Spouses obligation to having more children

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, thanks a lot. For the sake of discussion, lets assume that the term “grave reason” in the original post is synonomous with the term “serious reason” in your references. I will use that term from now on. So the original poster said there was no “serious reason” to avoid pregnancy (and I know that it does not have to be life or death), lets assume the op knows what is a valid serious reason. That being the case, does not the wife in the original post have to agree to have another child? It seems the answer is very straight forward yes.

Back to my example, can one validly enter into a marriage with a legitmately serious reason to avoid any future pregnancy via NFP?

1. If there is no serious reason the married couple could not use NFP to avoid…they would not have to actively try so hard of course…

And in Marriage each spouse gives themselves which includes their fertility and the right to the martial act…so a request for relations by one spouse (unless there is some really good reason to decline that particular act…such as adultery…or drunkenness etc…this is outside the question of serious reasons for avoiding via nfp…this is about the marital right) should be honored by they other …for it is even an obligation. Which can be grave. Of course a spouse can say…please not tonight I have a headache…and see how that will go with the other spouse…but they also should not put them in a near occasion of sin either…

This is simply part of the vocation of Marriage…

1. One has to exchange the right to marital relations and be capable of them. But yes it can be possible it seems for a serious reason to be present that will justify the use of NFP to avoid …even for the whole of the marriage. NFP (even when used to avoid) is still open to life…it is not blocking it off.

and yes such would be a valid marriage for they exchanged the rights to the marriage act. They know part of marriage is for Children…and they accept this…even though they think there will be a serious reason unfortuately…and NFP is still open to life…

and even historically there are those who were capable and exchanged the marital right…but decided never to act on it by mutual aggrement…at all.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I guess where I get confused in this whole discussion is why the woman wouldn’t want another child. That is what hinges this whole thing. She has 5 kids, she’s clearly open to life. Why now? What changed? Again, I say that the issue of “grave reason” is never clearly defined, and it’s open to what the couple determines as serious enough reasons. What changed to make the woman think that she shouldn’t have another child? She’d have to have a reason in her brain to make her think that another child would be a good idea.

If this were a couple with no children, and the wife said she just didn’t want to deal with the hassle of pregnancy or the inconveinience of children, this’d be a different discussion as that is clearly not okay. But this woman, by having 5 kids, has made it clear that she loves children, loves life, and is okay with the idea of having kids. Something had to change, and given that she has 5 kids, I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that she has grave reason, usually pertaining to the assurance that her children will get all the care and love they need.

 

[choose_to_love]

Ora, Ron: do you have any references supporting your proposition that the number of children changes the standard from serious to good? The way you are using it, I understand “good” to be different from “serious”.

Ora: I’m with st. francis and rence. Wife’s unilateral feeling does not trump Husband’s desire for more. One spouse doesn’t call the shots. We are called to apply our reason along with prayerful discernment of what God is calling us to, as Ron C. points out, for any particular cycle. I think the prayerful discernment gets left out a lot. As a practical matter, I don’t know how frequent this problem is; as has been pointed out, by you among others, there are many factors which can be taken into account, and it is rarely a black and white issue.

Tafan: you seek more authoritative guidance, but I don’t think you will find it, per se. The God of the universe, who created us all, male and female, in His image, asks us to trust Him, that He will take care of us, and in this matter, He trusts us to prayerfully discern His will! Isn’t that awesome?! He trusts us to discern when to co-create a new, immortal soul! In addition, the factors are so varied and particular to each couple that more definitive guidance is not really practical.

 

[Bookcat]

Ora, Ron: do you have any references supporting your proposition that the number of children changes the standard from serious to good? The way you are using it, I understand “good” to be different from “serious”.

Ora: I’m with st. francis and rence. Wife’s unilateral feeling does not trump Husband’s desire for more. One spouse doesn’t call the shots. We are called to apply our reason along with prayerful discernment of what God is calling us to, as Ron C. points out, for any particular cycle. I think the prayerful discernment gets left out a lot. As a practical matter, I don’t know how frequent this problem is; as has been pointed out, by you among others, there are many factors which can be taken into account, and it is rarely a black and white issue.

Tafan: you seek more authoritative guidance, but I don’t think you will find it, per se. The God of the universe, who created us all, male and female, in His image, asks us to trust Him, that He will take care of us, and in this matter, He trusts us to prayerfully discern His will! Isn’t that awesome?! He trusts us to discern when to co-create a new, immortal soul! In addition, the factors are so varied and particular to each couple that more definitive guidance is not really practical.

As noted above .the Church has been clear…in abundance of documents that she means for the reasons to be serious…the use of “just reason” etc in a few documents was not meaning to introduce a new category …for they were speaking of all use of NFP to avoid…not just some particular occasion. As noted above a just reason etc must be a serious one…(the use of other terms when writing is what one is taught in writing class so as to bring variety etc…but they are all referring to serious reasons)

That said there are degrees of ‘serious reason’… as the one document points out it can be just for proportionately serious reasons…

 

[Scoobyshme]

I guess where I get confused in this whole discussion is why the woman wouldn’t want another child. That is what hinges this whole thing. She has 5 kids, she’s clearly open to life. Why now? What changed? Again, I say that the issue of “grave reason” is never clearly defined, and it’s open to what the couple determines as serious enough reasons. What changed to make the woman think that she shouldn’t have another child? She’d have to have a reason in her brain to make her think that another child would be a good idea.

If this were a couple with no children, and the wife said she just didn’t want to deal with the hassle of pregnancy or the inconveinience of children, this’d be a different discussion as that is clearly not okay. But this woman, by having 5 kids, has made it clear that she loves children, loves life, and is okay with the idea of having kids. Something had to change, and given that she has 5 kids, I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that she has grave reason, usually pertaining to the assurance that her children will get all the care and love they need.

I think this may be an issue of what the woman wants vs. what God wants.

Consider this… Assume that if they go along with the woman’s wishes and start contracepting. Tonight, or at least tomorrow, a little baby is going to be born at a hospital near them to someone. The life of that little baby began about nine months ago. One day, that hospital won’t be there. Neither will the city, state, country, or maybe not even the earth. But that little baby will be alive! It will live forever! And what this contracepting couple are telling God, in effect, is this: “We know that by this act, it may be Your will that we create a person who will live forever. We know that may be Your will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” How arrogant is that?!

I had an older friend (now deceased, God rest his soul) who had nine kids. When he was younger and his wife was having those kids, one of his coworkers, who only had two kids, got on his case about why so many kids, they wouldn’t be able to afford them, etc. My friend just said that God would provide. Years later, when the kids were grown, this guy was visiting my friend and my friend asked him, “Look around you at my home, etc. Are you living any better than me?” His friend said, “No, why?” My friend said, “Remember that conversation we had long ago about all the kids we were having?” Then it dawned on the guy that he wasn’t any better off than my friend who had seven more kids than he did! God had provided!

 

[Rence]

Am I to understand that the Church is commanding folks to have as many kids as possible if they can, and they have no “serious” reason for not wanting more? without limit?

Well…when does it end? Are women expected to have 10, 15, 20, 25 children? Just keep going because the births have been relatively easy, and the father can afford to pay for all of them, and the mother can afford to stay home with them? When can one just choose not to have children because the current number is enough? Or is it a teaching of the church that any number isn’t enough, and to just keep having kids until you can’t anymore?

I know families that have 8-12 children. Are these families, if they were Catholic, free to stop after 12 children? or will they be sinning for choosing to not have more?

 

[tafan]

1. If there is no serious reason the married couple could not use NFP to avoid…they would not have to actively try so hard of course…

And in Marriage each spouse gives themselves which includes their fertility and the right to the martial act…so a request for relations by one spouse (unless there is some really good reason to decline that particular act…such as adultery…or drunkenness etc…this is outside the question of serious reasons for avoiding via nfp…this is about the marital right) should be honored by they other …for it is even an obligation. Which can be grave. Of course a spouse can say…please not tonight I have a headache…and see how that will go with the other spouse…but they also should not put them in a near occasion of sin either…

This is simply part of the vocation of Marriage…

I

1. One has to exchange the right to marital relations and be capable of them. But yes it can be possible it seems for a serious reason to be present that will justify the use of NFP to avoid …even for the whole of the marriage. NFP (even when used to avoid) is still open to life…it is not blocking it off.

and yes such would be a valid marriage for they exchanged the rights to the marriage act. They know part of marriage is for Children…and they accept this…even though they think there will be a serious reason unfortuately…and NFP is still open to life…

and even historically there are those who were capable and exchanged the marital right…but decided never to act on it by mutual aggrement…at all.

So one could enter into a marriage with the intent to avoid all pregnancies via NFP, with serious reason? I thought one had to be willing to have children. Yes, NFP can fail, but still, planning to use NFP to avoid all pregnancies does not seem to be willing to have children? Of course, on the other side of the coin, the existing children are expected to be the benificaies of the marriage.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I think this may be an issue of what the woman wants vs. what God wants.

Consider this… Assume that if they go along with the woman’s wishes and start contracepting. Tonight, or at least tomorrow, a little baby is going to be born at a hospital near them to someone. The life of that little baby began about nine months ago. One day, that hospital won’t be there. Neither will the city, state, country, or maybe not even the earth. But that little baby will be alive! It will live forever! And what this contracepting couple are telling God, in effect, is this: “We know that by this act, it may be Your will that we create a person who will live forever. We know that may be Your will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” How arrogant is that?!

I had an older friend (now deceased, God rest his soul) who had nine kids. When he was younger and his wife was having those kids, one of his coworkers, who only had two kids, got on his case about why so many kids, they wouldn’t be able to afford them, etc. My friend just said that God would provide. Years later, when the kids were grown, this guy was visiting my friend and my friend asked him, “Look around you at my home, etc. Are you living any better than me?” His friend said, “No, why?” My friend said, “Remember that conversation we had long ago about all the kids we were having?” Then it dawned on the guy that he wasn’t any better off than my friend who had seven more kids than he did! God had provided!

oooh, except the hypothetical couple is not contracepting. I think all parties in this discussion agree that contraception would be wrong. We’re talking about using NFP to postpone (potentially indefinatly) conception.

Also, the church has said that a couple can refrain of having kids by using NFP for any reason the COUPLE deems serious enough. There is no document anywhere that lays out specific guidelines for what constitutes a serious reason or one that says “If you make 40,000 a year in the state of Georgia, then you are to have THIS number of children.” The church recognizes that only the couple knows if the reason they are waiting is serious or not, and it’s not for anyone else to judge because they are not part of the marriage. Having 7 kids may have worked for your friend. God for him! But, it will not work for everyone. We can’t make irresposible choices (purposefully having more children than we know we can support) and expect God to pick up the bill. We have to prayerfully discern his will and follow that. It may have been God’s will for him to have 7 kids, but it’s not the same for everyone. God calls us to be good stewards. Good stewards of our finances, time, energy, and fertility.

 

[Bookcat]

I

So one could enter into a marriage with the intent to avoid all pregnancies via NFP, with serious reason? I thought one had to be willing to have children. Yes, NFP can fail, but still, planning to use NFP to avoid all pregnancies does not seem to be willing to have children? Of course, on the other side of the coin, the existing children are expected to be the benificaies of the marriage.

One has to know and accept that children are part of marriage…and be capable of the martial act…and exchange the right…

even a known perpetually infertile couple can enter a valid marriage so long as they are able to engage in the martial act …

they are not ‘excluding children’ per se…they are willing …just they have serious reasons not to…

and even a couple who enter marriage exchanging the right of marital relations… but who intend not to exercise that right…are still validly married.

Of course if one changes their mind…the other would have to consent to engage in the marital act then…

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Am I to understand that the Church is commanding folks to have as many kids as possible if they can, and they have no “serious” reason for not wanting more? without limit?

Well…when does it end? Are women expected to have 10, 15, 20, 25 children? Just keep going because the births have been relatively easy, and the father can afford to pay for all of them, and the mother can afford to stay home with them? When can one just choose not to have children because the current number is enough? Or is it a teaching of the church that any number isn’t enough, and to just keep having kids until you can’t anymore?

I know families that have 8-12 children. Are these families, if they were Catholic, free to stop after 12 children? or will they be sinning for choosing to not have more?

No. A couple could stop after 2 children if they so choose. The church states that it is up to the couple to determine with God, the course of action in their lives. A couple may have 2 kids, money to support more, and the woman can be an at-home mom and be able to care for them all but through prayer and discussion the couple agrees that 2 is where they want to stay. As long as they aren’t bringing in contraception, there is no reason that stopping at just 2 is morally wrong.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Am I to understand that the Church is commanding folks to have as many kids as possible if they can, and they have no “serious” reason for not wanting more? without limit?

Well…when does it end? Are women expected to have 10, 15, 20, 25 children? Just keep going because the births have been relatively easy, and the father can afford to pay for all of them, and the mother can afford to stay home with them? When can one just choose not to have children because the current number is enough? Or is it a teaching of the church that any number isn’t enough, and to just keep having kids until you can’t anymore?

I know families that have 8-12 children. Are these families, if they were Catholic, free to stop after 12 children? or will they be sinning for choosing to not have more?

Rence,

No, God is commanding folks to remaining open to having as many kids as HE wants them to have.  It's HIS will, not theirs that is important.  Their job is to follow HIS will, not their will.  

It is God's job to decide how many kids he wants couples to have.  It's their job to cooperate in the process.  Immortal souls are far more important than material goods and luxury, don't you think?  :)

 

[Bookcat]

No. A couple could stop after 2 children if they so choose. The church states that it is up to the couple to determine with God, the course of action in their lives. A couple may have 2 kids, money to support more, and the woman can be an at-home mom and be able to care for them all but through prayer and discussion the couple agrees that 2 is where they want to stay. As long as they aren’t bringing in contraception, there is no reason that stopping at just 2 is morally wrong.

though they could not use NFP to avoid without serious reason.

 

[Rence]

Rence,

No, God is commanding folks to remaining open to having as many kids as HE wants them to have.  It's HIS will, not theirs that is important.  Their job is to follow HIS will, not their will.  

It is God's job to decide how many kids he wants couples to have.  It's their job to cooperate in the process.  Immortal souls are far more important than material goods and luxury, don't you think?  :)

I think that if you cease practicing NFP, you’re going to get pregnant.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

though they could not use NFP to avoid without serious reason.

Agreed, but one of the ways God communicates to us that his will is for a couple to have no more children, he usually gives a serious reason. That reason doesn’t even need to be obvious to anyone else but the couple. That’s why we can’t judge.

 

[Bookcat]

Agreed, but one of the ways God communicates to us that his will is for a couple to have no more children, he usually gives a serious reason. That reason doesn’t even need to be obvious to anyone else but the couple. That’s why we can’t judge.

yip each couple must judge (of course with informed conscience etc …and perhaps good advice) before God if they have a serious reason…

and yes no one should judge a particular couple!! there is much that does not meet the eye…

even if they have a nice house and a good job!!!

Judge not!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

yip each couple must judge (of course with informed conscience etc …and perhaps good advice) before God if they have a serious reason…

and yes no one should judge a particular couple!! there is much that does not meet the eye…

Exactly!!

 

[OraLabora]

We’re in 2010. Women have the right to not be considered a mere baby factory by their husbands.

If a woman has 5 children and says “enough, I have given all that I reasonably think I can give”, that seals the deal for me.

I don’t think asking to stop at 5 is being “selfish” or “going against God’s plan”.

We can split hairs all we want on official sources on the “rules”. But a strict rules-based interpretation is doomed to failure. One that does not consider the human element and human frailty and does not have compassion for a woman who says “5 is enough” is not, IMHO, moral.

In Quebec up 'till the '50s, the parish priest would do his rounds of parishioners and if a couple had a gap of more than a year or two between children he’d ask the couple what was going on and chastise them if they didn’t provide a satisfactory answer, for interfering with God’s plan. In that era, French-Canadian families had, in general, more than 10 children. Doctors found spurious grounds for hysterectomies simply to give the poor women (and poor in every sense, including material poverty) a break. Women nursed for extended periods in the hopes it would provide some protection from another pregnancy.

Please don’t tell me you want to go back to that kind of scenario. Because it was probably the main reason that Quebecers abandoned Catholicism in droves. It did more to kill the Church here than any other single factor.

 

[Bookcat]

We’re in 2010. Women have the right to not be considered a mere baby factory by their husbands.

If a woman has 5 children and says “enough, I have given all that I reasonably think I can give”, that seals the deal for me.

I don’t think asking to stop at 5 is being “selfish” or “going against God’s plan”.

We can split hairs all we want on official sources on the “rules”. But a strict rules-based interpretation is doomed to failure. One that does not consider the human element and human frailty and does not have compassion for a woman who says “5 is enough” is not, IMHO, moral.

Tis not so much about “rules” but the nature of things…the nature of marriage …

If they have a serious reason they may use NFP to avoid more Children. And if the woman is yelling ‘stop’…there can be a serious reason involved…and thus the couple may avoid more Children via NFP.

this can be at 5 children…3 children…

or 1 child …

 

[Doc_Keele]

What a wonderful prospect for Catholic women - unless there’s a “serious reason” they have to keep churning out offspring like a pedigree “female dog” (the software doesn’t allow the use of the proper technical term)?

 

[choose_to_love]

Ora: nobody is saying, as far as I can see, that women should be baby factories. It seems to me you are conflating two arguments, or making some assumptions that you are not recognizing.

Certainly, if one spouse feels overwhelmed by the demands of the existing family, that can be a serious reason. I think that is implicit but not acknowledged by you in your hypothetical 5 children-I’ve-had-enough example.

However, what I perceive others are objecting to, and what I think is incorrect, is that it is not a unilateral or arbitrary decision to be made by the wife based solely on the number of children, with no mention of any discernment of the will of God at that point in the couple and family’s life. To a certain extent we may be talking past each other.

Moreover, what steps can the couple take to eliminate an impediment to more kids? The answer may be ‘nothing, at the present time’, but that should not be the answer for the rest of the marriage. It should be an ongoing conversation, so to speak, with God and each other.

I think the Church’s teaching on responsible parenthood, found in Humanae Vitae among other places, tells us that we are to prayerfully discern our responsibilities to God, our spouse, our existing family, and to society. One spouse being overwhelmed is specifically to be considered by the couple.