Why is it wrong not to want children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter marysdaughter22
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK, but you two happen to agree about how much of everything you want from each other. If he happened to want to raise children with you and you didn’t want to do that, could you see where your commitment might not seem to him to be the “ultimate” in terms of the normal logical consequences of your on-going exclusive sexual relationship? Do you see that you would be withholding some of yourself in asking him to give that up?

Contrast this, for instance, with the situation if you had entered a convent. You would have a relationship with the other sisters, one in which you cared for each other and had affection for each other, but not one that would ever lead to your bearing children, not in a million years. That would be foreign to the nature of your relationship to the rest of the sisters. That is because you would be taking care of each other in order for each of you to give your ultimate commitment to God. Even that, though, would ask you for everything.

The world has many philosophies that tell us we are here for our own sakes, that our lives are ultimately about each of us individually. Catholicism doesn’t teach that. By baptism, we are buried in Christ. Our lives are not about us. Our lives are about love of God and neighbor. That does call forth an “ultimate” response, but it truly is ultimate. We believe God has claim on our everything. The only difference with a married couple is that they share one “everything”, which they can expect will probably result in children. If it does not, though, their energies are not theirs to spend between the two of them. That way of thinking is contrary to our baptismal promises.

To a Catholic, a childless married couple is not called to fewer sacrifices for the sake of love than one with children, only different ones. Their one shared life still belongs entirely to God.
I understand what you are saying I think. I think that if my husband were to decide that he wanted kids I would discuss it with him. And it is quite possible I would agree to it. I would not just outright tell him no. But of course there would need to be a big discussion beforehand to make sure that is what he really wanted and that we both would be willing to make the required sacrifices.
 
Don’t use contraception, practice NFP and let God’s will be done. Is it really any more complicated than that??
 
Sounds like an opinion to me. Not a bad one, but an opinion nevertheless.
I think it has a bit more credence than a mere personal “opinion” since it’s also the teaching of Christ’s Church.
 
I understand what you are saying I think. I think that if my husband were to decide that he wanted kids I would discuss it with him. And it is quite possible I would agree to it. I would not just outright tell him no. But of course there would need to be a big discussion beforehand to make sure that is what he really wanted and that we both would be willing to make the required sacrifices.
That is the fundamental problem. That is a discussion and decision before marriage. Once you have married, children are a natural and central outcome of marriage. If you are unwilling to have children, you really are not ready to be married. Only in the last 50 years with contraceptives has this even been a possible way of thinking. It is a dangerous way to think and is flirting with trouble to mess with God’s plan for marriage.
 
WOW. …
I am asking as someone who has my brain engaged and just can’t accept this black-and-white “because I say so” thing. If there’s truly a good reason then of course I will accept something, but otherwise no. For the people who have said these type of things:
  • well, the point of marriage is having children, so if you’re not planning on having children then you’re doing something wrong
  • if you’re having sex and not wanting children, you must be selfishly using the other person
I have the same issues. It just shows a lack of really thinking things through. The idea anyhting pleasurable is “selfish” seems highly suspect, and the characterization of all non-procreating sex as selfish also diminishes the psychosocial understanding of sexuality. for human beings sex is not just about procreation but its also about social bonds.
To me, it seems to be a type of blind extremism that doesn’t leave an awful lot of room for people in their diversity, or allow them to make a non-mainstream choice, etc.
I’m really deeply unhappy about it because I used to be very religious and thought I’d found something wonderful, and yes parts of it are, but too many parts just don’t make sense to me anymore and I simply can’t accept them. Most of all I dislike the knee-jerk reactions to this sort of thing, and being told that I’ve got to believe this, or do that, even if it doesn’t feel right.
There are plenty of Roman Catholic and other Christian theologians who no longer think natural law and medievalist ethics are a good guides, they look to psychology or sociology to help inform their understanding on these issues. It’s just sort of a hidden secret that sexuality is one area many bishops in the RCC do not necessarily see eye-to-eye with the “Magisterium”/Vatican. Its an area where people should exmaine the issues for themselves and follow their conscience, not geopardizing their sanity or health in the process.

I think there’s value in celibacy and chastity but a moralistic view of sexuality helps nobody. Sexuality is an area that should be handled with discretion and sensitivity, not judgementalism.
 
Keep in mind that you were given this other person by God, and your marriage to that person is not for your purposes, but for his. We get confused because we also desire, for our own purposes, to love this person - but we should also be loving them for God’s purposes. We aren’t just giving ourselves to our spouses in sex, but rather we are giving ourselves over to the purposes of our marriage convenent, which are God’s purposes.

God’s purpose in marriage is both procreative and unitive. He gives women natural seasons, so sometimes the purpose of procreation is more present, sometimes less so, and we do have the option to only engage in sex when that purpose is less present - but intentionally stymying God’s purpose that sex be procreative by limiting that aspect in our sexual self-giving is clearly working against God’s intent for your sexual union.

Even if the desire to remove procreative functions from each other or ourselves is mutual, we do not have the right to remove those functions of our marriage from God. He made them, He blessed the union that is centered around them. Without God, we would not have a marriage at all. We can’t just make an agreement as a couple to cut God’s Will out of the picture and think that there won’t be consequences.
 
That is the fundamental problem. That is a discussion and decision before marriage. Once you have married, children are a natural and central outcome of marriage. If you are unwilling to have children, you really are not ready to be married. Only in the last 50 years with contraceptives has this even been a possible way of thinking. It is a dangerous way to think and is flirting with trouble to mess with God’s plan for marriage.
I disagree, I should note however even before marriage we were ready for the possiblity of a pregnancy happening. Also we did discuss these things a lot before marriage. But people change their minds. I could change my mind very unlikely and he could as well. And how do you know that God meant for every married couple to have kids? I donlt know what his plan for my husband and I is but I donlt think kids are in our future.
 
Keep in mind that you were given this other person by God, and your marriage to that person is not for your purposes, but for his. We get confused because we also desire, for our own purposes, to love this person - but we should also be loving them for God’s purposes. We aren’t just giving ourselves to our spouses in sex, but rather we are giving ourselves over to the purposes of our marriage convenent, which are God’s purposes.

God’s purpose in marriage is both procreative and unitive. He gives women natural seasons, so sometimes the purpose of procreation is more present, sometimes less so, and we do have the option to only engage in sex when that purpose is less present - but intentionally stymying God’s purpose that sex be procreative by limiting that aspect in our sexual self-giving is clearly working against God’s intent for your sexual union.

Even if the desire to remove procreative functions from each other or ourselves is mutual, we do not have the right to remove those functions of our marriage from God. He made them, He blessed the union that is centered around them. Without God, we would not have a marriage at all. We can’t just make an agreement as a couple to cut God’s Will out of the picture and think that there won’t be consequences.
What sort of consequences do you think there would be?
 
It’s wrong for you not to want children. If you choose not to have kids, who the heck is going to pay for my health care and social security? In fact, I demand that you have kids to support me in my elderly years.:rolleyes:
 
It’s wrong for you not to want children. If you choose not to have kids, who the heck is going to pay for my health care and social security? In fact, I demand that you have kids to support me in my elderly years.:rolleyes:
I almost thought you were serious for a second there. Almost lol.
 
It’s wrong for you not to want children. If you choose not to have kids, who the heck is going to pay for my health care and social security? In fact, I demand that you have kids to support me in my elderly years.:rolleyes:
Did you read the book or see the Mexican (1992) movie: Like water for chocolate?

In the book Como agua para chocolate by Laura Esquivel, Tita the youngest De la Garza child had to stay unmarried to care for the parents, because of their tradition.
 
I almost thought you were serious for a second there. Almost lol.
Yeah, pretty sure he was kidding…BUT it sort of leads to a good point, I think. One of the natural benefits of having kids is (presumably) you’ll have someone to take care of you at the end of your life. I don’t just mean financial or temporal care, although that’s part of it…Also, just to have people around you. Elderly people are often very lonely. Go to any nursing home or retirement community and you’ll see it.

Of course many, or most of those people even, do have children so I know that having kids is no guarantee of anything. But if you *don’t *have kids, there’s even more of a chance of being alone when you’re older.

To me at least, this point makes a good case for not only having kids but making sure you raise them right and teach them the 10 commandments and the value of extended families and respect/care for their elders.
 
Yeah, pretty sure he was kidding…BUT it sort of leads to a good point, I think. One of the natural benefits of having kids is (presumably) you’ll have someone to take care of you at the end of your life. I don’t just mean financial or temporal care, although that’s part of it…Also, just to have people around you. Elderly people are often very lonely. Go to any nursing home or retirement community and you’ll see it.

Of course many, or most of those people even, do have children so I know that having kids is no guarantee of anything. But if you *don’t *have kids, there’s even more of a chance of being alone when you’re older.

To me at least, this point makes a good case for not only having kids but making sure you raise them right and teach them the 10 commandments and the value of extended families and respect/care for their elders.
True but like you said it is still no guarentee and besides I think if you really donlt want kids having kids just so that they can can help take care of you and keep you company when your older isn;t fair to yourself and more so not fair to your kids.
 
What sort of consequences do you think there would be?
The standard consequences of sin. Romans 6:23, the wages of sin are death. A spiritual death, an increase in distance between us and the source of life, God. A decrease in holiness, an increase in unholiness, and a greater tendency to sin in related areas. Eventually this manifests as disorder, stress, suffering, difficulty loving, and difficulty practicing virtues.

We’d expect the consequences to be focused around marriage, romantic and sexual love, sexuality, conception, and new life, since those are the areas most directly touched by this sin. We’d expect to see disorder, stress, suffering, and unholiness in married and sexual relationships and expecting parents. We’d expect to see growth in different sins besides trying to avoid conception, due to the disordered attitudes of the individuals, a sort of “ripple effect”, in severe cases (chronic use, severe hostility towards natural fertility, etc.). Other sins in those areas include non-marital sex, abortion, domestic abuse, rape, pornography, child sex abuse, and adultery. Of course, to see an obvious rise in any of those behaviors in a large population (rather than a specific case), there would have to be an epidemic of the sinful behaviors and attitudes at the root; if only a few people engaged in that sin, the consequences would probably be mostly checked by their local society. If the progress of the sin were unchecked, we would expect the ripple to go out through our entire culture and result in a full society that has disordered beliefs about sexuality that cause great suffering and hardhsip in the long term; since sex touches every person’s life at least at the moment of conception, and since it touches our parent’s lives, this could end up having a huge effect.

Of course, the consequences of the sin are checked by the power of God Himself, who destroys death. In the confessional, he removes the spiritual death that we’ve earned and returns us to holiness, making it easier for us to fight against the temporal effects of these sins, and His Church and Body also join in that fight in many ways, lending support to those trying to understand what has gone who want things to change.

Many people think, however, that these consequences arriving following a widespread epidemic of contraception use, is just what happened. The Church of England was the first Christian church to allow contraception, in 1930. Since then, it’s hard to argue that there has not been an increase in marital and sexual turmoil that manifests as increased divorce rates, increased pre-marital sex, increased single motherhood and absent fathers, increased adultery, increased pornography, increased abortions, and increased acceptance of these behaviors. Of course, real life doesn’t happen in a vacuum and correlation does not imply causation; there are lots of other possible explanations available However, it is clear that the effects one would expect from wide-spread use of contraception are, in fact, present. There is, at the very least, no counter-evidence that I know of. In the presence of evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship and no evidence against, it seems reasonable to conclude that the relationship likely exists.

I have seen couples who ditched contraception use from their marriage as part of an effort to “fix” a failing marriage with multiple other sexual problems, so this isn’t just abstract theories with no applications. People who are convinced by these arguments can, and do, make real-life changes to pursue happiness in their marriages and sexual relationships. Successfully.
 
True but like you said it is still no guarentee and besides I think if you really donlt want kids having kids just so that they can can help take care of you and keep you company when your older isn;t fair to yourself and more so not fair to your kids.
Yeah, but who said anything about having kids for that reason alone? Nobody. It’s just a natural benefit. 🙂
 
The standard consequences of sin. Romans 6:23, the wages of sin are death. A spiritual death, an increase in distance between us and the source of life, God. A decrease in holiness, an increase in unholiness, and a greater tendency to sin in related areas. Eventually this manifests as disorder, stress, suffering, difficulty loving, and difficulty practicing virtues.

We’d expect the consequences to be focused around marriage, romantic and sexual love, sexuality, conception, and new life, since those are the areas most directly touched by this sin. We’d expect to see disorder, stress, suffering, and unholiness in married and sexual relationships and expecting parents. We’d expect to see growth in different sins besides trying to avoid conception, due to the disordered attitudes of the individuals, a sort of “ripple effect”, in severe cases (chronic use, severe hostility towards natural fertility, etc.). Other sins in those areas include non-marital sex, abortion, domestic abuse, rape, pornography, child sex abuse, and adultery. Of course, to see an obvious rise in any of those behaviors in a large population (rather than a specific case), there would have to be an epidemic of the sinful behaviors and attitudes at the root; if only a few people engaged in that sin, the consequences would probably be mostly checked by their local society. If the progress of the sin were unchecked, we would expect the ripple to go out through our entire culture and result in a full society that has disordered beliefs about sexuality that cause great suffering and hardhsip in the long term; since sex touches every person’s life at least at the moment of conception, and since it touches our parent’s lives, this could end up having a huge effect.

Of course, the consequences of the sin are checked by the power of God Himself, who destroys death. In the confessional, he removes the spiritual death that we’ve earned and returns us to holiness, making it easier for us to fight against the temporal effects of these sins, and His Church and Body also join in that fight in many ways, lending support to those trying to understand what has gone who want things to change.

Many people think, however, that these consequences arriving following a widespread epidemic of contraception use, is just what happened. The Church of England was the first Christian church to allow contraception, in 1930. Since then, it’s hard to argue that there has not been an increase in marital and sexual turmoil that manifests as increased divorce rates, increased pre-marital sex, increased single motherhood and absent fathers, increased adultery, increased pornography, increased abortions, and increased acceptance of these behaviors. Of course, real life doesn’t happen in a vacuum and correlation does not imply causation; there are lots of other possible explanations available However, it is clear that the effects one would expect from wide-spread use of contraception are, in fact, present. There is, at the very least, no counter-evidence that I know of. In the presence of evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship and no evidence against, it seems reasonable to conclude that the relationship likely exists.

I have seen couples who ditched contraception use from their marriage as part of an effort to “fix” a failing marriage with multiple other sexual problems, so this isn’t just abstract theories with no applications. People who are convinced by these arguments can, and do, make real-life changes to pursue happiness in their marriages and sexual relationships. Successfully.
I understand what you are saying and it kinda makes sense. Though I haven;t done a lot of research into this specific topic myself. And well being that the pill can be pretty hard on a womans drive and well condoms kinda suck for the man. It doesn;t surprise me that some couples ditch contraception in an effort to help solve sexual problems. Of course I think if there is more problems in your marriage then just sex…then risking getting pregnant might be the last thing you wanna do. I mean yes that might make you stay together and work things out…but things donlt always really get worked out. And staying together for the sake of the kids often isn;t a noble but not very good idea in practice. I know this from experience.
 
Being married and open to life is the beautiful opposite of an honor among thieves arrangement. Through your bodies you renew your permanent commitment to love each other and make it authentic by making a permanent commitment to love together i.e. kids. Not wanting to have kids is an honor among thieves setup. Because your child is the easiest permanent commitment to love, a honey I love you… lets not have kids together is basing your love for each other on mutually agreed selfishness. It is signing off selfishness as mutually acceptable in marriage. You may argue that you can do other charitable works together but such works, while laudable, are not a permanent commitment to love.
 
Being married and open to life is the beautiful opposite of an honor among thieves arrangement. Through your bodies you renew your permanent commitment to love each other and make it authentic by making a permanent commitment to love together i.e. kids. Not wanting to have kids is an honor among thieves setup. Because your child is the easiest permanent commitment to love, a honey I love you… lets not have kids together is basing your love for each other on mutually agreed selfishness. It is signing off selfishness as mutually acceptable in marriage. You may argue that you can do other charitable works together but such works, while laudable, are not a permanent commitment to love.
What about people who can;t have kids? And how do you know what other peoples motives for loving each other are? And kids shouldn;t necessarily be a pernament commitment to love. Staying together for the sake of the kids might seem like a good idea. But if you marriage is horrible staying together probably isn;t the right thing to do. I know I wish my parents would not have decided to stay together for us kids for as long as they did. I think the divorce and all that would have gone much smoother and there wouldn;t have been near as much hate and resentment. And I wouldn;t call kids easy in anyway.
 
What about people who can;t have kids? And how do you know what other peoples motives for loving each other are? And kids shouldn;t necessarily be a pernament commitment to love. Staying together for the sake of the kids might seem like a good idea. But if you marriage is horrible staying together probably isn;t the right thing to do. I know I wish my parents would not have decided to stay together for us kids for as long as they did. I think the divorce and all that would have gone much smoother and there wouldn;t have been near as much hate and resentment. And I wouldn;t call kids easy in anyway.
Motives and Love

The matrimonial covenant requires proper understanding of it. The celebration of matrimony states the motive publicly: “to give yourselves”, to “honor each other”, to “accept children lovingly”. We cannot presume that they are lying.

For couples where both are baptised, the are to be together for life, per the Catholic teaching. The wedding vows do not allow for breaking up because your marriage is difficult.

“… have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?”
“Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”
“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

“… to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part”

No Children

CCC 2nd edition has something to say concerning childless couples.

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.”

1664 “Unity, indissolubility, and openness to fertility are essential to marriage. Polygamy is incompatible with the unity of marriage; divorce separates what God has joined together; the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its “supreme gift,” the child (GS 50 # 1).”

2379 “The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.”
 
Being married and open to life is the beautiful opposite of an honor among thieves arrangement. Through your bodies you renew your permanent commitment to love each other and make it authentic by making a permanent commitment to love together i.e. kids. Not wanting to have kids is an honor among thieves setup. Because your child is the easiest permanent commitment to love, a honey I love you… lets not have kids together is basing your love for each other on mutually agreed selfishness. It is signing off selfishness as mutually acceptable in marriage. You may argue that you can do other charitable works together but such works, while laudable, are not a permanent commitment to love.
Hi Ndehi

What about a woman in her 50s who is past haveing childred. Falls in love with a Man who
is in his 50s. They are both in love want to get married to aviod fornication.
Would this be acceptable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top