So, don’t marry a women over 40, even if you are too??
Adoption? Foster children?
Your comment doesn’t make sense.
How about people of such limited intellect that they can't understand simple rules without jabbering about possible exceptions?
They're obviously hopelessly IQ deficient to the point that they there's a high probability their offspring will be morons so are they an exception?
of course not...people in their 70's have sex and have no problems.....as long as you are open to sex without the express intent to avoid pregnancy and avoid artificial methods of birth control you are in good shape with the church and with God.....who, after all, made the rules.
While adoption certainly is an option, I would also say a (married) couple must also want to adopt before doing so. This should be obvious. In other words, while I am no expert on the subject, I do not believe the church teaches that married couples who are, for whatever reason infertile MUST adopt. They simply must remain open to life in the sacramental bond.
“The Code states in Canon 1069: For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
Note, this says “...procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation”. This doesn’t necessarily include adoption.
What I’m trying to make clear and I believe I’m failing at doing so, is to say of course any married couple that has a desire for children should seek out adoption should “normal” means fail, but if a couple marries late in life, they shouldn’t feel as though they “have to” adopt. They only “have to” remain open to life, and all that entails.
After all, if God wills a couple have a child they will. Look at Sara for example.
I just wanted to make that point clear, not that anyone was implying anything else.