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

  • Thread starter Thread starter PRmerger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PRmerger

Guest
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?
 
No. As absurd on its face as you said it sounded to you at first.
 
All the people whom I know who identify as having a traditional bent, or being traditionalist, would have/do disagree with what the person stated. I disagree as well. A child is a gift, and married couples should be open to life, but not 'obligated to try at all times". Of course, artificial contraception even in difficult situations would still be wrong, but not NFP or periodic continence, mutually agreed upon.
 
The entire Church believes that marital relations should be uniative (loving and directed the dignity of each spouse) and procreative (open to the transmission of life).

No moral doctrine treats us like bloodstock. We are human beings - not livestock keptnfor breeding purposes. Married couple must give yemselves to each other in a loving and dignified manner which takes no artificial steps to prevent conception.
 
Catholics do not say “that married couples are morally obligated to have a child, regardless of circumstances.” The Church does teach that a valid Christian marriage must be open to life. A couple is not obligated to be trying for conception each and every month.
 
There is no such thing as a Traditionalist view.

We are Catholic. We have a Magisterium. This Magisterium is singular. The Magisterium is given the authority from Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, to interpret Sacred Scripture and disseminate teachings to the faithful, and to bind those teachings to the faithful under pain of eternal damnation.

This was the view of an individual who identified himself in a certain manner, and another individual who identifies themselves in the same way will not necessarily have an identical view, hence there is no such thing as a uniform ‘Traditionalist view’ anymore than there would be a uniform ‘French Culinary Enthusiast View’ or a uniform ‘Denver Broncos Football Fan View’ as these definitions contain a wide body of people of different ages, backgrounds, and dispositions.
 
There is a problem with the way the question is phrased.

Married couples do not have complete control over their fertility. So there can be no requirement to have children.

If anybody claims that the Catholic Church teaches that there is a requirement for married couples to bear children, they are mistaken.

The requirement is for married couples to be open to children. That is a very different thing.

Was it really presented that way on the CAL show?
 
cominghome1966 said:
There is a problem with the way the question is phrased.

Married couples do not have complete control over their fertility. So there can be no requirement to have children.

If anybody claims that the Catholic Church teaches that there is a requirement for married couples to bear children, they are mistaken.

The requirement is for married couples to be open to children. That is a very different thing.

Was it really presented that way on the CAL show?
Click to expand...
It was presented that way, it seems, by the Traditionalist.

When Trent Horn pressed, the response was…well, it was confusing. That’s why I posed the question here. The Traditionalist did not answer clearly, IMHO.

Here’s the podcast:
catholic.com/audio/cal/7836

Starts at about the 18:22 minute mark.
 
PRmerger said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, youre not required to have as many kids as you can have, but youre to be open to having kids.
 
philipl said:
No, youre not required to have as many kids as you can have, but youre to be open to having kids.
Click to expand...
In the call, the self-identified Traditionalist said that HV actually** promoted** birth control because Pope Paul VI said that there could be licit reasons to delay having children?

Is this a Traditionalist view? That HV promotes birth control?

NB: I understand he is one caller and not an authority for the Traditionalists, but his call confused me.
 
Fringe trads have some very strange views, but that’s what happens when you isolate yourself from the Church. Within the Church, there is definitely concern among traditionalists over the use of NFP for selfish reasons, capitulating to the mores of our depraved culture; but Humanae Vitae condemns such abuses, requiring “serious reasons”. Of course “serious” is a relative term open to interpretation; that’s where pastoral guidance comes in.
 
PRmerger said:
the self-identified Traditionalist said that HV actually** promoted** birth control because Pope Paul VI said that there could be licit reasons to delay having children?

Is this a Traditionalist view? That HV promotes birth control?
Click to expand...
The Church does not now and never has taught that birth control-- the spacing and/or planning of children-- is intrinsically evil. So yes, HV does speak of “birth control” (promote is a bit strong IMHO), as did Castii Connubii before it, as did St. Augustine, and as did others in Church history.

The traditoinalist is trying to make an argument that birth control and contraception are the same morally, and they are not. Contraception is an intrinsically evil means of birth control whereas continence, periodic or total, is also a meanas of birth control that is not immoral.

The person doesn’t even seem to understand the argument they are making or where they veer from traditional Church teaching.

The Church does not teach Providentialsm, that is a Protestant innovation which swings too far back upon itself as it rejects not just contraception but the human use of reason and cooperation with the creator. We are neither Lord of our own bodies, nor slaves to it. We are persons, with dignity, a rational mind, and a free will,
 
PRmerger said:
In the call, the self-identified Traditionalist said that HV actually** promoted** birth control because Pope Paul VI said that there could be licit reasons to delay having children?

Is this a Traditionalist view? That HV promotes birth control?

NB: I understand he is one caller and not an authority for the Traditionalists, but his call confused me.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I listened to a small segment starting where you suggested.

My first impression is that the caller sounds like he’s trolling. I’m not convinced that he is asking in good faith.

Setting that aside, here are a couple quotes:

“The same document [Humane Vitae] was pro-birth control, if you read that closely, because he says that couples don’t want to have children they don’t have to have them…”

Trent asks for clarification.

The caller continues: “The Catholic Church has always taught that the reason for marriage is procreation. That’s exactly the definition of marriage. That is the definition of why people are married. Paul VI, while he condemns birth control, in the same document he actually, he basically, gives a pro-birth control statement.”

Trent gives an example of why a couple might abstain from sexual relations for a period of time.

The caller continues making his same assertion. This is where I stopped listening.

He never actually states, as far as I heard, that the Church has a requirement to bear children, but, that idea does seem to be underpinning his argument.

Assuming that this is what he thought, then this obviously needs to be addressed.

We can know that there is no explicit requirement for married couples to bear children, since such a requirement would be based on a false premise. It is based on the (worldly, quite frankly) idea that fertile couples can control their fertility like a spigot. But that simply is not true. They don’t have that level of control, and this explains one reason why there can be no explicit requirement to bear children.

Looked at an other way, an explicit requirement to bear children would be a tyranny, a demand for something that the couples themselves cannot guarantee, and it would justify unethical practices such as third-party reproduction.

And some married couples will be infertile through no fault of their own. We don’t say that their marriages are invalid.

Yes, marriage is for procreation. But the sexual act is so powerful that we don’t need to mandate explicitly the procreation of children.

As far as what traditionalists believe on this point… I can’t say. I hope this one caller is an outlier.
 
cominghome1966 said:
Thanks for the link. I listened to a small segment starting where you suggested.

My first impression is that the caller sounds like he’s trolling. I’m not convinced that he is asking in good faith.

Setting that aside, here are a couple quotes:

“The same document [Humane Vitae] was pro-birth control, if you read that closely, because he says that couples don’t want to have children they don’t have to have them…”

Trent asks for clarification.

The caller continues: “The Catholic Church has always taught that the reason for marriage is procreation. That’s exactly the definition of marriage. That is the definition of why people are married. Paul VI, while he condemns birth control, in the same document he actually, he basically, gives a pro-birth control statement.”

Trent gives an example of why a couple might abstain from sexual relations for a period of time.

The caller continues making his same assertion. This is where I stopped listening.

He never actually states, as far as I heard, that the Church has a requirement to bear children, but, that idea does seem to be underpinning his argument.

Assuming that this is what he thought, then this obviously needs to be addressed.

We can know that there is no explicit requirement for married couples to bear children, since such a requirement would be based on a false premise. It is based on the (worldly, quite frankly) idea that fertile couples can control their fertility like a spigot. But that simply is not true. They don’t have that level of control, and this explains one reason why there can be no explicit requirement to bear children.

Looked at an other way, an explicit requirement to bear children would be a tyranny, a demand for something that the couples themselves cannot guarantee, and it would justify unethical practices such as third-party reproduction.

And some married couples will be infertile through no fault of their own. We don’t say that their marriages are invalid.

Yes, marriage is for procreation. But the sexual act is so powerful that we don’t need to mandate explicitly the procreation of children.

As far as what traditionalists believe on this point… I can’t say. I hope this one caller is an outlier.
Click to expand...
Oh, I don’t think he’s a troll.

He’s called a multitude of times.

My question is whether he actually represents Traditionalists.
 
I know that there is a subset of Protestants who call themselves “quiverfull.” I believe they view marriage the same way as what you describe here, that there is a requirement to have as many children as possible.
 
I would call myself a traditionalist.

Logically, I can not see any positive obligation for a married couple to have any children at all. But it is sinful for them to take steps to avoid it, asides from abstaining from relations, not because there is an obligation to have children but because that is the purpose of the sexual act.
 
peter26 said:
I would call myself a traditionalist.

Logically, I can not see any positive obligation for a married couple to have any children at all. But it is sinful for them to take steps to avoid it, asides from abstaining from relations, not because there is an obligation to have children but because that is the purpose of the sexual act.
Click to expand...
A purpose, right?

Not the purpose.

There’s also the unitive aspect of the marital act, yeah?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top