Spouses obligation to having more children

[Luvs2Learn]

so, I was involved in a very interesting discussion today amongst a group of women.I wanted to share the question here and find out what you all think? the question at hand was as follows…

If a husband and wife have 5 children and the family is financially sound, the wife is physically healthy and has had realitivly smooth pregnancies, in other words, other then the mere fact that they already have a large(by todays standards) family but no "grave reason to avoid and the husband wants another child, is the wife obligated to honor his wishes and leave herself open to pregnancy (ie. stop using NFP to avoid and instead use it to get pregnant).

Or:

The side, if the woman wants another child but the husband does not, is he obligated to allow his wife to concieve another another child.

 

[OraLabora]

No.

These sorts of decisions need to be made by the couple in order for a healthy marriage to prevail. If a wife says, after 5 children and after careful consideration and discussion by both spouses “I’ve had enough”, her husband should respect that.

The reverse is also true.

Both parties in a marriage need to be on-board for such important decisions otherwise resentment is sure to prevail and create an unhealthy atmosphere.

 

[Rence]

I agree with OraLabora, it has to be decided as a couple.

Also, you didn’t provide enough information. Is this women taking care of all five children by herself? There’s more to it than being healthy and able to have kids without difficulty. You have to take into account the mental and emotional wellbeing of the woman as well. I’ve seen women do perfectly well with 19 children, 10 children and 8 children. But we don’t know what everyone’s resources are. Meaning, what kind of structure and help they have. There’s more to it than the simple post posted

 

[St_Francis]

No.

These sorts of decisions need to be made by the couple in order for a healthy marriage to prevail. If a wife says, after 5 children and after careful consideration and discussion by both spouses “I’ve had enough”, her husband should respect that.

The reverse is also true.

Both parties in a marriage need to be on-board for such important decisions otherwise resentment is sure to prevail and create an unhealthy atmosphere.

So, if one spouse says, enough, the other has to respect that or resentment will follow?

What about the one who is wanting another child, doesn’t that opinion need to be respected or resentment will follow?

 

[Rence]

So, if one spouse says, enough, the other has to respect that or resentment will follow?

What about the one who is wanting another child, doesn’t that opinion need to be respected or resentment will follow?

They should both be mindful of each other and each other’s needs and should respect each other It’s not just about one party or the other. It’s about both together

 

[Bookcat]

One may only use NFP to avoid if one has serious reasons…each couple is to discern and judge if they have serious reasons before God.

Serious reasons can come under various headings…and they do not have to be life or death…

of course Marriage must be always open to life.

And there is the obligation to marital relations that is part Marriage. One has given these rights at the wedding…and they can only be withheld for some very good reason…

of course aside from the NFP question each spouse ought to take into consideration the other spouse when requesting marital relations…(fatigue etc)

 

[Ron_Conte]

It is not correct to say that if the couple agrees, then they can do as they choose. Procreation is the responsibility of the husband and wife, but they are both responsible before God. They must both seek the will of God.

If a couple had no children, they would need a grave reason to use NFP so strictly as to attempt to avoid all conception. By the time that you have, in this example, 5 children, a grave reason would not be needed, but only a just reason. All that is needed in any case is a reason that is proportionate. So it would depend on the circumstances, such as the age of the couple, the needs of the existing children, the resources available to raise another child, etc.

If the spouses cannot agree, they should both seek the will of God until they do agree.

 

[Bookcat]

A serious reason is always needed to avoid via NFP.

of course many things can be serious reasons…and there are degrees of seriousness …

and it can be the five children would be such …it is something the couple would have to judge before God.

all that is required is a serious reason …not a very serious reason…or a extremely serious reason.

As to “just reason” for there to be “a just reason” that reason must be a ‘serious reason’.

A reason that is not serious would not be a just reason to avoid via NFP.

 

[tafan]

Based on how the original post is worded, ie "grave reason to avoid ", I would have answered that using NFP to avoid any future pregnancy (as opposed to spacing out the childbirth), would be wrong. Why would having 5 kids change the need from a “grave” reason to just a “just reason”? And what is the definition of a “just reason”? I have not heard of this distinction w.r.t. NFP. I would appreciate some references on this matter.

As to “the couple must decide” responses, this is a rather incomplete response. Like all moral decisions, the couple could be wrong, some authoritative guidance is often necessary to help them make an acceptable decision. Heck, based on how the original post is worded, it seems like some authoritative guidance is needed just to resolve the difference between the spouses.

What about this scenario? A person is a widow, in their middle ages (early to mid 40s) an has a large family. That person would like to remarry with someone in that same age range. Would it be permissible to marry with the intent to use NFP to avoid all pregnancies? No health or financial conditions exist, just that one of the couple thinks he/she has enough of a family on his/her hands.

 

[Bookcat]

A just reason in this matter…would need to be a "serious reason’. (a just reason is not a different category for the Church here…it is a serious reason…)

Just as a just reason to kill an attacker must that one is defending oneself and this is necessary to do so…to keep him from killing you that sort of thing (one can not just say knock him out or something)

It would not be a just reason to kill someone for taking your TV

nor would it be a just reason to avoid via NFP because one wants to buy a new diamond necklace to match ones favorite dress…or so one can buy a yacht…or so one can go every night to the movies…

but it would be a just reason to do so for say some important medical reason or one can not afford more Children …or honestly handle any more…or one needs certain medical tests for which one should not be pregnant…etc – thus one would need some serious reason…which can be varied in many ways… (again there are degrees in “serious reasons”) and they can vary from person to person …place to place…time to time…

 

[tafan]

So the answer to the original post, since no grave reason exists, would be the wife needs to assent to having more children. Is that correct?

 

[Rence]

Based on how the original post is worded, ie "grave reason to avoid ", I would have answered that using NFP to avoid any future pregnancy (as opposed to spacing out the childbirth), would be wrong. Why would having 5 kids change the need from a “grave” reason to just a “just reason”? And what is the definition of a “just reason”? I have not heard of this distinction w.r.t. NFP. I would appreciate some references on this matter.

As to “the couple must decide” responses, this is a rather incomplete response. Like all moral decisions, the couple could be wrong, some authoritative guidance is often necessary to help them make an acceptable decision. Heck, based on how the original post is worded, it seems like some authoritative guidance is needed just to resolve the difference between the spouses.

Well, to be fair, it was the original post had an incomplete senario. How can any conclusions be drawn from with the lack of additional information?

What about this scenario? A person is a widow, in their middle ages (early to mid 40s) an has a large family. That person would like to remarry with someone in that same age range. Would it be permissible to marry with the intent to use NFP to avoid all pregnancies? No health or financial conditions exist, just that one of the couple thinks he/she has enough of a family on his/her hands.

The Church would probably would probably say ‘no’. The difference between the first and second senario is that the second senario is about people who are starting a new family. The church would ask why they wanted to get married in the first place, if they didn’t want to expand the family. In the first senario, they got married, had children and now one of them feels it would be best to stop. We don’t know why because there’s not enough information…does that make sense?

 

[OraLabora]

So, if one spouse says, enough, the other has to respect that or resentment will follow?

What about the one who is wanting another child, doesn’t that opinion need to be respected or resentment will follow?

Having a child imposes quite a large burden on a couple, especially the woman who must bear it and nurture it through early life.

Unilaterally imposing that burden on her would be unfair if she feels unable to assume it.

On the other hand the only burden on the party that wants the child but is refused by his spouse is psychological disappointment which has no risk of physical harm or burden for normal well-adjusted folks.

Therefore the proportion of burden is much greater on the one having a child imposed on her, than the burden that would be placed on the person wanting a child but being refused. Moreover in this example, it is not as if children are being refused altogether as there are 5 preceding children.

A woman imposing a burden on a man is also possible by tricking him into conceiving. For example it may be required for the husband to take on a second job or work more hours in order to have sufficient resources for an additional child. That is a physical burden as well that he may not feel ready or able to assume.

Physical burdens should not be imposed unilaterally. So in this case the person not wanting the child needs to “win” the argument assuming that his or her reasons for not wanting a child are real and legitimate. I think already having 5 children is sufficient reason.

It seems like a pretty clear cut matter of justice to me. And the days of forcing a wife to remain barefoot and pregnant over a hot stove are, rightfully, long gone. She isn’t a baby machine, she’s a human being with her own unique identity, needs, capacity, dignity and bodily integrity that must be respected. If her husband were to force her to bear an unwanted child after already having 5 children, that to me would be a grievous assault to her bodily integrity and dignity. So too would be tricking a man into conceiving if he believes he is unable to materially assure sufficient resources for the child’s upbringing.

But of course, in a healthy couple, these things would be discussed, and the man who respects his wife will respect her choice and vice versa.

 

[Bookcat]

A serious reason is always needed to avoid via NFP.

of course many things can be serious reasons…and there are degrees of seriousness …

and it can be the five children would be such …it is something the couple would have to judge before God.

all that is required is a serious reason …not a very serious reason…or a extremely serious reason.

As to “just reason” for there to be “a just reason” that reason must be a ‘serious reason’.

A reason that is not serious would not be a just reason to avoid via NFP.

Of course each spouse also has the obligation of martial relations…to each other unless for some really good reason…they have given themselves and their fertility to each other…they are married.

People often forget that this is a real moral obligation.

(of course a particular request for the martial act can be discussed…and spouses should lovingly consider the fatigue etc of the other…as well the possible need of the other)

Also of course …Children are a great gift…the crown of marriage. And as Pope John Paul II said it is a great gift to the other Children --to have another brother or sister.

So it is quite natural that it can only be a serious reason that one would use NFP to avoid the possibility of conceiving a new Child.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

So the answer to the original post, since no grave reason exists, would be the wife needs to assent to having more children. Is that correct?

I would say no. I mean, there are just too many question marks. Why would the woman disagree to having more children? It is because maybe she is the one staying home and taking care of 5 children while the husband is at work? It is because she is the one who juggles everything? It is because even if she can manage 5 children, she feels that 6 will make her unable to give each child the care and attention it deserves? What about pregnancy being unbearable while trying to manage 5 children?

These all can be considered valuable reasons to avoid pregnancy. We are called to be open to life, but in the same document (Humane Vitae) we are called to responsible parenthood.

The husband and wife need to agree on the number of children. It may be easier for the husband to want more because he isn’t with them 24/7 like she is. How much is this man helping around the house?

See, there are just too many questions. This is why there are no clearly defined hard and fast rules, but why Humane Vitae says that we need serious reasons to avoid, and that is up to us to decide as couples. This is also why we can NEVER judge someone else’s reasons to decide to avoid. We aren’t a part of the marriage, and therefore it is NOT our right or decision to tell other when to have children, or how many.

 

[tafan]

Whitacre_Girl, Rence: , yes there are many questions in the first post. But the statement twas made in the original post that the wife had no grave reasons to avoid another pregnancy. You guys seem to be questioning that statement, but if we accept the original poster’s contention, is not the issue settled?

Rence, thankes for this answer:

The Church would probably would probably say ‘no’. The difference between the first and second senario is that the second senario is about people who are starting a new family. The church would ask why they wanted to get married in the first place, if they didn’t want to expand the family. In the first senario, they got married, had children and now one of them feels it would be best to stop. We don’t know why because there’s not enough information…does that make sense?

But. it doesn’t quite make sense. Why get married? for companionship and to have two parents for the existing children. The church would accept someone 10 years older getting married with no intent to have children. Lets just say it is a widower with the children. He is 45 and has 5 kdis at home. He could marry a 50 year old woman and not worry about more kids but he could not marry a 40 year old woman and plan on practising NFP in order to avoid all pregnancies?

 

[OraLabora]

Whitacre_Girl, Rence: , yes there are many questions in the first post. But the statement twas made in the original post that the wife had no grave reasons to avoid another pregnancy. You guys seem to be questioning that statement, but if we accept the original poster’s contention, is not the issue settled?

After 5 kids a “grave reason” is not necessary. A good reason is sufficient.

The spouse who deems the burden of a new child to be too much, has sufficient reason to refuse the request.

He or she also has the duty to lovingly explain that to his or her spouse. But by no means the obligation to conceive or bear a child, and the other spouse also has the duty to not pressure the refusing spouse.

 

[tafan]

After 5 kids a “grave reason” is not necessary. A good reason is sufficient.

The spouse who deems the burden of a new child to be too much, has sufficient reason to refuse the request.

He or she also has the duty to lovingly explain that to his or her spouse. But by no means the obligation to conceive or bear a child, and the other spouse also has the duty to not pressure the refusing spouse.

I am really confused on this issue and would appreciate some references. I can understand that if one has 5 kids and does not feel capable of having more (for financial, mental, physical, etc reasons) it would be grave enough to practise NFP to avoid future pregnancies.
But, why does having 5 kids alleviate the necessity of grave reasons and why does just a “good reason” become suffecient. What is a good reason? Maybe some examples would help. Some actual references to the church’s teaching on this subject would be really beneficial.

As to my other scenario, let me clarify the question. A widower does have grave reasons sufficient to not want more kids. That is settled. So the question boils down to, can a widower enter into a marriage with such a grave reason planning on practicing NFP to avoid all pregnacies. Its not that he is not open to children, he already has as many as can be handled. Or would it be required that the person marry someone past their child bearing years.

 

[Bookcat]

I am really confused on this issue and would appreciate some references.
But, why does having 5 kids alleviate the necessity of grave reasons and why does just a “good reason” become suffecient. What is a good reason? Maybe some examples would help. Some actual references to the church’s teaching on this subject would be really beneficial.

It has to be a serious reason…not just a good reason.

The Church has repeatedly explained that “just reasons” regarding NFP are when there are serious reasons:

From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – approved by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

vatican.va/archive/compen…um-ccc_en.html

From the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church

It lays out that SERIOUS REASONS are needed …and they can fit into different kinds…

(another official doc)

1. The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses’ special participation in God’s work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…tt-soc_en.html

The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called “natural,” confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving.

vatican.va/roman_curia/po…emecum_en.html

which is from a vatican guide for confessors

From the Encyclical of Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae

This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely.

the larger quote:

The work of educating in the service of life involves the training of married couples in responsible procreation. In its true meaning, responsible procreation requires couples to be obedient to the Lord’s call and to act as faithful interpreters of his plan. This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely. The moral law obliges them in every case to control the impulse of instinct and passion, and to respect the biological laws inscribed in their person. It is precisely this respect which makes legitimate, at the service of responsible procreation, the use of natural methods of regulating fertility. From the scientific point of view, these methods are becoming more and more accurate and make it possible in practice to make choices in harmony with moral values. An honest appraisal of their effectiveness should dispel certain prejudices which are still widely held, and should convince married couples, as well as health-care and social workers, of the importance of proper training in this area. The Church is grateful to those who, with personal sacrifice and often unacknowledged dedication, devote themselves to the study and spread of these methods, as well to the promotion of education in the moral values which they presuppose. 97

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

BUT AGAIN serious does not have to = life or death…

and it is something that can have MANY incarnations…for life throws all sorts of things at us…

the couple has to judge before God if a particular reason is serious…of course they can seek advice etc…(one source you could contact the Pope Paul VI institute…they can advise and are experts in this area and very faithful to the Church)…but in the end they need to make the judgment …it as in a way a cool …that God puts these sorts of things into our hands…

prayer too of course is important…

 

[tafan]

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?