Do Traditionalists believe that married couples are morally obligated to have a child, regardless of circumstances?

[SusanneT]

So in a recent Catholic Answers Live show a self-identified Traditionalist was asked if he believed that there could be no grave reasons for a married couple to not have children.

Or, without all the negatives: he was asked essentially if it was his position that married couples must have as many children as possible. “Couples should always be trying to have a child”, regardless of circumstances. That is, if a couple is, say, homeless, or a woman is extremely ill, that WOULD NOT excuse them from postponing the possibility of creating a baby.

I wasn’t clear on the caller’s answer.

He did reference Humanae Generis (although I think he meant Humanae Vitae) as saying, (incorrectly), that HV promoted birth control because it excused couples from having a baby in grave situations.

Is this representative of the Traditionalist view?

There is no obligation to have as many children as possible but in marriage we are called to be open to and to welcome children and if and when a couple are sexually intimate they must not use any means to prevent conception. It’s a very clear teaching.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no obligation to have as many children as possible but in marriage we are called to be open to and to welcome children and if and when a couple are sexually intimate they must not use any means to prevent conception. It’s a very clear teaching.

Yes, I understand the Catholic Church’s teaching.

But I was wondering if traditionalists took it a step further.

If you listen to the podcast, Trent Horn asks the traditionalist for clarification on this point, but I wasn’t quite clear what the traditionalist was saying.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, I understand the Catholic Church’s teaching.

But I was wondering if traditionalists took it a step further.

If you listen to the podcast, Trent Horn asks the traditionalist for clarification on this point, but I wasn’t quite clear what the traditionalist was saying.

I think there is a clear distinction between individual people who self-identify as traditionalists, and individuals or groups who self-identify as traditional or ‘traditionalist’ or even 'liking/preferring certain traditions/devotions in the Church".

I do not think that there is some group called ‘Traditionalists’ (who would be comparable, say, to a group of people calling themselves ‘progressives’, or even more to say those who call themselves 'Bible believing) who are all in lock step and whose decisions are to be held by all people who identify with anything ‘traditional’.

People who call themselves “Catholic but in a progressive spirit” don’t all believe in the same things. Some are progressive and support ‘abortion rights’ in a limited way; some do not support abortion at all. Some are in favor of gay ‘marriage’, some are not.

“Bible believing” Christians are the same. One group has no sacraments but Baptism, for all; another has baptism but only for adults, one group supports divorce ‘only for fornication’, another does not support divorce at all; one group has women only wear dresses, another group does not mind women in pants, etc.

Same with Catholics who have a ‘traditional spirit’. Some are drawn to the Latin Mass, some are not. Some like the custom of head coverings, some do not. Some are drawn to the rosary as the highest devotion; some prefer consecration to the Sacred Heart. Some love to have lots of statues and holy pictures/cards, some do not.

And with any group, even ‘plain Catholic, no more, no less’ you’ll find some who believe more, um, ‘extremely’ than others. John Plain Catholic might not simply ‘prefer’ the OF, he might be extremely dismissive and derogative of the EF because “since V2, ALL Catholics should be content with the OF”. But Jane Plain Catholic might be perfectly happy to see Mary Traditional Catholic enjoy her EF while Jane attends the OF because “they are both valid”.

 

[corsair]

The wife and I have been married for 50+ years. I am a convert she is a cradle Catholic. We have always been open to what ever the Good Lord gave to us. we have 6 natural kids and one adopted. We also raised half of the neighborhood kids.

There is no obligation to have as many kids as possible. We have always just been OPEN to life.

God Bless

 

[SusanneT]

Yes, I understand the Catholic Church’s teaching.

But I was wondering if traditionalists took it a step further.

If you listen to the podcast, Trent Horn asks the traditionalist for clarification on this point, but I wasn’t quite clear what the traditionalist was saying.

I think as someone else pointed out there is a belief among traditionalists that NFP should be regarded as an alternative to total abstinence when a couple have serious / grave (whatever and always disputed) reasons not to conceive and where total abstinence might lead to other sins (marital breakup, divorce adultery, masturbation etc). It is arguably a much more conservative take on the us of NFP.

 

[EleanorArr]

The wife and I have been married for 50+ years. I am a convert she is a cradle Catholic. We have always been open to what ever the Good Lord gave to us. we have 6 natural kids and one adopted. We also raised half of the neighborhood kids.

There is no obligation to have as many kids as possible. We have always just been OPEN to life.

God Bless

God bless you and your wife - and your children!

This is surely what traditionalists (and all Catholics, really), believe: if a couple wants to try for children, that great - if not, that’s fine too…just whatever you do it should be open to the wonderful possibility.

 

[SusanneT]

As I understand it, the Church teaches that sex is intended for the purposes of procreation within a marriage. If you must avoid having children, you should avoid having sex at times when pregnancy is possible. I see no problem with that. I think it’s very mature.

Well and simply put !

 

[SusanneT]

Speaking as a traditionalist couple our belief is that if you have a really serious reason to avoid conception (which for us would be medical) then you can use NFP. If it’s just a lifestyle choice then you can just abstain. Either way it must ultimately be up to God.

 

[Phemie]

Speaking as a traditionalist couple our belief is that if you have a really serious reason to avoid conception (which for us would be medical) then you can use NFP. If it’s just a lifestyle choice then you can just abstain. Either way it must ultimately be up to God.

I’m not sure I see the difference. Or do you mean that the second couple should never have sex?

 

[SusanneT]

I’m not sure I see the difference. Or do you mean that the second couple should never have sex?

That is entirely up to them, they can have sex as often as they like but only on the basis that they are not preventing conception in any way.

 

[Phemie]

That is entirely up to them, they can have sex as often as they like but only on the basis that they are not preventing conception in any way.

My point was that abstaining at specific times to avoid pregnancy is NFP regardless of your reason for doing so. Your post seemed to imply that there was a difference.