N
nickybr38
Guest
Would you get married if you have no desire for children at this point? What would be the point?
- Status
R
RHannosh619
Guest
Can you clarify what exactly that means? “does not alter the marital act”? My understanding of that is, it keeps things natural…right?
I do see your point, I was inferring that because of the slight chance of pregnancy that it makes NFP morally acceptable, but you’re right, the slight change of pregnancy is true, even with the condom.
What I should have said is…Unlike contraception, NFP is the natural way to engage in the marital act while still allowing the slight change of pregnancy. Because its a natural method, then it is morally acceptable.
S
Stylites
Guest
Giving a child up for adoption to a loving home is certainly an option for anyone at anytime. One doesn’t have to be a parent if one becomes a mother.
R
Rence
Guest
If you’re asking for me and my life situation (and not a general question), it’s irrelevent. I’m not anywhere near there in my life right now. The conditions are set up that way.
But generally speaking, if the setup was right, yes, I would get married because being open to marriage means that you don’t take any unnatural actions to prevent it. NFP is not fool proof. It’s not sinful to get married after menopause, and that’s probably when I will get married.
And the point would be companionship and someone to share my life with on a more personal level than platonic friendship.
N
nickybr38
Guest
That’s how I feel to.
I guess certain people feel marriage is only for baby making though. D:
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
It’s not an either-or, it’s a both-and.That’s how I feel to.
Certain people feel marriage is only for companionship or ‘love’, and that babies are a secondary result, to be welcomed (or not) depending on the individual couple’s ‘choice’.
Catholics feel that the primary purpose of marriage is for the procreation of children (not that it is ONLY for baby making, ahem), but that there is in addition (there comes the ‘both-and’ part) to the ‘procreative’ aspect (children) there is a "uniative’ aspect (the ‘bond’ between the couple, which is more than a ‘feeling’ of love though certainly it is nice to have the feeling).
Should one or both of the couple be unable to have children due to barrenness (whether before or after 'menopause), they are still ‘open’ to conception. (Sarah for example was well past the menopause when she conceived) and thus, are ‘open’ to procreation and uniation.
Should one or both be UNable to actually engage in the marital act itself (impotence) at the very ‘start’ of the marriage, thus keeping the marriage from ever being ‘consummated’, that is a barrier to marriage. Since the procreative aspect (even if the patient would be willing but physically can’t) is never in play, the marriage cannot be a true marriage in the Christian (which is the correct) sense. That doesn’t mean that one cannot ‘love’ another person, even live with them and care for them - it just means that they are not in a ‘marital’ relationship.
L
Love_Divine
Guest
Then you should hold off on your wedding to make sure that is a temporary state of thinking.
R
Rence
Guest
Then you should hold off on your wedding to make sure that is a temporary state of thinking.
It’s possible to come to that conclusion that you don’t want children after you’re married. That doesn’t mean you’re still not open to life.
C
choose_to_love
Guest
RHannosh, not altering the marital act means that the couple is not taking any intentional action to sterilize the marital act, before, during, or after the act. Coitus interruptus would qualify as natural, but it is contraceptive and not a licit way to space pregnancies. Ask Onan, right?
By the natural operation of the female cycle, however, there are times when she is fertile and times when she is not. By gathering this information, the couple then decides, through prayer and discernment (an ongoing process) whether they are being called to have a child that particular cycle. If they perceive that they have serious reasons to not get pregnant at that particular time, they abstain from the act until the wife is infertile again in her cycle. The marital act, its purposes and consequences are respected and no action is taken by the couple to strerilize the act.
Again, the chance, whether slight or nonexistant, of pregnancy occurring has nothing to do with NFP being a morally valid way to space pregnancies. Postovulatory, phase III, post-temperature shift, etc. (it seems you have some familiarity with NFP, yes?) intercourse will not result in pregnancy; it still licit to engage in relations at that time, and it does not make those relations contracepted.
By the natural operation of the female cycle, however, there are times when she is fertile and times when she is not. By gathering this information, the couple then decides, through prayer and discernment (an ongoing process) whether they are being called to have a child that particular cycle. If they perceive that they have serious reasons to not get pregnant at that particular time, they abstain from the act until the wife is infertile again in her cycle. The marital act, its purposes and consequences are respected and no action is taken by the couple to strerilize the act.
Again, the chance, whether slight or nonexistant, of pregnancy occurring has nothing to do with NFP being a morally valid way to space pregnancies. Postovulatory, phase III, post-temperature shift, etc. (it seems you have some familiarity with NFP, yes?) intercourse will not result in pregnancy; it still licit to engage in relations at that time, and it does not make those relations contracepted.
A
ac_claire
Guest
This, basically. To the OP, wanting love and companionship isn’t wrong. Not wanting children isn’t wrong. But being open to having children is the primary purpose of marriage. (Not the only purpose, but the primary one). So…I think maybe your difficulty is that you’re defining marriage in a different way than the Church does.
According to *your * personal definition of marriage, which I gathered from your previous posts in this thread, it’s fine to not want children. But according to the Church’s definition of marriage, it’s not fine to get married and then intend to not be open to children. You’d be abusing the sacrament if you did that.
So it seems to me that a person would only accept that they need to be open to children if they accepted the Church’s definition of marriage over their own personal definition. That’s what I do, because I figure I’m just one tiny, fallible person in this world, you know? Meanwhile marriage has been around since God created humanity and it’s a Sacrament ordained by Him. Because of that, I’ll go by what *He *says about it over my own personal feelings about it.
Hope that makes sense.
Well, as others have pointed out…to not want children isn’t necessarily a selfish life choice. Being a parent is certainly not the only valid life choice for a person. But it’s the whole being *married *and not being open to children that people are responding to, because that’s how you framed the question in the OP.However, I’m sorry, but I have to say I don’t agree, in fact I’m confused by this whole attitude
Sanctioned fornication? “Why be married”? What about loving companionship? What about a couple who feel they wouldn’t cope with children very well for some reason, or just want to devote themselves to something else?
Don’t get me wrong, I think parenthood is a very good thing but I just don’t see it as the only valid life choice, this rigid idea that if you don’t want kids you must be selfish… or mentally unhealthy? It’s such a harsh judgement.
But if a couple takes steps that make conception impossible because they’ve decided they just don’t want children, then yeah…stands to reason that’s the definition of NOT being open to life.
M
marysdaughter22
Guest
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.
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.
M
marysdaughter22
Guest
Also, it’s not that I have a huge problem with this myself, more that it was one of a number of questions I have where I feel the ‘rules’ can be harsh and that the reasoning behind the rules maybe isn’t quite right (from my point of view). There were a number of things I could have asked, I just chose this one.
God bless, everyone :getholy:
God bless, everyone :getholy:
A
ac_claire
Guest
I got the impression that that might have been (at least part of) your difficulty from your posts in this thread.
In your case here, it seems to be the teaching that being *open to children * (although not necessarily *having *them) is the primary purpose of marriage that you have some problems with. And you mention having issues with some of the other rules as well…If it helps you at all, I have been through some things like this where I’ve *seriously *questioned Church teaching and “the rules”. I’ve downright rejected infallible teachings in my heart as well.
Every single time though that it’s happened so far, I’ve eventually just prayed for the grace of acceptance. I decided that even though I didn’t personally understand, I *wanted *to understand and I *wanted *to believe. I truly wanted to trust the Church and it was distressing to me that I couldn’t (at least not 100%) on those particular issues.
I believe that reaching that point of wanting to believe is a way of turning your will over to God, even though your understanding still hasn’t changed. Eventually, I did come to believe the Church’s view on these issues, and I believe that my “turnaround” so to speak was a gift from God because I surrendered my will to Him.
Faith is a gift. You can’t always rely on your own understanding. Accept the gift of faith from God…desire it…and God will bless you with the necessary faith and trust to believe.
The way I look at it, if I disagree with the Church, then one of us is wrong-- little ol’ me, who is one fallible person on this earth, or the 2000+ year old Church that Jesus Christ established and imbued with His own spirit of Truth and His own teaching authority. Which makes more sense-- that I’m right and the Church is wrong? Or that the Church is right and maybe my own understanding is a little off?
Another question to consider-- does a rule being “harsh” (subjectively-- in one’s opinion) preclude it from being fair or true?
Just some things to consider. Hope I made some sense in there in the midst of the ramblings.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
WRONG…what about couples that can’t have children…should they have never gotten married…the church allows you to get married if you are sterile. Children is one point…not the ONLY point.
A
Annabelle_Marie
Guest
I’m sorry people have been so harsh. I’ve run into that myself. I got married 20+ years ago. I didn’t get married knowning I didn’t want children but at the time I didn’t want them. Why? I don’t know. Why as a women don’t I want a child…maybe I’m broken, defective…worthless…I don’t know…I’m sure posters here will have some opinion on that. Maybe it was the abuse in my childhood. Lets not me quick to judge. So…I prayed for 20+ years for God to give me a spark of desire. Nothing…silence. So…we used ABC…and before you all get into me…I was protestant at the time and I’ve made peace with it and taken it to reconcilliation. Problem is that before that my husband had a procedure…before we came back to the church. I still don’t want kids…and he never did either.
So…where do I go from here? I make sure that our marriage is still open to life…but it’s going to take a miracle because of the procedure. AND no he is not willing to fix it. AND no…we don’t want to adopt. Bottom line I didn’t REALLY trust God. But then I’ve known people who have in vitro that don’t do that either…don’t REALLY trust God.
So–are you guys saying that we should break up 22 years of marriage because all marriage is about is kids?
I would say to the OP…pray about it…read the Catecism…to understand what it REALLY says. It’s something that you can come to terms with. I did…when I started the journey back i didn’t even thing ABC was wrong.
A
Alexander_Smith
Guest
T
TedDC
Guest
Ah, the smug sanctimony of the young (yes, I can tell).
R
Rascalking
Guest
My friend (whether your young or old!
)I think some issues require a bit more tact. It’s a tough thing to talk about. Some people who don’t desire kids shouldn’t have to live a life of celibacy. It’s a complicated issue.
Notice I’m not saying my opinion on the issue. Let’s just remember that even people who disagree with us deserve charity.
D
dontknow
Guest
Well stated. Many (not all) of the Catholic extremists on CAF need to be taught charity in how they respond. If the priest, Deacon & Nun assigned to our parish responded to my questions that way - you can be sure I’d leave the faith at that moment. Yikes…My friend (whether your young or old!
I think some issues require a bit more tact. It’s a tough thing to talk about. Some people who don’t desire kids shouldn’t have to live a life of celibacy. It’s a complicated issue.
Notice I’m not saying my opinion on the issue. Let’s just remember that even people who disagree with us deserve charity.
I can tell you we were open to life when we first got married but didn’t want kids at that time. Eventually we had our child and love every second of it.
A
Alexander_Smith
Guest
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?
I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t see it as being a complicated issue. If you don’t desire kids, you don’t have to live a life of celibacy, but you can’t render the marital act sterile by use of ABC methods either. A lack of desire for children is different from and intention to not have children.My friend (whether your young or old!
I think some issues require a bit more tact. It’s a tough thing to talk about. Some people who don’t desire kids shouldn’t have to live a life of celibacy. It’s a complicated issue.
Notice I’m not saying my opinion on the issue. Let’s just remember that even people who disagree with us deserve charity.
I’m not a Catholic extremist. I wouldn’t be a Catholic at all if I thought it was okay to use artificial contraception.
If you don’t want kids, fine, but that doesn’t mean you can use ABC.
- Status