Spouses obligation to having more children

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."160
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.161

 

[tafan]

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.

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.

Whitacre_girl, this sounds like two different scenarios. In the second, you say that God gave tghem a serious reason, in the first, you said that 2 kids is simply “where they want to stay”. I would say the first sounds like it lacks a serious reason to use NFP. In that case, they would have to abstain totally.

---

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.

Yes, but if the woman is being honest with herself and God that she “cannot reasonably give” anymore, perhaps die to fatigue or whatever, that would be a serious reason. But the original post excluded this. It said there was not a serious reason, so the woman cannot just say I am done in that case.

"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…

Bookcat, thanks for your patience, I just want to make sure I understand this relative to my example given. Sorry for beating a dead horse, it just has not seemed clear based on my readings in the past. So back to my original example, a man who is 45, a widower with several kids, does not want more kids because that is all he can handle and other reasons. They are serious reasons. Now, he could marry in the church to a woman with the intent to avoid all pregnancies via NFP (assuming the bride to be is of the same mindset)? This is legitimate?

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Whitacre_girl, this sounds like two different scenarios. In the second, you say that God gave tghem a serious reason, in the first, you said that 2 kids is simply “where they want to stay”. I would say the first sounds like it lacks a serious reason to use NFP. In that case, they would have to abstain totally.

How is abstaining totally any different from using NFP??? As I see it, that would only aggrivate the marital relationship. If you are married and are called to have more children, simply not having sex at all doesn’t make avoiding that call any less serious than only having sex at certain times to the same end.

In all seriousness, I said “were they want to stay” as a tremendous boiling down of my points, which I outlined clearly in other posts. They may simply feel that God is leading them to care for the ones they already have. They may feel that God is asking them to have only two children for reasons that no one else can understand. God will have given them a serious reason to acknowledge that maybe they should have more. It’s not our place to judge what is “serious” or not. Not even the Pope was so presumptous in his writings.

 

[tafan]

How is abstaining totally any different from using NFP??? As I see it, that would only aggrivate the marital relationship. If you are married and are called to have more children, simply not having sex at all doesn’t make avoiding that call any less serious than only having sex at certain times to the same end.
.

I too would question the wisdom of a married couple abstaining completely from sex in order to insure no pregnancy (except in the case of some health issue). But it is my understanding that it is allowed by catholic moral teaching. Where as, using NFP requires a serious reason. For example, suppose a couple does not want another child for the sole reason of selfishness. This is their honest reason, I am not judging. In this case, NFP would be wrong, I think the church explicitly forbids it. But total abstinance would be allowed. It may not be wise, but that is a different matter. At least this is my understanding.

In all seriousness, I said “were they want to stay” as a tremendous boiling down of my points, which I outlined clearly in other posts. They may simply feel that God is leading them to care for the ones they already have. They may feel that God is asking them to have only two children for reasons that no one else can understand. God will have given them a serious reason to acknowledge that maybe they should have more. It’s not our place to judge what is “serious” or not. Not even the Pope was so presumptous in his writings

I understnad now, and I am not trying to judge anyone. Just responding to the wording, which you did not initially indicate included a serious reason, which seemed correct since the original post explicitly cited lack of a serious reason.

 

[hellopeople]

I too would question the wisdom of a married couple abstaining completely from sex in order to insure no pregnancy (except in the case of some health issue). But it is my understanding that it is allowed by catholic moral teaching. Where as, using NFP requires a serious reason. For example, suppose a couple does not want another child for the sole reason of selfishness. This is their honest reason, I am not judging. In this case, NFP would be wrong, I think the church explicitly forbids it. But total abstinance would be allowed. It may not be wise, but that is a different matter. At least this is my understanding.

I understnad now, and I am not trying to judge anyone. Just responding to the wording, which you did not initially indicate included a serious reason, which seemed correct since the original post explicitly cited lack of a serious reason.

Not wanting to have more children because of selfishness? What about not wanting to have any more kids just because you don’t want to…is that always selfish? If every Catholic family had as many kids as they could, most families would have 10+ kids. It just isn’t practical and I refuse to consider it sinful. I am 23 right now and have a 16 month old son. I am sure that my wife and I could physically (as well as mentally, emotionally, and financially) support at least 7 more kids over the next 15 years. Does that mean that anything less is a sin? We are going to have another baby…if it is a girl, we probably won’t have any more kids. If it is a boy, we will try for one more to get a girl, and if that isn’t a girl, we will just stay with 3 boys. We are not doing that for any serious reason, just that its what we want to do. I refuse to believe it is a sin.

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, thanks for your patience, I just want to make sure I understand this relative to my example given. Sorry for beating a dead horse, it just has not seemed clear based on my readings in the past. So back to my original example, a man who is 45, a widower with several kids, does not want more kids because that is all he can handle and other reasons. They are serious reasons. Now, he could marry in the church to a woman with the intent to avoid all pregnancies via NFP (assuming the bride to be is of the same mindset)? This is legitimate?

It would seem to be…

I think one would say they would still need to be ‘for children’ but judging that there is a serious reason that does not permit this. If they could have children they would…and they are open to it if such happens…

…it seems that this is the case…for even a sterile couple can marry or an couple beyond the years of child bearing …and they too would hold that children are part of marriage but they just cannot have any for the various reasons: being sterile, being too old, or having a serious reason to avoid via NFP that one forsees will be for the whole of the marriage

(for instance think of someone with a medical condition that if they have a baby they will die…they too would need to use NFP for this extreme serious reason…but it would seem that they could still marry)

 

[tafan]

Not wanting to have more children because of selfishness? What about not wanting to have any more kids just because you don’t want to…is that always selfish? If every Catholic family had as many kids as they could, most families would have 10+ kids. It just isn’t practical and I refuse to consider it sinful. I am 23 right now and have a 16 month old son. I am sure that my wife and I could physically (as well as mentally, emotionally, and financially) support at least 7 more kids over the next 15 years. Does that mean that anything less is a sin? We are going to have another baby…if it is a girl, we probably won’t have any more kids. If it is a boy, we will try for one more to get a girl, and if that isn’t a girl, we will just stay with 3 boys. We are not doing that for any serious reason, just that its what we want to do. I refuse to believe it is a sin.

If you truly have no serious reason to not have more kids, it would be a sin. This doesn’t mean you cannot space the kids far apart, that is proper. Likewise, this does not mean you have to have 10+. In this day and age, it is likely something serious will develope that would make the indefinite use of NFP ok. But to rule out any more kids for no serious reason, that is wrong. What beliefs you refuse or accept is beside the point.

Bookcat, thanks for your responses.

 

[choose_to_love]

Hellopeople: Not my will, but Thine, be done. I think that has some applicability here, no? Some introspection may be necessary here, not for answer on the board, of course. Why would a couple feel that they, as a couple, “just don’t want to” have another child? I submit that there has to be more to it than that, even if the couple is not consciously aware of it. Are there concerns about economically providing for a(nother) child, emotionally providing, lack of personal free time, inability to house more, etc.? There could be good or bad reasons. Again, check out HV, where it describes responsible parenthood, as considering one’s responsibilities to God, the other spouse, the existing family, and society. You may also like Castii Connubii.

tafan: from Pius XII’s Allocution to Midwives: Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Doc: Again, God trusts us to be the co-creators of an immortal soul with Him. If not serious reasons, what standard should a couple use, in your estimation? Do you really think that the application of the responsible parenthood formula in Humanae Vitae places the woman in the position of baby factory?
As husbands, we are called to lay down our lives for our brides, just as Christ loved the Church, freely, totally, faithfully and fruitfully. To do that well would demand respect for the status of wife and mother of one's bride. It will absolutely take into consideration that demands of the existing family on both spouses. Would another child require Dad to work so many hours he will never see the kids or his spouse? Is Mom at her limit emotionally with the existing kids? Is Dad? To me this is a very reasonable system, but it must be informed by faith through prayer.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I think that people have been given free will for a reason. I think treating woman as baby factories is seriously demeaning.

 

[tafan]

choose to love, thank you very much for that reference and information.

Doc Keele, if you think this is about treating women as baby factories, you need to come to a better understanding of catholic teaching on marriage. As can be seen, I am unsure about some of the details and am trying to understand the issues better myself. But none of us have been advocating that type of treatment of women. Blanket, cynical statements like that indicate a little bit of close mindedness.

 

[Rascalking]

I think that people have been given free will for a reason. I think treating woman as baby factories is seriously demeaning.

Thank you for saying this. Your so right. I’m a guy, and aside from it being serious demeaning, I don’t want to have kids in my home until I’m 90. It’s not fair to wheel me up in a wheel chair to see my daughter/son play little league.

 

[Doc_Keele]

choose to love, thank you very much for that reference and information.

Doc Keele, if you think this is about treating women as baby factories, you need to come to a better understanding of catholic teaching on marriage. As can be seen, I am unsure about some of the details and am trying to understand the issues better myself. But none of us have been advocating that type of treatment of women. Blanket, cynical statements like that indicate a little bit of close mindedness.

“close mindedness” - interesting comment in the circumstances

I have seen people seriously say that even NFP cannot be used unless there is a “serious” reason
this amounts to treating women as baby factories
that’s just making an observation, nothing remotely “close minded” about it

 

[choose_to_love]

Doc, Rascalking: I am not following. How is the woman being turned into a baby factory? It is a positive misrepresentation of the teaching to state that one must have as many children as possible, as has been stated by several posters now.

What criteria would you advocate a couple use, Doc? Second request. “Free will” as applied to what factors?

OT: Rascalking, when I originally saw your nic, I read it as a gerund, and I’ve been busting to ask:

Q.: Do you like rascalking? A.: I don’t know, I’ve never rascalkled! (Cue rimshot).

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc, Rascalking: I am not following. How is the woman being turned into a baby factory? It is a positive misrepresentation of the teaching to state that one must have as many children as possible, as has been stated by several posters now

Well I’m commenting on the basis of poster’s comments. Whether these represent official Church teaching or not, I don’t know, but that wasn’t the point I was making. I was criticising the posters’ position.

What criteria would you advocate a couple use, Doc? Second request. “Free will” as applied to what factors?

I don’t know what criteria you’re advocating. I’m not really advocating any particular set of criteria - I just think that people should be able to choose how many children to have. I don’t think it’s responsible for every family to have a dozen or more children.

 

[Rascalking]

Doc, Rascalking: I am not following. How is the woman being turned into a baby factory? It is a positive misrepresentation of the teaching to state that one must have as many children as possible, as has been stated by several posters now.

What criteria would you advocate a couple use, Doc? Second request. “Free will” as applied to what factors?

OT: Rascalking, when I originally saw your nic, I read it as a gerund, and I’ve been busting to ask:

Q.: Do you like rascalking? A.: I don’t know, I’ve never rascalkled! (Cue rimshot).

lol! Gerund-are YOU a fellow English major too? We like using words like that

I think people take this issue way too seriously, and I honestly don’t care if people have 18 kids or 1 kid. Having said that, I know from firsthand experience that a bigger family isn’t always roses-regardless of what people may think. No, that’s not an argument against having big families, just a reminder.

A woman is a baby machine if she spends 90% of her adult life pregnant. And yes, I know that’s not a church teaching, I get it. Again though, some catholics DO look down on other catholics if they only have 2 or 3 kids.

I only speak for me, obviously. And I still think people take this way too seriously. A couple does have the right to space out/avoid pregnancy.

For the record, Rascalking is the name of my favorite song by a band.

 

[tafan]

Well I’m commenting on the basis of poster’s comments. Whether these represent official Church teaching or not, I don’t know, but that wasn’t the point I was making. I was criticising the posters’ position.

I don’t know what criteria you’re advocating. I’m not really advocating any particular set of criteria - I just think that people should be able to choose how many children to have. I don’t think it’s responsible for every family to have a dozen or more children.

It is the church’s position that one needs a serious reason to use NFP, that is a fact. That by no means that women have to be baby factories. The criteria is “serious reason”. That may be a lot of things. It may be that you honestly do not feel that you are capable of raising anymore children, seems like that would be the case and keep someone from having children to their 90s. It may be that you have a little one at home and can’t handle another one for a couple of years. The church is asking no one to be baby factories.

You admit you don’t know the church’s position, so don’t ridicule be so cynical until you take some time to learn it. That is a catholic’s responsiblity. To have a well formed conscience.

 

[tafan]

lolA woman is a baby machine if she spends 90% of her adult life pregnant. And yes, I know that’s not a church teaching, I get it. Again though, some catholics DO look down on other catholics if they only have 2 or 3 kids.

I only speak for me, obviously. And I still think people take this way too seriously. A couple does have the right to space out/avoid pregnancy.
.

Yes they do and it has been acknowledged over and over again. For a serious reason, and the need to spread/space out children often qualifies, a couple can space our children. Show me one place on this thread where it was stated that a woman has to be pregnant 90% of her adult life? No one is looking down on anyone.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes they do and it has been acknowledged over and over again. For a serious reason, and the need to spread/space out children often qualifies, a couple can space our children. Show me one place on this thread where it was stated that a woman has to be pregnant 90% of her adult life? No one is looking down on anyone.

Yes I agree there can be serious reasons to space children. More importantly the Church agrees that there can be such serious reasons to do so.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It is the church’s position that one needs a serious reason to use NFP, that is a fact. That by no means that women have to be baby factories. The criteria is “serious reason”. That may be a lot of things. It may be that you honestly do not feel that you are capable of raising anymore children, seems like that would be the case and keep someone from having children to their 90s. It may be that you have a little one at home and can’t handle another one for a couple of years. The church is asking no one to be baby factories.

You admit you don’t know the church’s position, so don’t ridicule be so cynical until you take some time to learn it. That is a catholic’s responsiblity. To have a well formed conscience.

Don’t be so po-faced tafan.
It’s right to ridicule the people that have maintained that women have to be baby factories especially if they are in fact contradicting Church teaching.
I managed to work out that this idea was ridiculous even without knowing exactly what the Church says. That’s called having a well-formed conscience. Some people believe having a well-formed conscience means telling Nazis that there are Jews hiding in your house so they can kill them:shrug:
In that case I’d rather not have a well-formed conscience, thanks!

 

[tafan]

It’s right to ridicule the people that have maintained that women have to be baby factories especially if they are in fact contradicting Church teaching.

Who has said this? You directly implied I did. I did no such thing. Do you often ridicule (your word, not mine) people and make false accusations? You find this right?