Can a spouse *demand* children?

[Serap]

I haven’t read all the posts, but your wife holds a lot of power using NFP…she could begin telling you she’s not fertile when she knows that she is.

You have already gotten some great advice on the CC teaching, but I just wanted to state the obvious if she really wants children. Do you think she would go that far?

 

[Onegin]

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.

To add a footnote to this, here’s the underlying reason:

“The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.”

“Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”

• Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii Dec. 31, 1930

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

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.

Indeed, and you’ll notice that I said as much. And I’m certainly not denying that some may not want to wait. And congrats on the almost-honeymoon baby. But I was only responding to the shock that some people seemed to have about waiting two whole years to have a baby, and trying to raise an issue that hadn’t been mentioned before.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Magickman]

The ideal foundation for a sound marirriage is shared faith, values, and goals. The best time to establish the presence of the shared values and goals is before marriage.

When a couple has opposite views on basic issues, they should re-examine the relationship, and determine if they would be better off together or apart.

If I was the husband in this case, I would terminate the marriage, both for my own reasons, and also so the wife could find a more suitable spouse for her purposes.

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Marriages are not made invalid by decisions made after the fact. If your marriage was valid on the day you married, then it is also valid later, even if you abandon your vows.

If you married with no intention of fulfilling those things required for a valid marriage, though, then it is possible that a decree of nullity might be made, should you and your wife divorce. If you and your wife do not divorce, the issue of validity is not even addressed unless there is an obvious defect (that is, your marriage doesn’t meet the requirements of canon law, that kind of thing). Other than that, a Catholic marriage is valid until demonstrated otherwise. Other than obvious defects, the Church does not investigate for validity unless the couple has obtained a civil divorce, lest the process result in alienation of affection between the spouses.

IOW, the decision to sin after marriage does *not *invalidate a marriage. If the sin constitutes a danger to one of the spouses or would reasonably result in a seriously unjust situation, it may make a legal separation or even a civil divorce morally permissible, but that wouldn’t necessarily mean the spouses would be free to marry.

I have a relative whose spouse abandoned her. They divorced, and she applied for a decree of nullity. When he gave his testimony, her husband said that he fully intended to stay with her for life when they married, but later he left because he just didn’t feel like being married any more. There wasn’t evidence that he was incapable of fidelity, rather than that he was unfaithful by choice, so the marriage wasn’t ruled invalid by reason of incapacity.

The request for a decree of nullity was denied. It happens.

 

[EasterJoy]

The ideal foundation for a sound marirriage is shared faith, values, and goals. The best time to establish the presence of the shared values and goals is before marriage.

When a couple has opposite views on basic issues, they should re-examine the rerlationship, and determine if they would be better off together or apart.

If I was the husband in this case, I would terminate the marriage, both for my own reasons, and also so the wife could find a more suitable spouse for her purposes.

If the husband fully intended to follow Church teaching when the couple married, but only differed with his wife on what constitutes a “serious reason” to delay having children, then I would not assume that the wife would be left free to marry after a civil divorce. The Catholic party ought to consider herself bound to her husband for life, until she is very sure that he has never intended to marry her as the Church defines the term.

I know a woman who wanted more children very badly, but her husband insisted on using birth control. She would not cooperate with it. She asked her priest if she could secretly defeat the birth control in order to open their marriage to children. The priest told her that while she was correct in refusing her cooperation with her husband’s decision to contracept, her intended deception would not be morally permissible. She was bound to work this problem out with him honestly. Also, the husband’s after-the-fact decision to contracept did not invalidate the marriage.

OP: Try to work this out with your spouse. Try to convince her that she has a serious obligation to preserve your marriage, which is valid until proven otherwise. Go with her to talk over the situation with her pastor, if need be. You may be able to address the problem by lowering your standard of living and saving money like crazy, in order to pay off your debts sooner, so that you will both agree that there is no serious reason for you to delay any longer.

 

[Jea9]

Indeed, and you’ll notice that I said as much. And I’m certainly not denying that some may not want to wait. And congrats on the almost-honeymoon baby. But I was only responding to the shock that some people seemed to have about waiting two whole years to have a baby, and trying to raise an issue that hadn’t been mentioned before.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

I don’t know for sure what other people are shocked about, but my shock with the two years is that the OP and his wife clearly have differing opinions on it. I guess I’m projecting my thoughts onto what others must be thinking too.

And thanks, we’re quite excited!

 

[Mamanurse]

Well, I am not going to quote the CCC, or bible scriptures…My DH and I got married and fell pregnant about 1 1/2 mths after we married. We lived in an apartment and didn’t make much money, not to mention my DH was scheduled to be shipped to Iraq the following summer. The funny thing is, we never questioned that fact that God would take care of us. We now have our own home, two great jobs and a beautiful son. We have since been unable to have any more children due to ectopic pregnancy and just not being able to concieve. Our first born is 4 years old. Life will continue, whether you are financially stable or not, the years will pass on and you will get older. When you got married obviously you were financially stable enough to marry your wife, so whats the big deal if you add a third to the mix? I guess, for me, it comes to down to trusting in the Lord. If you aren’t ready, maybe He won’t allow it to happen for a while…but maybe you need to really pray about it with your wife and let God lead you to a good decision.

Good Luck…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Can a spouse demand children?..So, my questions (keep in mind I am not Catholic, so I am asking for the Catholic view point. If I ask a stupid question, please be patient with me):

1. Am I wrong to want to pay off (some of) my debt before I start to have kids?
2. Is this something to get an annulment over?
3. A. Can my wife demand children? Is it her ‘marital right’?
4. 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)

Thanks.

Hello and welcome! Thank you for inquiring further into your wife’s faith.

The terms tossed around on this thread is “demand for children”. No, children are not something we can demand from a spouse. What if either she or you were infertile? As of right now, neither of you knows that you are capable of having children. Certain treatements for infertility are considered immoral by our Catholic standard, so clearly no, a spouse does not have the right to “demand children”.

However, what a spouse has a right to is “marital rights”, aka normal male-female sexual relations with one’s spouse unobstructed by contraception. You are not contracepting. Good for you! But the two of you are denying yourselves to each other when it appears she may be fertile.

Think of it this way: I doubt very much that you would like it if your wife denied you sexual relations every time you were possibly fertile. That’s what you’re doing to her. For some women the desire for marital intimacy and the desire for a child can get enormously strong when they are fertile. It’s when she wants you the most that you tell her she can’t have you.

Your concerns about your finances are the concerns of a man who wants to provide well for his wife and future children. It’s not a bad thing, (and it’s fairly typical of lots of good men), but the standards that you want for financial security are higher than what your wife wants.

I highly doubt from what you’ve written so far that your wife has any grounds for an annulment. You sound like a good and decent man,but perhaps your higher standards for financial security are getting in the way of having a happy marriage. Not just a child but a happy marriage. Speaking from a money standpoint now, a happy marriage that stays together makes better financial sense than the alternatives. Marriage counseling, separations and worse can get very expensive.

I suggest you take some time to think and pray about your wife’s request. She cannot “demand a child”, but you both have a marital “right” to sexual relations with each other.

 

[dans0622]

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.

Yes, certainly this one sentence would have had a context. Unfortunately, I do not have the context available. That’s why I tried to supply what I *think *would have been the context…or at least the reasoning behind it.

Another similar judgment, by a different Rotal judge, stated this: “The intention contrary to generating progeny can invalidate marriage only when the one contracting the marriage intends it either in perpetuity or for a determined or undetermined time whether hypothetically or conditionally, and only if he abstains totally from acts per se apt for the generation of children and performed in a human manner. This person contracting the marriage also would state that he has the right to refuse those acts or to perform them in a perverse manner, thus failing their natural course. He therefore is using that right according to his own whim.”

That’s a pretty dense statement. Hopefully it makes sense.

Thanks again for your time.
Dan

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’m not sure what more context I can give without typing in the whole book, but here is a try:

INTENTION AGAINST CHILDREN

A. The Pertinent Canon

(cites canon 1101)

B. The Right To The Conjugal Act

1. (deduce essential elements of marriage from canon 1055)
2. (Not really the “right to children”, but the “right to the conjugal act”.)
3. The right to the conjugal act binds at all reasonable times. It is obvious that the right to have intercourse in public is not exchanged in marriage. That would not be a reasonable time. If, therefore, that were excluded at the time of marriage it would not invalidate the marriage. However the meaning of the phrase “at all reasonable times” is not always so clear. …
4. Besides the right to intercourse at all reasonable times, the term “the right to the conjugal act” also includes the obligation of not impeding procreation and life. …

C. Excluding The Right To The Conjugal Act

(when does a decision to postpone children involve an exclusion of the “right to the conjugal act”?)

1. (essential terms of marriage determined by God.)
2. (marriage covenant = pie, conjugal act = essential piece of the pie)
3. 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.

1. 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. See the decision coram Davino of 12/13/78 in D2, pp. 149-152.
2. (positive act of will can also be implicit.)

D. Proof That The Right To The Conjugal Act Has Been Excluded

…

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not sure what more context I can give without typing in the whole book, but here is a try:

INTENTION AGAINST CHILDREN

A. The Pertinent Canon

(cites canon 1101)

B. The Right To The Conjugal Act

1. (deduce essential elements of marriage from canon 1055)
2. (Not really the “right to children”, but the “right to the conjugal act”.)
3. The right to the conjugal act binds at all reasonable times. It is obvious that the right to have intercourse in public is not exchanged in marriage. That would not be a reasonable time. If, therefore, that were excluded at the time of marriage it would not invalidate the marriage. However the meaning of the phrase “at all reasonable times” is not always so clear. …
4. Besides the right to intercourse at all reasonable times, the term “the right to the conjugal act” also includes the obligation of not impeding procreation and life. …

C. Excluding The Right To The Conjugal Act

(when does a decision to postpone children involve an exclusion of the “right to the conjugal act”?)

1. (essential terms of marriage determined by God.)
2. (marriage covenant = pie, conjugal act = essential piece of the pie)
3. 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.

1. 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. See the decision coram Davino of 12/13/78 in D2, pp. 149-152.
2. (positive act of will can also be implicit.)

D. Proof That The Right To The Conjugal Act Has Been Excluded

…

The OP isn’t withholding the conjugal act. They’re using NFP. He is not opposed to having a family. Neither are economic reasons excluded by the Church as a just reason to delay having children. The OP simply differs with his wife on what constitutes a serious economic reason for delaying childbearing. His wife has every right to continue to negotiate with him on this point, she may even have other serious points to make with him of which we are unaware. Still, we Catholics are not morally bound to pursue more children until we are literally living hand-to-mouth. His point is not necessarily unreasonable, either, then. She ought to know that simply wanting to delay childbearing in order to be financially responsible towards one’s children does not constitute proof of invalid intention in the marriage. She really needs to abandon the threats of divorce, too. She may only be wanting to be faithful to the demands of moral law, but attempts at coersion by threatening abandonment is not going to produce a solution to this issue.

This would be a very good situation for them to go to their pastor and have a talk about what the situation is, rather than throwing around the possibility of divorce. It may be that the OP’s wife would be satisfied to wait, if she had reassurance that her husband’s reasoning was indeed moral in the eyes of the Church. It may be that the couple can set some goals in terms of debt pay-down that can be met sooner rather than later. It is all something to talk about, though, and not something to allow to turn into a source of strife or bitterness. I think that both the OP and his wife want to have a family, and one that is on responsible financial footing. The only difference of opinion is how to best open themselves to that gift.

 

[Just_Lurking]

She ought to know that simply wanting to delay childbearing in order to be financially responsible towards one’s children does not constitute proof of invalid intention in the marriage.

I’m not a canon lawyer like Dan is (I think?), but here is my explanation:

Whether or not there was an invalid intention in the marriage is NOT determined by whether the spouse wants to permanently avoid children forever, or only wants to temporarily delay children for a time. This is a common misconception that was stated a few times on this thread.

Whether or not there was an invalid intention in the marriage IS determined by whether the spouse merely WANTS to avoid the conjugal act at a reasonable time when children might result, or whether the spouse is so totally INSISTENT on avoiding the conjugal act as to completely exclude the other spouse’s wishes.

 

[gardenswithkids]

This is a common misconception. However, Lawrence Wrenn in his book The Invalid Marriage writes…

Intrigued by the long quote and the premiss (which differs from my understanding of Catholic marriage laws), I did a little internet search to learn more about the case and the book you quoted. I turned up this website marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html This webpage claims that Fr. Wrenn’s list contradicts Vatican authoritative teaching and is dissenting. I don’t know if this is true or not, I’m just sharing something I found…

We must keep in mind that Fr. Wrenn and the tribunal are not describing people who are mentally retarded or ill, stone drunk or out of their minds on drugs. They are describing people who have what they call personality problems and are incapable of an interpersonal relationship with a spouse. Most of us would call that the “worse” as in for better or for worse. Fr. Wrenn’s list contradicts Vatican authoritative teaching and is DISSENTING.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I did a little internet search to learn more about the case and the book you quoted. I turned up this website marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html

I guess it’s up to people to decide whether they want to trust a respected doctor of canon law who authored the leading U.S. canon law text on grounds for annulment, or the website of a person with a grudge to bear. However, you should be aware that the book they are taking out of context is Judging Invalidity, whereas I was quoting from The Invalid Marriage.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I guess it’s up to people to decide whether they want to trust a respected doctor of canon law who authored the leading U.S. canon law text on grounds for annulment, or the website of a person with a grudge to bear. However, you should be aware that the book they are taking out of context is Judging Invalidity, whereas I was quoting from The Invalid Marriage.

Sorry, but I’ve know a few too many “respected” Ph.D’s in Catholic theology to trust the words of all of them. Regardless of which book you’re quoting from, I question if what you wrote is true. I wasn’t simply trusting some website; I’m trusting my gut instinct. My gut instincts told me to check out what you quoted further because it did not match with my understanding of Catholic marriage. Some webpage that turned up in my search for more information called the respected doctor whom you quoted a dissenter. (That same website also posts numerous Vatican quotes and information on grounds for annulments here: marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html ) I don’t know if he’s a dissenter or not, but a few crucial comments in what you quoted from him don’t look quite right to me, (and they’re set inside with alot of other comments that do.)

If the op’s wife (or any women reading this thread) divorced her husband and saught an annulment because she wanted to get pregnant immediately while her husband wanted to continue using NFP to delay pregancy for a few more months, she might likely end up divorced, childless and annulment-less.

 

[Zatzat]

Am I mistaken when I say;

If God wans your wife to have a child, she will have a child.

 

[EasterJoy]

Sorry, but I’ve know a few too many “respected” Ph.D’s in Catholic theology to trust the words of all of them. Regardless of which book you’re quoting from, I question if what you wrote is true. I wasn’t simply trusting some website; I’m trusting my gut instinct. My gut instincts told me to check out what you quoted further because it did not match with my understanding of Catholic marriage. Some webpage that turned up in my search for more information called the respected doctor whom you quoted a dissenter. (That same website also posts numerous Vatican quotes and information on grounds for annulments here: marysadvocates.org/annulment/annulment.html ) I don’t know if he’s a dissenter or not, but a few crucial comments in what you quoted from him don’t look quite right to me, (and they’re set inside with alot of other comments that do.)

If the op’s wife (or any women reading this thread) divorced her husband and saught an annulment because she wanted to get pregnant immediately while her husband wanted to continue using NFP to delay pregancy for a few more months, she might likely end up divorced, childless and annulment-less.

More to the point, the marriage deserves a good-faith effort. This isn’t a mental exercise in canon law. It is the lives of two people who presumably married with the intention of spending their lives together and raising a family. If the marriage ends in divorce, that is the time to look through the pieces and see if the effort was doomed from the start. You don’t inspect a plane you’re flying in, looking for an excuse for a crash.

 

[dans0622]

Intrigued by the long quote and the premiss (which differs from my understanding of Catholic marriage laws), I did a little internet search to learn more about the case and the book you quoted. I turned up this website marysadvocates.org/wrennreasons.html This webpage claims that Fr. Wrenn’s list contradicts Vatican authoritative teaching and is dissenting. I don’t know if this is true or not, I’m just sharing something I found…

Hello gardenswithkids,

That particular website is completely misleading. That is not what Fr. Wrenn was saying. I have read that book and even though I do not have it in front of me, I am certain that those so-called “reasons for annulment” are simply facts of certain relationships which can be seen as supporting a real ground of nullity. The only grounds of nullity which can be used are in the Code of Canon Law, canons 1095-1103 (other than impediments and problems with canonical form).

It is true that Fr. Wrenn has been “corrected” in a few of his opinions but to cherry-pick comments from this book and call him a “dissenter” is wrong.

The comment quoted earlier by “Just Lurking” represents common thinking at the Roman Rota. I think we all can be confident that the Roman Rota would not be dissenting from the teaching of the Church.

For the record, I am not saying that the case presented in this thread is an example of invalid consent.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[graceandglory]

(NB: Everything I say is a general statement to whomever is reading and not directly to the OP, since I obviously don’t know the details of his specific circumstances).

1. Traditional Catholic teaching holds that NFP generally can only be used for a grave reason in the first place. A couple who goes into a marriage using NFP from the start has already confused the purpose of NFP.

That’s not totally true. Economic reasons can be a valid reason to postpone childbearing through NFP.
Read Responsible Parenthood by Pope John Paul II.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP840801.HTM