.

Children are too precious to force their presence on couples who don’t want them.

I completely agree with this!!

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t see how any of that logically relates to a harmless mutually pleasurable activity in a married couple. What evidence do you have that God actually cares about such things?

I’m not sure what kind of evidence you’re looking for. Is this like asking what is wrong with artificial sweeteners…that is, are you wanting natural evidence that there is a down side for the community? The species? Or just the couple? Sociological evidence? A specific quote or story from the Bible that speaks directly to the question?

We’re not talking about playing cards or going fishing, here, after all. We’re talking about an activity that defines marriage itself, an activity that perpetuates the species. Darwin would tell you that procreation is why pleasurable sex even exists. Even a biologist might conjecture that a species that divorces the pleasure of sex from altruistic consequences that would otherwise follow from sex could be on a unadvisable trajectory, in the long run. Would God care about that?

Specifically, what sort of thing do you think God cares about? From your point of view, how does God give evidence of that concern? Why do you think that?

If your original question was essentially rhetorical, you can just say that, too. I’m willing to accept that we have a chasm between the basic axioms we are starting from that isn’t going to be bridged. I mean that. If we’re just going to feel we’re throwing pearls into each other’s pens, there is no reason to go there. It isn’t worth our time.

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the explanation. I didn;t know that if you haven;t consummated your marriage you would still have a valid marriage. I had gotten the idea that you would be considered not married at all.

In the Catholic Church, a Catholic must get Catholic Church approval. Without that attempts marriage (such as a civil marriage) have an impediment of “lack of canonical form,” which means it is not matrimony.

The Church approved consent of the couple (where at least one is Catholic) is the basis of the validity. Consummation is the basis of the indissolvability for two that are both baptised and validly married. (It originated, I believe, in German law, with the idea of “taking posession”.) If they are not both baptised, there is also the possibility of dissolving the non-sacramental marriage, even though it is valid. (Those two possibilities called the Pauline Privilege and Petrine Privilege.)

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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…

Or maybe one of the spouses has been abused as a child and is still trying to work through some things. That in it’s self is not selfish…so we can’t always judge.

BTW…I’m not saying the Church is wrong on it…I still am trying to work through some of it and God’s will.

 

[dontknow]

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…

Sorry, I respectfully disagree with this analogy. Only my individual opinion and I’m not saying you are wrong and I am correct - I just disagree.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Or maybe one of the spouses has been abused as a child and is still trying to work through some things. That in it’s self is not selfish…so we can’t always judge.

BTW…I’m not saying the Church is wrong on it…I still am trying to work through some of it and God’s will.

Now, there are definitely legitimate reasons for wanting to postpone and/or avoid conception (with moral use of NFP), but these need to be discerned prayerfully.
Saying “still trying to work through things” implies delaying for an emotional/mental illness issue (which can be definitely legitimate)…
This is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than selfishly saying “I just don’t WANT children”.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I guess the bigger question here, for those who *desire *this “childless” marriage (for the sole purpose of simply not having kids - not those who have legitimate reason to avoid)…

What is the point of getting married? What benefit does it serve?
This is a much bigger question that easily falls into the same category as same-sex marriages.
The entire formality seems awfully pointless… and baseless!

The difference with our Faith is that marriage is not just a contract binding two people legally. It’s a SACRAMENT… that conjugal act is SACRAMENTAL.

Morality is meaningless if it’s not based on something… for Catholics, that basis is the Sacraments.

Sure, it’s *easy *to disagree or not understand my point when I mentioned those “underlying meanings” of sex when the procreative aspect is separated from the unitive if you aren’t basing your morality on the Sacramental nature of marriage.

We’re talking about two entirely different “marriages”.

 

[Christopher68]

Everyone has to live their own life, especially with regard to major decisions that are also very personal in nature. Obviously the desire of if and when to have children falls into this category - and God gave each of us varying levels of this desire for children. I don’t really understand the seemingly busybody mentality of some on this forum.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

Calliso, I noticed your remark about marriage being about having kids. Marriage is not primarily about having kids, but about the spiritual good of the couple. The physical act is primarily about having kids and raising them in the Church, but quelling desire is secondary to prevent other sins, and a spouse cannot always expect that remedy either.

There are really a few principles at work here. The marriage covenant is:

1. Consented to, not under duress, with correct understanding of what it is.
2. Exclusive for the whole life of both spouses.
3. For the mutual spiritual benefit of the spouses.
4. Committed to raising any children in the Church.
5. Granting the natural act apt to the generation children, when not sinful and not abnormally risky.

“Natural” means no barriers, “act” implies potency, “apt to the generation children” implies no necessity of fertility and excludes acts like sodomy, and “not sinful” means no corruption of the act by rape or onanism, no contraceptive devices, and no contraceptive substances that are not a medical necessity. The reason for no contraceptive devices or substances is that it objectively changes the physiology (not the act) to prevent generation which is only the right of God.

Those that validly marry and never consummate it still have a valid marriage but it may be dissolved.

Ah, so well said. I was confusing terms myself, thanks for setting the record straight.

This is why it is permissible for infertile people to be married. They can still engage in the marital act because they have not purposefully done anything to render the act infertile.

 

[EasterJoy]

I guess the bigger question here, for those who *desire *this “childless” marriage (for the sole purpose of simply not having kids - not those who have legitimate reason to avoid)…

A married couple, open to children, could still pray that they not get any. They would not be sinning for having that wish. There is obviously no vice in praying, "If it be your will, Lord, let this cup pass. Yet not my will, but yours be done."

You don’t have to force yourself to want a responsibility or duty in life that is yours. All you are required to do is to be willing to take all of what your vocation in life offers, in the way that the Lord offers it to you. Personally, I think a person who bears his or her cross well, but without the consolation of enjoying that duty as others do, does an extraordinary thing, and a great service. People who are great parents even though they don’t like parenting are to be saluted, not looked down upon!

The Church also does not teach providentialism…that is, the Church does not teach that a person or couple may not take concrete steps to avoid outcomes in their life that they don’t want, although they know that some people get these outcomes by the work of Providence. There are proper boundaries on what we may do to avoid the possibility that we will have to carry this cross or that one, but we aren’t bound to go out looking to lift the whole world.

I do think that people put far more emphasis on avoiding this act or that one than on the minutiae of other aspects of the spiritual life of their marriage. That’s not to say that anyone is teaching anything wrong. The emphasis, though, is slanted way over onto this one particular subject.

I’m saying that TedDC is right about this much: This is one aspect of the spiritual life that is perhaps more prone to be handled almost solely via juridical or legalistic descriptions than any other. I’m not saying that as an accusation. I am saying that there is a huge emphasis on whether particular acts occur or not, rather than on the fundamental reasons behind what ethics allow or the fundamental goal that the boundaries aim toward. That leaves people more prone to try to contort themselves bravely to observe the boundaries, but without ever reaching the goal. That would be too bad. The law of God is only sweet when it truly leads to love of God and service of God. Otherwise, it is a burden taken on without much effect.

 

[irishpatrick]

**** How does the nation or world advance without children?

*** Do we need more police, or do we need more ‘good’ people in the world?

*** Do we ‘make’ good people by raising them to be secular atheist, or by raising them to love the Lord with the knowledge they are to love and serve others?

*** How does God build and advance His kingdom without children?

*** When did God revoke the earliest command to “be fruitful and multiply?”

*** If people who make-up the Body of Christ cease having children (and large numbers btw), than that void will be filled by other people, other ideologies, other religions, other values and principles. Do we want that?*

**** Beyond faith, ask yourself: what sort of world do you want to live in?

*** Do you have certain values and principles you hold that you also feel are good for the nation and the world as a whole? If yes, how do those values and principles get propagated without children?

*** If it is okay for one person or couple to NOT have children, than why would it not be okay for all people and all couples to NOT want children and to literally put an end to humanity on earth? After all, what is good for one, should be good for another, correct? *

IMO, it is a moral duty for Christian people who are able: to get married and have as many children as they can. It is a moral obligation that mature God loving adults will embrace with joy, not with regret, remorse or any form of sorrow. It should be a joy to serve the Lord by serving others and the world.

 

[EasterJoy]

IMO, it is a moral duty for Christian people who are able: to get married and have as many children as they can. It is a moral obligation.

There is absolutely no moral duty for Christians to marry. The Church does not teach that! Even with married couples, Church does not go quite so far as to say that couple must produce as many children as physically possible, which is why NFP may sometimes be used to avoid pregnancy.

IMO, it is OK to discern that one is called to more than others are bound to do in this area of life or that, but it is not a good idea to add to the obligations that the Church imposes on others. That crosses a line.

Anyway, I’ve got some busy times coming, so I’m going to have to check out. Sorry I won’t be around to reply to any further posts…not that the discussion hasn’t heard plenty from yours truly, anyway!!

 

[Em_in_FL]

A married couple, open to children, could still pray that they not get any. They would not be sinning for having that wish. There is obviously no vice in praying, "If it be your will, Lord, let this cup pass. Yet not my will, but yours be done."

You don’t have to force yourself to want a responsibility or duty in life that is yours. All you are required to do is to be willing to take all of what your vocation in life offers, in the way that the Lord offers it to you.

Very true, thank you for the clarification… my apologies if I misled. The innate lack of desire for children is not, in and of itself, wrong.

However, that “open to children” part is the crux of the issue.

The Church definitely teaches there are legitimate reasons and issues that would warrant spacing and/or avoiding children! But, those reasons should be prayerfully discerned. And the only moral method of doing this would be to use abstinence in some form (total or periodic)… since it does not separate the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sexuality.

 

[irishpatrick]

There is absolutely no moral duty for Christians to marry. The Church does not teach that! Even with married couples, Church does not go quite so far as to say that couple must produce as many children as physically possible, which is why NFP may sometimes be used to avoid pregnancy.

IMO, it is OK to discern that one is called to more than others are bound to do in this area of life or that, but it is not a good idea to add to the obligations that the Church imposes on others. That crosses a line.

Anyway, I’ve got some busy times coming, so I’m going to have to check out. Sorry I won’t be around to reply to any further posts…not that the discussion hasn’t heard plenty from yours truly, anyway!!

I disagree.

It is important to understand two points:

1. Not every moral obligation we have comes from the Church.
2. Not every moral obligation we have is fully developed or defined by the Church, though it is implicit in its teachings and with Revelation. There are very few cases in which the Church makes an absolute statement about any moral issue, yet that does not remove the truth of certain moral positions.

 

[zz912]

Everyone has to live their own life, especially with regard to major decisions that are also very personal in nature. Obviously the desire of if and when to have children falls into this category - and God gave each of us varying levels of this desire for children. I don’t really understand the seemingly busybody mentality of some on this forum.

We as Catholics are to lay down our lives and to follow Christ. We are to die to self. We must follow God’s will, not our own. When we use contraceptives or NFP for other than grave reasons, we are substituting our will for God’s. We are living our lives instead of living for Him.

 

[ac_claire]

Very true, thank you for the clarification… my apologies if I misled. The innate lack of desire for children is not, in and of itself, wrong.

However, that “open to children” part is the crux of the issue.

The Church definitely teaches there are legitimate reasons and issues that would warrant spacing and/or avoiding children! But, those reasons should be prayerfully discerned. And the only moral method of doing this would be to use abstinence in some form (total or periodic)… since it does not separate the procreative and unitive aspects of marital sexuality.

Yep, what she said.

 

[UponTheAltar]

If a person does not want kids but, wants to be married, chances are: They are not called to the sacrament of marriage in the first place. Many, many people are called to religious life or a life of celibacy but, they choose marriage instead. Now, because of all those people who entered into holy matrimony that probably should never have, look at the state of marriage in today’s society. People need discernment.

 

[Christopher68]

We as Catholics are to lay down our lives and to follow Christ. We are to die to self. We must follow God’s will, not our own. When we use contraceptives or NFP for other than grave reasons, we are substituting our will for God’s. We are living our lives instead of living for Him.

Regarding your last sentence, you are presenting an “either / or” scenario when the two are not mutually exclusive. I stand by the comments made in my earlier post.

 

[Corinne3]

I have a question about Catholic morality (well quite a few, but I’ll start with this one), why is it wrong for a married couple not to want to have children?

I understand that having children is a blessing and that it’s necessary for the continuance of the human race but why does that make it immoral to not want them? Not everyone wants the same thing, not everyone would even necessarily be great parents - so that makes them lesser people, or not a proper couple? With respect, I just don’t understand this belief.

Please will someone explain it to me?

NO it is NOT wrong for one to NOT want kids. Know this!

 

[Vico]

If a person does not want kids but, wants to be married, chances are: They are not called to the sacrament of marriage in the first place. Many, many people are called to religious life or a life of celibacy but, they choose marriage instead. Now, because of all those people who entered into holy matrimony that probably should never have, look at the state of marriage in today’s society. People need discernment.

The will determined by feeling, errors, unless that feeling be the love of God where becoming Christlike is the process. The will ordered by Christ, the Word, makes one saintly. I believe that it is common to look for enjoyment and so we are influenced by our likes and dislikes. It is not that enjoyment is wrong, rather that enjoyment is part of life, sometimes, and that regardless of likes and dislikes, behavior (the will) ordered to charity is Christlike.