Is it okay to wait a few months after marriage to try to conceive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Man_Who_Wonders
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Man_Who_Wonders

Guest
A friend of mine recently said that waiting a bit to conceive post marriage is very sinful. I have since begun trying to research the validity of that claim, but the internet is not really yielding answers of any sort for me. I figure if anybody might know, it’d be the community here! What say you, good people of the CAFs?
 
I heard that too a few months ago, right before I got married. I know nothing about anything at all (one of the reasons why i am here to try to learn!), so I believed it at the time but then asked our Deacon about it and he disagreed.
 
It is not “very sinful” to wait a few months after marriage to have children. Some couples think it is better to have a little time before the children, to develop a friendship and to settle better their family before the children would change the marriage’s dynamic forever.

That being said, I would not call a smart choice the marriage of a couple that want to have children someday but are very against having children right after their wedding because they are not “ready” (on material or psychological). It would be better to wait to get married. We are supposed to be open to children. And for a young couple that is just married, periodic abstience may be hard and as a consequence avoiding children more difficult.What would be the consequences if for them a child now would be disaster?

We should be ready to the possibilty of having a child right after a marriage.
 
Last edited:
I am sorry to be difficult but whilst there may be no sin in a couple hoping to wait for children, that is not in itself a justification for them to take any steps to avoid children.
 
ANY steps to avoid…? I thought there were appropriate steps you could take like NFP.

And not wanting a kid yet doesn’t mean you wouldn’t accept the gift if it happened, or even that you’re not necessarily ready (I believe).
 
Long long argument but even NFP is supposed to be for a serious reason not just because it doesn’t suit your plans, or lifestyle.
 
I think wanting to take a few months to get used to the balance of living together for the first time is a perfectly valid reason for a newly married couple to avoid pregnancy with NFP. In that case it is not an indefinite period due to preferences but a temporary state of affairs to accomplish a specific purpose.
 
That is not quite correct. We need to have a just reason to delay pregnancy. What is just is up to the couple to discern.
 
People on the internet or even your friends should not be involved in the sexual schedule you and a spouse have.
 
IMO, a just reason will be serious, and a serious reason will be just. Generally I agree that there are nuances to different terms that may emphasize one aspect over another, but here I do not really see that. What do you think?
 
I agree, and I do not think you are being difficult. Marriage has two inseparable purposes, the procreation and education of children, and unity of spouses. Does the newly married couple need a few months to practice their unity, or are they going to be faithful to each other and begin helping each other reach heaven right from the start? Put another way, the other characteristics, so to speak, of married love - - it is free, total, and faithful - - will all be practiced and present from the start; is the fruitful aspect to be delayed without just reason?

That being said, I do acknowledge that the Church entrusts the evaluation of just/serious reasons to the couple, but I am not sure how well that message is getting across. I further suggest that a few months of NFP based periodic abstinence may illustrate whether a couple’s reasons were as just or serious as initially thought.

ETA: and welcome, man who wonders!
 
Last edited:
There are a vocal contingent who use “serious”, well, “Serious”, and frame it to mean there must be a danger of starvation, founded certainty of maternal death, a war front within a block of your home, etc. “Just” reasons helps us to get our arms around the concept, if nothing else to think of the opposite by saying “what is an unjust reason?”.
 
Maybe. But the conversation should revolve around what you just wrote. The fact is that the Church uses these terms as synonyms and interchangably in regards to this subject. For this purpose they mean the same thing. It is people misusing the term of preference to back thier position ON BOTH SIDES that is disingenuous.
Just, Serious, Grave etc.

I like what was writetn above. Just reasons are serious and serious reasons are just.
 
I completely agree and I think the arguments about just vs serious when it comes to NFP are at best pointless. Do we really want to start arguing that justice is not always a serious concern? It seems that people who want a very strict teaching on NFP want to use the word serious and those who want a very lax meaning on the teaching of NFP want to use the word justice. As is typically the case, the truth is somewhere in the middle. A wife does not have to be at risk of death in order to justify the use of NFP. A couple should not use NFP just because they want to buy a new boat.
 
I read your related article. I happened to come across this this sentence:
According to HV, the Church calls the faithful to examine their situations and be prudent, generous, serious, and, ultimately, just when putting responsible parenthood into practice.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that serious and just are pretty much the same. If we were arguing about “grave” or “serious”, I would agree with you. But we are not.
 
Wow, a lot of responses! Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut everyone. Seems there’s a lot to consider in this matter. Fortunately, it’s purely hypothetical, for me anyway, as of now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top