Can a spouse *demand* children?

[ack]

1. Is this something to get an annulment over?

Your wife CANNOT get an annulment because you currently refuse to have children. This is not grounds for an annulment because it doesn’t concern the validity of the marriage at its inception.

Your wife COULD get an annulment if, at the time of your marriage, you intended to avoid having children, in a way that would cause you to break one of the promises that the church requires from all potential spouses at the time of marriage. If you are in this situation, then your current refusal to have children is moot, because she could get an annulment even if you relented.

If your wife is threatening to divorce you over this, her actions are contrary to the spirit of what a Catholic marriage should be. It’s unlikely that showing her the church’s real teachings on annulments would help, because it seems like she would be determined to do whatever she wants to do.

Some questions to assess the situation:
(1) Before you married, did you discuss this topic with your wife? Did you declare an intention to have or avoid children? Did she agree with this intention?
(2) If, before you even married, you intended to avoid having children for some time, did you discuss this with the priest who married you? What was his reaction?

If it wasn’t for your wife’s threats, I would urge you to have children as soon as possible. Personally, if my marriage was so rocky that my wife was threatening to divorce me, I would avoid having children, out of uncertainty that they would have a stable family environment when growing up.

 

[gmarie21]

My husband’s ex-wife promised children, 8 years later she still avoided having any. She’s an ex for a reason but still insists she wanted children. She was happy with her animals (which he was severely allergic to) and in reality never brought up having children until he had one foot out the door (the same thing she did when before they married he was ready to break things off for good). But as others have stated, you need to work on communication and you need to be frank with yourself and she with herself. If your fear is more about providing, tell her. But also, as others have stated, you will never be financially ready to have children. We’re in debt beyond my comfort level but our next baby is due in October. I have a friend who is more financially stable and has an extremely difficult time getting pregnant (we’re talking it takes her years) and is struggling with the temptation of going against Church teaching for baby #2. And your wife is correct in stating that God WILL provide.

 

[The_Bucket]

God provides as long as you follow his plan. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy though. The other folks who are saying that this a communication issue and not a doctrinal issue are correct. You never really went into detail about your debt situation but that’s fine and I think best left to yourself.

What you need to do is lay out a plan. One that will make sense for both of you. Look seriously about the expenses of a pregnancy and a child compared to your current financial situation. Then look at how you can get to where it will be easier to take care of your family financially. Talk to your wife about this and have some serious discussion. Crunch some numbers, set some goals and pray for guidance. If you do that, the appropriate answer will come to you.

While there’s definitely something to say about too much planning and too many goals and too much insanity to make sure everything is “just right” before the baby comes because you’ll never get there, you should also not be irresponsible. Be prudent, not paranoid but not reckless either.

 

[Pug]

1. Am I wrong to want to pay off (some of) my debt before I start to have kids?

Depends on the debt. I see no need to pay it all off first. If Guido is coming around next week to break your legs if you don’t pay, maybe postpone a bit until life is less stressed. Make sure you and your wife know what you plan in this regard.

1. Is this something to get an annulment over?

A postponement of kids? Absolutely not! If one wants to wait two years and the other three, this is not a refusal to have kids.

1. A. Can my wife demand children? Is it her ‘marital right’?

Demand in whatever circumstance? No. But at some point you are at fault for refusing.

1. B. If yes to 3A, when do I get a vote? At what point do you say “We literally *cannot * afford children! We will live on the streets!” (Okay, maybe a little over dramatic)

If she murdered your last child and is now demanding you produce another one as a toy, please refuse. I’m picking a dramatic example, of course. I know it doesn’t relate to your situation. There is no set line. You must pray, she must pray, and you must consult together. I suggest you and your wife seek the advice of a good priest to see what you together ought to do. Since you do want kids, perhaps now is the time. But, perhaps not. Ask someone who can see you face to face and hear all the details in love.

I am concerned that divorce and annulment have been mentioned between you two. Perhaps it was just said in frustration once out of human weakness. But perhaps your wife is really threatening to leave you right now. Either way, this is a serious issue to be addressed, and I suspect merely doing what she wants now may not be sufficient to resolve the root cause of the threat.

May God richly bless you!

 

[SMHW]

The Catholic rite of marriage has a built in “demand” for children. It’s a given that those who are able to bear children will attempt to do so. It is the right of a spouse to expect the partner to cooperate in bearing children. Children are one of purposes of Catholic marriage.

However.… a youngish couple who marries can expect to spend 30, 40, 50. perhaps 60+ years together. And a fair amount of that time --in some cases the majority of the time-- can and should be devoted to matters other than children. Eliminating debt and planning for old age are reasonable things to do, if for no other reason than to avoid making one’s children responsible for the parents financial needs when the parents are old.

But it cannot be forgotten that the time to spend on the *bearing *part of bearing a and raising children is limited. While *some *women can and do become mothers up until around age 50, the majority of women have a decrease in fertility by age 35. And pregnancy takes a greater toll on her body after that time.

Ultimately, the choice to produce children must outweigh the financial difficulties of life.

Your wife demanded children and you agreed when you recited your Catholic wedding vows. But that doesn’t mean your wife should have an expectation that her demands can be fulfilled at any time of her choosing. But she does have a right to expect you to make having children a main goal of your marriage.

I’ve said a lot of things which are kind of vague. That was deliberate. But just remember that reducing debt should not be a goal in its own right. That may be okay for single people. But for a young married fertile couple reducing debt is not a goal; it’s merely a step toward the goal of having children.

 

[tafan]

Yes your wife can demand children. No, your wife cannot divorce you over the issue. An annullment would only be granted if you had been unwilling to have children for your whole life at the time of the wedding.

Now for the practival matter. Assuming your wife has good maternity medical insurance, having a child now should have absolutly no effect on paying down your debt. It has been my experience (8 kids) and I have discussed this issue with a lot of people, that a new baby decreases living expenses. Being even the least bit careful with expenses, when a new baby is born, especially the first one or two, living expenses almost always go down. About the only new expense is diapers (20-30 bucks a week, and there is the cloth option to solve this), which is more than made up for by other decreases in life style spending. When you have a new baby, you will pretty much quit going out to eat for 1 year or so, you won’t go out to eat, it will probably cancel out at least one vacation.

Kids don’t cost near as much money as people claim, not for quite a while anyway. You want to get your debts paid down quicker, have a kid.

 

[SMHW]

Now for the practival matter. Assuming your wife has good maternity medical insurance, having a child now should have absolutly no effect on paying down your debt. It has been my experience (8 kids) and I have discussed this issue with a lot of people, that a new baby decreases living expenses.

I think this is an unrealistic view unless the wife’s income is insignificant and/or can be counteracted by the couple being brought into a lessor tax bracket when/if she quits working. Our expenses took a hit when my son was born. (I was making slightly more money than my husband at the time.)

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s important that the OP understand his obligation to have children. But to say it won’t cost money is unrealistic.

 

[1ke]

So, dumb question. Where does it say that my wife can demand children? Don’t get me wrong, I believe you, I just like to read and learn ‘straight from the well’ - so to speak.

She does not have a right to “demand” children. She does have a right to the exchange of the marital embrace, which might *result *in children (or might not). This right to intercourse is not unlimited, however.

This is called “marital duty.” I suggest the papal encyclical Casti Connubii, which discusses this right to intercourse.

But, I think it’s foolhardy of your wife to insist on having children if you have real financial concerns. I can’t say whether you do or not. That’s something to discuss with a priest.

 

[NoAvailableName]

Is there a way to come up with a simple compromise?

“If we can cut out X dollars from our monthly budget then we’ll have children.”

Make sure that you actually cut that X amount for a specified period of time, say 3 or 4 months so you know it is sustainable.

X will probably be a little higher than your wife wants and a little lower than you want. But it seems that being unable to compromise on this is a sign of a marriage that isn’t healthy right now and probably shouldn’t be producing children yet.

 

[Just_Lurking]

1. Is this something to get an annulment over?

A postponement of kids? Absolutely not! If one wants to wait two years and the other three, this is not a refusal to have kids.

An annullment would only be granted if you had been unwilling to have children for your whole life at the time of the wedding.

This is a common misconception. However, Lawrence Wrenn in his book The Invalid Marriage writes:
Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid.
The citation is to the Roman Rota case coram Davino.

 

[NoAvailableName]

This is a common misconception. However, Lawrence Wrenn in his book The Invalid Marriage writes:
Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid.
The citation is to the Roman Rota case coram Davino.

So anyone that wants to get out of a Catholic marriage can just withhold sex for a day (or even less) and that is enough for the marriage to be invalidated with an easy annulment? I find that impossible to believe.

 

[tafan]

This is a common misconception. However, Lawrence Wrenn in his book The Invalid Marriage writes:
Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid.
The citation is to the Roman Rota case coram Davino.

Has to be something being taken out of context. Possible, there may be a technical terminology problem here. I am not for sure, from a canon law perspective that “invalid” is the same as “null”. At any rate, the sin of withholding sex is not grounds for annullment.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Here is a longer excerpt from Wrenn, pages 127-128:

Occasionally, however, the intent of one or both parties is so firm, intense, inflexible, and non negotiable, that it can no longer be viewed as a side agreement subordinate to the marriage covenant. In such a case the intention of that person invades the heart of the covenant itself, excludes from it the right to the conjugal act (extracts that piece from the pie), and thereby distorts, truncates and intrinsically limits the terms of the covenant. Should a man with such an intention, having entered marriage with the understanding that children would be postponed for say two years, be asked by his wife for a child after only six months, it could be expected that he would see his wife’s request as an illegitimate extension of her rights and something for which he had not really bargained in entering marriage.

This man would have truly excluded the right to the conjugal act and so entered marriage invalidly.

 

[dans0622]

Has to be something being taken out of context. Possible, there may be a technical terminology problem here. I am not for sure, from a canon law perspective that “invalid” is the same as “null”. At any rate, the sin of withholding sex is not grounds for annullment.

Hi tafan,

The point made by Fr. Wrenn is correct and in accord with canon law. If a person, in his exchange of marital consent, excludes the “good of children,” by a positive act of the will, (directly intends to not hand over the “right to the body” or the “right to acts suitable in themselves for the generation of offspring”)–that is not valid, marital consent.

Oftentimes, couples enter a marriage with an “agreement to postpone children” until certain circumstances are present. This can be valid and licit, as long as they actually do exchange the “right to the body” in their marital consent. At the same time, they can also agree to not exercise that right for a certain length of time–5 years, for example.

As noted by Fr. Wrenn, if it so happens that one spouse has a change of heart and adamantly wants children after, say, 1 year instead of 5 years, then the other spouse is bound to respect his/her vows and acceed to the spouse’s wishes. If the spouse adamantly refuses, then the conclusion would seem to be that this spouse did not actually hand over the right to the body. Therefore, his/her marital consent was not valid–it wasn’t consent to marriage, after all.

The cause of nullity is not “the sin of withholding sex.” The cause of nullity is the lack of marital consent. It is not that the spouse can demand children. But, a spouse can demand that the other spouse lives up to the promises made in consenting to marriage.

Hope this makes sense. Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[tafan]

Dan,

what you write makes perfect sense and and I understand it. However, it does not seem related to the sentence “Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid”. That sentence seems to imply that the sin of withholding sex, made at anytime in a marriage makes a marriage invalid.

I am still trying to make out the last paragrah by “just lurking” to see how that pertains to the original quote.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

what you write makes perfect sense and and I understand it. However, it does not seem related to the sentence “Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid”. That sentence seems to imply that the sin of withholding sex, made at anytime in a marriage makes a marriage invalid.

I am still trying to make out the last paragrah by “just lurking” to see how that pertains to the original quote.

Hello again,

What would “invalidate” this marriage is insufficient consent, not subsequent actions or inactions. The actions of the spouse, though, can demonstrate and prove his/her actual intentions in marrying. The point made by Fr. Wrenn is that the spouse in question, marries and then *never *allows natural relations after the marriage. Whether this is over 25 years or 6 months does not matter. If the marriage lasts only one month, it might be declared invalid on the basis of an intention against children (provided there are other proofs which establish this intention).

Hope that helps.

Dan

 

[Pug]

This is a common misconception. However, Lawrence Wrenn in his book The Invalid Marriage writes:Where the right to the conjugal act is truly excluded by a positive act of the will, even if it is done only for a period of time, the marriage is invalid.The citation is to the Roman Rota case coram Davino.

Perhaps we mean the same thing, perhaps not. In the OP case, it seems that the conjugal act has been taking place all along, so I did not have in view the case that OP had a positive act of will to exclude the conjugal act at the time of marriage which continued for a period of two years. He seems to be asking about other things, not this.

I perceived hints of a question about if a valid marriage can turn invalid two years after the fact on account of the man’s behavior *after *two years of marriage. (It can’t.) Another poster correctly notes that the man’s behavior after marriage may be an indication of what he willed when he got married, though.

It is possible that the OP positively excluded and still excludes the marital rights of his wife. But it is not an exclusion of marital rights to reasonably conclude that it is inappropriate to relations at the most fertile period at this time (and has been inappropriate for the last two years). This thing more sounds like a disagreement between the spouses over if they have good cause to avoid right now. This is part of the reason I suggested talking with a priest. He could help guide them on this point. To go from a couple “needing guidance on when it is appropriate to avoid” and “never having consented to marital rights” is a bigger distance than I was going on the info given.

I’m assuming the reason they “avoided” for two years was a legitimate one, since I seem to have insufficient reason to assume otherwise right now. Perhaps this assumption is what confused things.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

I’d like to toss this into the discussion. I’ve been married almost years now, and my wife still isn’t pregnant. To be honest, I was slightly shocked when a previous poster considered that 2 years was a terribly long time. Now, our situation had other factors (both laid off 2 months into the marriage, ~1.5 moths after that we had a mere $13 in the check book; now I’m starting law school in August). However, I feel perfectly fine in saying that a valid reason to hold off on children for a bit is just to spend time as a couple and get used to being married before adding one or more new people into the mix. Now, not everyone may want to, and that’s fine. But let’s not be so quick to decry those who do.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[tafan]

Hello again,

What would “invalidate” this marriage is insufficient consent, not subsequent actions or inactions. The actions of the spouse, though, can demonstrate and prove his/her actual intentions in marrying. The point made by Fr. Wrenn is that the spouse in question, marries and then *never *allows natural relations after the marriage. Whether this is over 25 years or 6 months does not matter. If the marriage lasts only one month, it might be declared invalid on the basis of an intention against children (provided there are other proofs which establish this intention).

Hope that helps.

Dan

I understand that Dan, its just not what the quote said. The quote made it sound much more broad, I am only assuming it was taken out of context.

 

[Jea9]

I’d like to toss this into the discussion. I’ve been married almost years now, and my wife still isn’t pregnant. To be honest, I was slightly shocked when a previous poster considered that 2 years was a terribly long time. Now, our situation had other factors (both laid off 2 months into the marriage, ~1.5 moths after that we had a mere $13 in the check book; now I’m starting law school in August). However, I feel perfectly fine in saying that a valid reason to hold off on children for a bit is just to spend time as a couple and get used to being married before adding one or more new people into the mix. Now, not everyone may want to, and that’s fine. But let’s not be so quick to decry those who do.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I think one of the key differences between your situation and the OP’s is that it seems as though you and your wife were in agreement. If she came to you and wanted to have children now, would you say all your reasons trump hers? Or would you prayerfully decide together?

I think many people would say that “getting used to being married” isn’t a serious enough reason to hold off children. I, personally, am not OK with defining other people’s ideas of ‘serious reasons to avoid’ because I can’t possibly know what’s serious to another couple. For my husband and I, we wanted kids so bad that we were really hoping for a honeymoon baby (our honeymoon was on the Catholic Answers Cruise last year, and other people on the cruise joked that if there was a honeymoon baby and it was a boy, we’d have to name him Karl! ), but it took a few more weeks than that! At any rate, wanting to get used to being married, would certainly not be a serious reason for us, but again, you can’t say for another. I think the advice should be “are you SURE that this is a serious reason, and are you praying about it MONTHLY?” Because I think sometimes people get caught up in the “we’re waiting…” and then don’t necessarily look at the situation on any regular basis. Of course, this is just an observation based on how I read people’s messages on this forum. I don’t actually know any other Catholic couples well enough to know about their use of NFP or not.