Why is it wrong not to want children?

[Rascalking]

Well that’s about it from me… I think I’ll bow out here and respectfully say I really don’t agree but I wish you all the best.

That’s sometimes the best thing to do. That’s mature of you-I’m not like that.

God bless you.

 

[defenderoftruth]

Marysdaughter22,

I thought Tantum had a point when they were asking you about the old fashioned oppression of women (to which you said “how insulting”)

You yourself said “how Victorian” about my responses so logically the conclusion that can be drawn from that is that you think it’s old fashioned oppression for women to be mothers etc.

PS. I really wish from the beginning you would say “I’m not personally against having children, but I was wondering why…” Instead you never said that and just stuck up for reasons to not have children (you think at least) AGAIN insinuating that you personally don’t ever want them…then acting offended when posters logically assume that’s how you personally feel. Why don’t people say what they feel on a subject and separate it from themselves if they disagree with it so others don’t get the wrong idea!!!

 

[Magickman]

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.

 

[Calliso]

Well first off if you can’t have children it would be fine I think if you didn’t want any (to adopt).

BUT if you can have children, and purposely don’t want to have children EVER and use methods to that effect…why be married? It’s really just state sanctioned fornication.

They say that bringing children into the world is a selfless act. (because you are putting them first) and it teaches us how to be giving, compassionate, etc. etc. Using contraception in a “marriage” is just plain selfish. You say “I love you but not wholly”, “you can have all of me-but not this little part” to your spouse.

Real love is fully giving yourself to your spouse and creating a mix, (a person) that is part of both of you that will teach you the above virtues.

All this is IF you can have children to begin with. If you are unable to have children in the marriage you can still give yourself fully to your spouse just no children are a result of it.

I think as a former child hater it’s unhealthy to not to want to ever have kids…just my .02 cents.

Actually I disagree bringing children into the world is automatically some kinda selfless act. I mean lets face it most people who chose to have children probably have pretty selfish reasons for wanting to have kids. And having a kid or kids doesn;t automatically turn you into some kinda selfless saint. No that only comes when/if you properly raise the kid/kids. And I strongly object to the idea that I must not totally love my husband and that we are just fornicators just because we donlt want kids! I mean I can understand the idea of it being selfish if one spouse wants kids and the other uses contraceptive. But if both spouses dont want kids how is using contraceptive to prevent something neither spouse wants bad?

 

[Calliso]

So, you’re willing to use someone just for enjoyment? And you want to avoid any responsibility?

One can find loving companionship outside of marriage.

Then they shouldn’t get married.

See comments above. Why get married and have sex?

Natural law.

Wow first off having sex with my husband using contraception is not just using him for my enjoyment! You make it sound like the other spouse isn;t getting anything out of it which couldn;t be further from the truth! And maintaining a good marriage is plenty of responsiblity on it;s own! Not to mention the other things people might be responsible for even if they dont have kids. And you can;t find the same kinda companionship outside of a marriage.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

WOW. My jaw just hit the floor at the judgementalism in this post, and the assumptions about me (and the post that said I was clearly ‘willing to just use someone for enjoyment’). Whoa, hold hard. I never judged you. I ASKED QUESTIONS. How is it ‘assuming’ or 'judging" to ASK QUESTIONS?.

First of all Tantum Ergo, I’m actually not asking as someone who doesn’t want children (I’m not at that stage in my life, but I’m open to the idea). And OF COURSE I am not dismissing the important work of parents (why do you only talk about mothers by the way?)… in fact, none of those things particulaly apply to me and it’s so utterly obnoxious to assume so much about other people’s motivations. Do you really have all the answers? Of course I don’t have all the answers. There is a 6000 character limit on posts, you know. You’re a woman so I addressed from the female point of view (I’m a woman myself) rather than up the character count by addressing the fathers in THIS PARTICULAR POST.

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: Not an ‘either-or’. There are some things which ARE black and white. And 'because I said so" (if it’s GOD doing the saying) is a legitimate answer. Who decides ‘good reason’, you and you alone? What if you don’t have all the answers?

• well, the point of marriage is having children, so if you’re not planning on having children then you’re doing something wrong Certainly marriage is primarily for having children, but not every marriage is blessed with children. If you’re ‘open’ to the possibility but it never happens, so be it. If you completely close yourself from the possibility, EVER, then you are denying your spouse and God from the ‘fullness’ of marriage. You might not realize it but that is wrong.
• if you’re having sex and not wanting children, you must be selfishly using the other person Sex is not divorced from procreation naturally. While you might not realize that divorcing it and putting the child ‘out of the picture’ permanently is selfishly using another–it is; even if the other person agrees. Again, you don’t seem to realize that you can’t have ‘sex for pleasure’ as a distinct’ flavor’ to be kept separate from ‘sex for children’.
• you must be mentally unhealthy to not want children I never said that, nor did I see it phrased in exactly those words. There are many possibilities for a person not to want children, but nobody is going around making judgments about ‘mental health’.
• your mind has been warped by the feminist movement, or else you just want more money for cars and foreign holidays Simplistic and used with arguments to ‘emotion’ and ‘charged words’. How about, "you have by virtue of the times and culture you live in absorbed certain views as being natural and normal which in fact are both relatively recent and far from what was considered ‘normal’ by society since society began? How about 'children are a responsibility and in order to meet that responsibility you may have to sacrifice material goods and pleasures that you would have otherwise felt justified in having?
• it’s just natural law, so deal with it Well, biology is a fact of life. I personally would love to live ‘under the sea’ but I don’t have fins and tail so I deal with the fact that even if I got to scuba dive 24/7, I’m never gonna live like Ariel and Triton in a castle under the sea. My body is built for living on dry land and that’s all there is to it. I can only adapt to conditions so far. . .I can’t fly like an eagle unless I’m in a plane or a glider, either. Biology is a fact of life.

etc

…well, my only response is that I just don’t think these are the cast-iron truths you’re making them out to be. They are obviously passionately held beliefs on this forum but that doesn’t make it so, and while I respect your rights to your beliefs I’m frustrated by all the moral condemnation it entails (see above post from Tantum Ergo!) I repeat, I DID NOT CONDEMN YOU IN ANY WAY. If you read ‘condemnation’ of you personally, I respectfully submit that you misunderstood.

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. FEELINGS are a VERY unreliable guide to any truth. They are good servants, but very poor masters. To me it seems a type of blind extremism that insists that unless one can believe in 6 impossible things before breakfast one is being ‘forced’ to ‘conform’ to some ‘rigid’ system because truth should be fluid and free and relative and ‘fun’.

Well that’s about it from me… I think I’ll bow out here and respectfully say I really don’t agree but I wish you all the best.

Well, I do wish you the best. I never tried to ‘judge’ you personally. In fact, I asked QUESTIONS, I didn’t MAKE JUDGMENTS, and was careful to note that these were only some ‘possibilities’–I never accused you of anything.

 

[Rence]

I think we may need to remember our manners.

This is a good question. A very fair one as well. I know excatly where the OP is coming from.

So do I Rascalking, so do I

Where’s the welcoming committee at times like these?

 

[Rence]

WOW. My jaw just hit the floor at the judgementalism in this post, and the assumptions about me (and the post that said I was clearly ‘willing to just use someone for enjoyment’).

You’ll get used to it

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.

I understand how you feel. Sometimes it’s hard to accept some of the rules of the Church, especially if you don’t understand they “why’s” of those rules. And even knowing what the rules are, you may be left not understanding them or not agreeing with them. But the Church calls us to obey the rules as best we can and have faith that the Church knows what it’s talking about. I am not always successful at that, but I try.

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

The Chuch teaches that ‘being open’ to children is one of the most important requirements for getting married. I also believe they acknowledge that companionship and a loving relationship is also an important requirement. So I agree with Nickybr38, who said, "I always thought the purpose of marriage was to have a companion. Remember in the Garden? How Adam was lonely so God gave him Eve? Children resulted but the initial need was just wanting companionship? "

• if you’re having sex and not wanting children, you must be selfishly using the other person

I agree with you, I don’t understand this statement either. I’m not even sure if that’s a Church teaching because I’ve never heard of it from any other Catholic in real life, even priests and nuns, until I came to this forum. But I agree with you in that I don’t think you’re using the other person. Usually when a couple is trying to not have kids, they both don’t want them at the time. I think yo’ure only using your mate selfishly when one wants kids and the other does not. And even then, I don’t think they’re necessarily using their spouse.

• you must be mentally unhealthy to not want children

Yep, I agree with you marysdaughter, not everyone wants children and there’s nothing unhealthy about that.

• your mind has been warped by the feminist movement, or else you just want more money for cars and foreign holidays

Yeah, I agree, that’s not everyone’s sentiment either

• it’s just natural law, so deal with it

Natural law is another abstract that I don’t quite understand yet

…well, my only response is that I just don’t think these are the cast-iron truths you’re making them out to be. They are obviously passionately held beliefs on this forum but that doesn’t make it so, and while I respect your rights to your beliefs I’m frustrated by all the moral condemnation it entails (see above post from Tantum Ergo!)

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.

Well that’s about it from me… I think I’ll bow out here and respectfully say I really don’t agree but I wish you all the best.

Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that when you go to Church and look around you (even outside of Church), there aren’t too many big families out there. However, the Church allows couples to discern very carefully, and even with the consult of their priest, to determine if they have good reasons to space out pregnancies or delay having pregnancies. For example, medical reasons and not being able to afford to have another child are examples. But the Church does require that if one is getting married they have to be open to having children.

If you have any questions about it, you should really talk to your priest. He knows how to answer all the questions, and knows which questions to ask to make sure you know and undestand what is being taught by the Church.

Welcome to CAF

 

[LollilopLicker]

Don’t want kids then don’t get married and don’t engage in an act which is designed by God to create new life.

Well then, women who have gone thru menopause should be fobidden to get married.
There is no way they can bring new life into the world.

 

[Rence]

Don’t want kids then don’t get married and don’t engage in an act which is designed by God to create new life.

Well then, women who have gone thru menopause should be fobidden to get married.
There is no way they can bring new life into the world.

That’s where I am headed, I think. I’m going to probably get married after menopause.

 

[Rascalking]

That’s where I am headed, I think. I’m going to probably get married after menopause.

Well Rence, if it makes you feel better, I’m right there with you.

Except for the menopause thing…

 

[pepin1980]

Well then, women who have gone thru menopause should be fobidden to get married. There is no way they can bring new life into the world.

It’s not about whether someone CAN have children. It’s about whether anything is done before, during or after the sexual act in order to prevent conception.

It is sometimes hard to understand, even if we write down the teaching of the Church as a PP did, or the writings of the Church Fathers, etc. My husband and I only converted to Catholicism two years ago, and we have lived both ways - with and without the use of contraception. Sometimes you have to live it to understand it. This was THE issue for me when we were converting - not any more. Living it is what helps us understand it sometimes. We are like children, and cannot always understand why God’s laws are the way they are. This is where faith comes in, and then living our faith.

Why did God do this? Why does His Church not allow the use of contraception? Why should we be open to life? “God has revealed Himself to us as a family - a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Of this awesome revelation, Pope John Paul II wrote: ‘In the light of the New Testament, it is possible to discern how the primordial model of the family if to be sought in God Himself…’” (Scott Hahn, “First comes love”, p. 42). Or, as Dr. Hahn writes, God IS a family, and only the Trinity possesses the essential attributes of a family in their perfection. Our human families are only an image of the Holy Trinity.
When God created Adam and Eve, he told them to be fruitful and multiply. This was the purpose of their family. He did not tell them to have a lifelong companionship, and, eventually, if and when they decide to, to have children. Instead, the very first thing, part of God’s covenant with them, was to be fruitful.
In marriage, the husband and wife become one flesh. The sexual act is the expression of the love they have for each other. The purpose of this act, and it’s usual result, is the creation of a new life, of a third person. We are trying to be the image of the Trinity, where the Father and Son are eternally completely and selfishly giving and the result of this love is the Holy Spirit, the third Person. The same way the Son gave Himself, giving complete obedience to the Father, for our sins. He did not question His Father, as to why He had to give Himself, or couldn’t there be another way, etc. - this is obedience, love and complete selflessness unto death. The same is required from us, in our families.

On a final note, as someone who has lived with the contraceptive mentality before, I’d like to point to the words of a PP who said that she is not selfishly using her husband in the contraceptive sexual act, because her husband also gets something out of the act. This is the way I used to think too. But it is not, or at least, it shouldn’t be, about getting something out of the sexual act - it should be about giving! About giving yourself completely, about accepting your spouse completely, and about accepting that the result of that might be a third little person. But sometimes you have to live it to understand it. I did not understand it too before.

 

[Sullibe]

Well then, women who have gone thru menopause should be fobidden to get married.
There is no way they can bring new life into the world.

With God, ALL things are possible. That’s the part of the point. No, strictly biologically speaking a woman in menopause can’t have children, but God can remedy that. The difference is that a woman in menopause is at a point in life where she biologically can’t have children. Nature has run it’s course. Only God can intervene. Someone who is in their child bearing years who uses contraception to prevent having children is preventing the natural consequences of that action from occurring, essentially telling God “Sorry, Your nature isn’t right for me”.

Those of you who don’t understand or disagree with the Church’s teaching, I understand where you’re coming from. I was in the same place 10 years ago. I didn’t understand why anyone, including the Church, thought it was their business whether or not someone wanted children; and I really believed that God didn’t really care either way. *I mean, a married couple who doesn’t want children just didn’t seem important enough for God to be concerned about, so therefore the “laws” of the Church regarding it all must be from hierarchy - i.e. from a bunch of old celibate men who have no idea about being married and raising children. *

Over the last 10 years I’ve grown so much in my faith and I no longer agree with the previous philosophy. I’ve come to realize, stated in a cliche like motto, that “God has a plan and it’s really just best not to antagonize Him.” Marriage’s purpose is to provide a permanent, loving, union between man and woman for any children that may result from that union. Now God may or may not bless those couples with children, but that is for God to decide not for us. It’s all about trust, ultimately in God.

A previous poster pointed out that Marriage is a vocation, similar to the priesthood. This is correct. And given marriage’s purpose above, if a person feels they will never want to have children, then I would say that feeling is God calling them to a vocation other than marriage. It may not necessarily be religious life, but something else none-the-less.
That does not meant they cannot have a loving relationship with other people, but it will mean a call to a chaste lifestyle, even outside of religious life. Of course, only within our current modern day society do people only associate a loving relationship with a sexual relationship. One does not need sex to have a loving relationship with someone. If one is in a chaste, loving relationship with another person, then there is nothing gained by being married (being married very different from getting married) with the exception, of course, of the legalities associated with every civil union (which includes marriage).

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that one needs to decide which is the stronger call. Does one never want to have children or is one being called to marriage? It won’t be both, not because it couldn’t be if God had wanted it to be, but because He didn’t want it to be that way as evidence through numerous Scripture passages as well as 2000 of Tradition guided by the Holy Spirit that makes up our Catholic faith.

I hope this helps

 

[shannyk]

It’s not necessarily wrong to not want children, but wanting what God wants, or accepting what God has planned is the goal. Putting aside what you want and accepting what God wants for you, to sanctify you and your spouse through marriage (sanctification is the purpose of any vocation, marriage included) including children should you be gifted them, is something that cannot be separated from the essence of what marriage is.

In marriage, you accept the other person wholly, including their fertility. Yes, companionship is a big part of what marriage is, while walking together on life’s journey and helping one another to Heaven. But a person is not a dog that can be used for companionship alone.

 

[RHannosh619]

Wow, none of you guys mentioned, Natural Family Planning.

You guys have it somewhat mixed up. Yes, the MAIN reason for marriage is to start a family, but having sex to bond is not sinful. Sex is a prayer used to unite two people.

NFP, is the way that the husband and wife monitor the womans fertility and have sex only when the women is infertile. No contraceptives are used, this is a pretty effective way to prevent children, BUT there is still a chance, which in this case, you are still open to God’s will.

But don’t take this as an easy way out. NFP should only be used for just reasons, which honestly could be anything, Financial issues, Outside responsibilities, Careers etc.

Remember guys, (trust me i’m horrible at this) but we must be gentle, its about winning souls, not winning the debate.

God bless… Pray for me, I really need it.

 

[Love_Divine]

I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to not want children. Does the Church say anything specifically about not desiring children being wrong?

I know you can’t get married in the Catholic church if you don’t want children.

 

[Advocatus_Fidei]

What about those couples who desired children and yet never had them? Does this mean God did not see their marriage as valid? Or that they were not truly married?

Just wondering.

Nope.

 

[choose_to_love]

Rhannosh, small quibble, NFP is a morally acceptable means of spacing pregnancies for serious reasons because it does not alter the marital act. The act remains properly ordered to procreation, even if conception will not or does not occur. The efficacy of the method, or the “chance” of a new life being created, is not why it is acceptable; all methods of both contraception and fertility awareness have a “chance” of a new life being created. By that logic the least effective method would be the most moral.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by nickybr38
I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to not want children. Does the Church say anything specifically about not desiring children being wrong?

I know you can’t get married in the Catholic church if you don’t want children.

Correction: you can’t get married in the Catholic Church if you are not “open to new life” and to children. Not wanting children is sometimes a temporary state of thinking. What is required is being open to children.

I don’t want children. But I’d be open to children in the future. Probably won’t happen, but still…

 

[nickybr38]

Nope.

Children are the only reason to be married… yet, if you don’t have children you are still validly married… it’s just that your marriage has no purpose then?

Just trying to understand the mentality here and having a difficult time.