Marriage, "sexual immorality" and openness to conception

[LutheranRose]

So here is a question I have been struggling with:

As we all know, Matt. 5,32 defines "sexual immorality" as the only, exceptional grounds for a legitimate divorce. There is usually some debate as to what counts as sexually immorality or not. I lean towards the view that any and all sexual behaviour not consistent with God's patterns is sexually immoral (this is a common view). Now, my question is the following. Given that the prophet Malachi as said, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God made husband and wife one flesh for the purpose of bringing up Godly offspring; do you think that a spouse that adamantly refuses to have any children can be considered sexually immoral (i.e., wanting to use their sexuality in their own perverted way rather than according to God's design?) Keep in mind that what I mean here is a spouse who refuses to have even a single child, and may resort to radical measures to prevent conception; I do not mean someone who is sterile or who simply wants to plan their family, but is open to having children.

I look forward to your opinions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

So here is a question I have been struggling with:

As we all know, Matt. 5,32 defines "sexual immorality" as the only, exceptional grounds for a legitimate divorce. There is usually some debate as to what counts as sexually immorality or not. I lean towards the view that any and all sexual behaviour not consistent with God's patterns is sexually immoral (this is a common view). Now, my question is the following. Given that the prophet Malachi as said, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God made husband and wife one flesh for the purpose of bringing up Godly offspring; do you think that a spouse that adamantly refuses to have any children can be considered sexually immoral (i.e., wanting to use their sexuality in their own perverted way rather than according to God's design?) Keep in mind that what I mean here is a spouse who refuses to have even a single child, and may resort to radical measures to prevent conception; I do not mean someone who is sterile or who simply wants to plan their family, but is open to having children.

I look forward to your opinions.

You cannot marry in the Catholic Church if you refuse to have any children. They ask that question in advance. So I would say that such a marriage is invalid.

I tend to think the ‘except for sexual immorality’ clause is limited to an incestual marriage, which would be invalid under Jewish law. But that you are on the right track in thinking a deliberately childless marriage is also not valid.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello @LutheranRose, the Greek word that we translate as "sexual immorality" in Matthew 5:32 refers specifically to someone who engages in an illicit sexual act, not to someone who abstains, so I don't think that you can make that particular connection.

It is also true that God has purposes for marital relations other than procreation. For instance,

1 Corinthians 7
3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
​

While there have always been people who want to be married but do not want to have children (this, it seems, is occurring FAR more often today than it has in the past), a married couple having children is clearly the ideal that God intended. That said, I'm not sure that a couple refusing to accept the blessing from God to, "be fruitful and multiply" .. Genesis 1:28, can be considered a morally sinful act.

Did the spouse who is adamantly refusing to have children in this case make that fact clear before getting married?

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - have you talked to your pastor about this?

 

[Isilwen]

You cannot marry in the Catholic Church if you refuse to have any children. They ask that question in advance. So I would say that such a marriage is invalid.
But that you are on the right track in thinking a deliberately childless marriage is also not valid.

Which is one of the reasons I left the Catholic church behind. While I have seven kids, it was my choice to have such a large family. Not everyone wants a child, but do want to get married and have that kind of relationship with someone.

A church should not dictate to a married couple that they must have children to be validly married.

 

[LutheranRose]

Thanks to everyone for the thoughtful replies. I am getting ready for work so I might have some extra thoughts later. In any case, here's what I have to say so far (in quote and answer format).

Hello @LutheranRose, the Greek word that we translate as "sexual immorality" in Matthew 5:32 refers specifically to someone who engages in an illicit sexual act, not to someone who abstains, so I don't think that you can make that particular connection.

​

The reasoning that I'm putting forward assumes sexual activity, in that the marriage remains sexually active despite the adamant closedness to conception. So that the 'sexually immoral' acts in question would be the unnatural use of sexuality. I do not think (cf. Malachi) that God intended the married couple's sexual life to be willfully, deliberately and permanently closed to conception. While there is nothing in the Scripture against contraception, the clear commands to procreate together with procreation being an intrinsic part of God's purpose for marriage mean that contraception can, if anything, be used for family planning. I don't think it is possible to deny that to have a sexual life that is wilfully barren is to have a sexual life in rebellion against God's pattern.

It is also true that God has purposes for marital relations other than procreation.

(...)

Did the spouse who is adamantly refusing to have children in this case make that fact clear before getting married?

Yes, marital relations individually do not have to lead to conception or have it as their intention, which is why I don't oppose family planning/contraception in and of themselves. But marriage itself is clearly intended by God to be open to conception. Anti-natalism would therefore seem to be a perverted sexuality, just like, say, sodomy is.

I mean, this is an hypothetical, but there can be different situations here. For example, the couple may have married as non-believers but one of the spouses have become Christian and therefore, things that did not concern them before do now, since they want to please God. There are also cases where the a spouse says they want to have children before marriage but after change their minds. I think these questions will become pastoral issues in the future, which is why I am asking. For example, Jesus did not address what Paul addresses later, about allowing an unbeliever to divorce a believer. This is because it wasn't an issue in Jesus' audience, all of whom were Jews. Similarly, when Paul addresses the issue later, he takes for granted that even the mixed-married couple will have children ("...hence your children are sanctified, otherwise they would be impure.") Certain issues were never addressed because they were not common, so we need to find appropriate principles for them. In an extreme case, the anti-natalist spouse might abort the believing spouse's children. Is that not an immoral sexuality?

My pastor has said that one cannot force another person, especially a non-believer, to have children. But he has clearly affirmed the same views I am espousing here about openness to conception being intrinsic to marriage.

Which is one of the reasons I left the Catholic church behind. While I have seven kids, it was my choice to have such a large family. Not everyone wants a child, but do want to get married and have that kind of relationship with someone.

A church should not dictate to a married couple that they must have children to be validly married.

As I am not a Catholic, I certainly agree that it is not "the Church" that dictates to a couple that they must have children. But Christians ought to follow the word of God which is in no way unclear about the purpose of marriage, and moreover the Lord commands the Church to discipline and eventually expell members because of their immoral behaviour. There is no question that marriage has certain standards including openness to conception. Certainly a Christian should not enter marriage with an anti-natalist. The question here is whether this is valid grounds for divorce on a marriage already entered into. That married Christians have a duty to be open to conception is beyond question.

 

[Isilwen]

As I am not a Catholic, I certainly agree that it is not "the Church" that dictates to a couple that they must have children. But Christians ought to follow the word of God which is in no way unclear about the purpose of marriage, and moreover the Lord commands the Church to discipline and eventually expell members because of their immoral behaviour. There is no question that marriage has certain standards including openness to conception. Certainly a Christian should not enter marriage with an anti-natalist. The question here is whether this is valid grounds for divorce on a marriage already entered into. That married Christians have a duty to be open to conception is beyond question.

So what your saying is, if you don't want a kid stay single?

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with that. Some people just aren't meant to have kids and they know it, but still want the relationship that marriage brings. That should never be denied them. Yes, God says be fruitful and multiply, but I do not believe that is a command.

People should be able to get married even if they do not want kids.

 

[bèlla]

Most people who don't desire children are adamant and upfront about it. I've seen women marry men knowing their position and get upset when he refuses to bend. She had no business marrying him.

If family is a must you should make sure the other person is on board and include caveats. How do you address fertility issues? Is adoption, surrogacy, or using donated eggs an option? When you put things on the table there's far less surprises and disruptions in harmony.

 

[LutheranRose]

Well, to start from first principles, I am a Sola Scriptura Christian, committed to upholding whatever teaching I find stated in the Bible. "Be fruitful and multiply" is told by God to the first married couple, whom the Lord Jesus uses as His very own paradigm for His teaching on marriage. Malachi 2:14-15 plainly states that it is God Himself who presides over the marriage covenant, and that with the purpose of procuring "Godly Offspring" (this, by the way, is what St. Paul is referring to when he says that the children of mixed Christian-pagan marriages are still "sanctified" by the believing partner; that is, God's purpose is not thwarted if a mixed-marriage stays together. As you can see, that implies that raising a Godly Offspring is the implied purpose of marriage).

So, am I saying "if you don't want a kid stay single?" Not exactly. If you are a non-believer married to another non-believer I do not expect you to care about what God thinks. But if you are a Christian I think you should put God's purpose before your own desires, which, is, after all, the essence of Christian life ("deny yourself daily, carry your cross and follow me".) So, I think Christians should evaluate their vocation, and if they really want to marry remain open to conception. Of course, I don't believe obedience is what saves a person so I am not saying minutely that it is other this or you'll go to hell or anything like that. I am just saying that God's pattern is normative.

I will give my thoughts about @bèlla 's comment later, but I will right now add that in this scenario if the spouse in question would be willing to adopt while using non-aborting contraception to prevent conception this would, in my mind solve the issue. So, I am delineating a scenario where the spouse is adamantly against adoption also.

 

[bèlla]

The only way a Christian would be married to a nonbeliever is if they came to faith after the union, were backslidden and returned to God during the marriage, or knowingly disobeyed and went forward.

I don't put a lot of stock in the "they pretended to be a Christian" allegations. You discern through the spirit supplemented with prayer and observation. Many conflate religiousness with belief. That's why they're duped and it says something about their maturity too.

This isn't rocket science. If you want children marry someone who desires the same. Choices have consequences. It's better to marry knowing the Lord and select someone on the same page who shares your hopes and dreams. Anything outside of that has its own complications.

Life is easy. We make it harder than required. Our refusal to think, plan and consider the ramifications of our decisions and actions causes more misery than anything else. When you count the cost hardships lessen and life becomes enjoyable and really good.

 

[Mink61]

So here is a question I have been struggling with:

As we all know, Matt. 5,32 defines "sexual immorality" as the only, exceptional grounds for a legitimate divorce. There is usually some debate as to what counts as sexually immorality or not. I lean towards the view that any and all sexual behaviour not consistent with God's patterns is sexually immoral (this is a common view). Now, my question is the following. Given that the prophet Malachi as said, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that God made husband and wife one flesh for the purpose of bringing up Godly offspring; do you think that a spouse that adamantly refuses to have any children can be considered sexually immoral (i.e., wanting to use their sexuality in their own perverted way rather than according to God's design?) Keep in mind that what I mean here is a spouse who refuses to have even a single child, and may resort to radical measures to prevent conception; I do not mean someone who is sterile or who simply wants to plan their family, but is open to having children.

I look forward to your opinions.

I think this is one of "those" questions that can't be answered by simply looking at ONE or TWO verses about sexual immorality/marriage/children, etc.

Most of us are familiar with God's "blessing" (I hate to say 'command') in Genesis about being "fruitful and multiplying." God did NOT say, "Go ahead. Have as much sex as you want WITHOUT the benefit of multiplying." Also, God knew ahead of time that not EVERYONE would be capable of 'multiplying', nor did He say to multiply over and over and over again. However, the Jews did take God's Word literally, so they did produce large families. Clearly, producing children is part of God's plan for married couples in general, but not for ALL married couples.

Also in Genesis is the story of Onan (I'm paraphrasing)...who, after his brother died, Onan took his brother's wife as his own (as dictated by law). However, he knew that the first child he produced wouldn't be counted as his own...so, every time he had intercourse with his brother's wife, he "spilled his seed on the ground." And God "struck him down." Some people say that the reason God struck him down was because of his refusal to produce a child. Other's say that God struck him down because he used his wife's body as a masturbatory 'tool' (and thereby declared all forms of masturbation to be "sinful"). Either way you look at it, God wasn't happy with what he did.

Then there's the story of Tobit. I realize that the OP isn't Catholic, but Tobit is in the Catholic Bible. In a nutshell, before Tobit was married, his wife had been married 7 times. In each instance, when her husbands approached her to have intercourse on their wedding night, a "demon" killed them. When Tobit married her, he and his wife knelt down and prayed on their wedding night. Tobit's prayer included how he was taking his wife in 'fidelity' and not in 'lust'. It is assumed that he and his wife did not have intercourse on their wedding night.

Of course, there's Malachi. And, LOTS of talk in the New Testament about how we are to avoid "sins of the flesh." Marriage is not be used as an avenue to have as much sex as we want.

Sexual immorality is a big 'word'. Can it be seen as "sexually immoral" to marry with the knowledge that you don't want children? I believe so. Even if one does want children, sexual immorality can occur in a marriage (again, being married doesn't mean that we're supposed to give in to any and ALL kinds of sexual behavior).

On a side note--We've heard of "sexless marriages" before. I've wondered if a marriage becomes "sexless" because there's something deeply intrinsic in one of the parties that tells them, "What's the point of having sex unless it leads to having children?" Just a little food for thought...

 

[Isilwen]

this or you'll go to hell or anything like that.

That I can agree with, and listening to God as well, but again, I do not believe that it was a command for all.

So I will agree to disagree.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Which is one of the reasons I left the Catholic church behind. While I have seven kids, it was my choice to have such a large family. Not everyone wants a child, but do want to get married and have that kind of relationship with someone.

A church should not dictate to a married couple that they must have children to be validly married.

The Church doesn't mandate that a married couple have children, but instead that they
be open to life. If God blesses them with children, praise God. If not, praise God as well.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

As a Discalced Carmelite Secular, OCDS, sexual immorality is committing unnatural
sexual acts, such as anal copulation, is prohibited in a marriage.

Sexuality between a husband and wife is for the purpose of expressing
united love for each other, while being open to creating new life.

You have to decide if the sexual act you are committing, is to express love
for your partner, or for just self gratification?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Which is one of the reasons I left the Catholic church behind. While I have seven kids, it was my choice to have such a large family. Not everyone wants a child, but do want to get married and have that kind of relationship with someone.

A church should not dictate to a married couple that they must have children to be validly married.

You had the good sense to follow your convictions. I’ll give you that.

 

[Isilwen]

You had the good sense to follow your convictions.

Thank you! Wasn't easy as I was a cradle Catholic and my whole family is Catholic, but I will not stay in a church where I have more reasons why I left than I do have reasons to stay.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it probably depends, at least in part, on the reason why. For example, if someone has a chronic illness and believes they don't have the physical capacity to bear and care for a child without risking major injury or impact to their ongoing health, that's a very different scenario, say, to someone who wants to put their energy into a consumerist hedonistic lifestyle and sees that children might interfere with that. (To sketch two extremes).

I agree that, in general and as a norm, openness to children in a marriage would be the expectation. But I would be wary about putting that forward in a way which fails to take into account the whole of a person (or couple's) situation and circumstances.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thank you! Wasn't easy as I was a cradle Catholic and my whole family is Catholic, but I will not stay in a church where I have more reasons why I left than I do have reasons to stay.

And I will stay. I learn more from having to figure out the things I am uncomfortable with. Catholic sexual morality has been eye opening for me, particularly when it comes to John Paul II’s theology of the body. It may not be your cup of tea, so at least you left rather than pretended. And I stayed and made sense of it. Neither of us were content to be Catholic in name only.

 

[Skye1300]

You cannot marry in the Catholic Church if you refuse to have any children. They ask that question in advance. So I would say that such a marriage is invalid.

I tend to think the ‘except for sexual immorality’ clause is limited to an incestual marriage, which would be invalid under Jewish law. But that you are on the right track in thinking a deliberately childless marriage is also not valid.

Wow, I didn't know that. I guess since I knew I wanted kids, it was not an issue. I didn't think about it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Wow, I didn't know that. I guess since I knew I wanted kids, it was not an issue. I didn't think about it.

All the Church asks a couple is that they be open to life. They don't mandate that
they have children, as they don't know if the couple could even have children.
Couples who can't conceived aren't divorced by the Church, because they can't
have children.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Wow, I didn't know that. I guess since I knew I wanted kids, it was not an issue. I didn't think about it.

They asked you at some point. If you said something like a ‘yes’ even casually that would have been enough. Had you replied with a casual ‘no’ there would have been more questions and maybe no wedding in a Catholic Church.