What if a couple disagrees on more kids?

[gardenswithkids]

This isn’t my situation, but I am wondering from a theoretical point of view. I’m sure couples experience this. What if they already have a couple of kids, and one spouse wants more and the other does not? I would imagine they should talk, and pray, and discuss, and hopefully they will come to agreement one way or the other. But what if they do all that and still can’t agree? I know they say NFP only works if both spouses agree, but from a practical standpoint, how would that work? Most women with regular cycles have a general idea of when they are fertile even if they aren’t formally charting. If one spouse “demands” relations during the fertile period, knowing how the other feels about having another child…well, to me that sounds like a recipe for marital disaster. What are couples in this situation supposed to do?

Theoretically, the de-fault position should be, “Don’t worry about it.” If it happens, it happens–and if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. That takes away the argument because they are neither trying to have another child, nor are they trying to avoid another child.

 

[Walking_Home]

Catholics do not follow the Quiverful movement. I admire anyone who feels it in their heart to make orphans their own, even if they have or intend to have biological children.

Both men and women were made for the glory of God, both in the image of God. God gave women brains and minds of their own, to be used. Both men and women should submit to God and marriages should be about mutual respect, trust and love. The decision to have a child should be a joint decision, made out of love not a decision arising from submission and dominance.

---

Exactly.

 

[EasterJoy]

Theoretically, the de-fault position should be, “Don’t worry about it.” If it happens, it happens–and if it doesn’t, it doesn’t. That takes away the argument because they are neither trying to have another child, nor are they trying to avoid another child.

The main thing is that it is not a good idea to try to come to a decision with a spouse you don’t have yet over a disagreement you don’t have yet. “Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil.” Matt. 6:34 There is not one right way to answer this nor even one right way to come to a like-minded conclusion. Most couples who initially disagree on this do figure out how to handle it in the same way that they figure out all the other decisions they have to make as a married couple.

When you choose a spouse, choose someone with whom you can disagree and come to a compromise, and have some peace with how that came about. People worry about sexual compatibility, but that is the compatibility that is the most important, IMHO–do you disagree well? There isn’t just one way to come to a like mind when you start out at odds with your spouse, but each couple does need to have their own way with which they are at peace. Other people might say, “I could never do it that way” or “that way works just fine for me”; what matters is how your gut feels when you and your prospective spouse reach a joint conclusion. Be very honest with yourself about that!!

 

[lisagruen1969]

In my defense, here are my references that come from the Holy Bible (catholic edition) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• 1605 “The woman…is given to him by God as his helpmate; she thus represents God from whom comes our help”.
• 1664 “…the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its supreme gift: the child”.
• Ephesians 5:23~ Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
• The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).

1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Eph. 5:22-24 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church, His Body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

Col. 1:18 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

Titus 2:5 – Wives should be submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited.

1 Peter 3:1-2 – “Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.”

1 Peter 3:5-6 – “So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you.”

Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:12-13 – while some people argue that God imposed the submission requirement upon women as a punishment for the original sin, this is not true. God designated the man as the head of his family from the very beginning of creation, even before the original sin. Therefore, man’s authority over the woman was not imposed as a punishment for the original sin, but to reflect the order of creation.

Gen. 3:16 – in fact, God revealed that women would want to usurp their husband’s authority as the result of the original sin. After the original sin, God tells Eve: “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Thus, as a result of the original sin, Eve would desire to rule over Adam, but God ensured that Adam would rule over Eve. (John Salza @ Scripture Catholic).

Normally my wording would have been more equality-friendly, but when it comes down to brass tacks, any wife should not usurp the authority of her husband unless it puts her in danger of her health or life. God is clear about the consequences of bypassing one’s husband, and the blessings and graces that come from submitting to one’s husband in obedience to their Loving Father. We in the Western world are so used to women being given equal rights to men, we forget that God created a marriage covenant as a model of the Heavenly blueprint: there’s a hierarchy starting with the father, and the reciprocal love, respect and self sacrifice that flows between the members eliminates the opportunity for resentment, abuse, and sin. just saying…

 

[severus68]

In my defense, here are my references that come from the Holy Bible (catholic edition) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• 1605 “The woman…is given to him by God as his helpmate; she thus represents God from whom comes our help”.
• 1664 “…the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its supreme gift: the child”.
• Ephesians 5:23~ Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
• The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family).

1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”

Eph. 5:22-24 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife, as Christ is the head of the church, His Body, and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.”

Col. 1:18 – “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

Titus 2:5 – Wives should be submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited.

1 Peter 3:1-2 – “Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.”

1 Peter 3:5-6 – “So once the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves and were submissive to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are now her children if you do right and let nothing terrify you.”

Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:9; 1 Tim. 2:12-13 – while some people argue that God imposed the submission requirement upon women as a punishment for the original sin, this is not true. God designated the man as the head of his family from the very beginning of creation, even before the original sin. Therefore, man’s authority over the woman was not imposed as a punishment for the original sin, but to reflect the order of creation.

Gen. 3:16 – in fact, God revealed that women would want to usurp their husband’s authority as the result of the original sin. After the original sin, God tells Eve: “Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Thus, as a result of the original sin, Eve would desire to rule over Adam, but God ensured that Adam would rule over Eve. (John Salza @ Scripture Catholic).

Normally my wording would have been more equality-friendly, but when it comes down to brass tacks, any wife should not usurp the authority of her husband unless it puts her in danger of her health or life. God is clear about the consequences of bypassing one’s husband, and the blessings and graces that come from submitting to one’s husband in obedience to their Loving Father. We in the Western world are so used to women being given equal rights to men, we forget that God created a marriage covenant as a model of the Heavenly blueprint: there’s a hierarchy starting with the father, and the reciprocal love, respect and self sacrifice that flows between the members eliminates the opportunity for resentment, abuse, and sin. just saying…

So you find it wrong to give women equal rights? Perhaps you should also quote those parts of the Cathechism that shows clearly that both men and women were created as equals by God.

 

[severus68]

So you find it wrong to give women equal rights? Perhaps you should also quote those parts of the Cathechism that shows clearly that both men and women were created as equals by God.

From the Catechism:-

"369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”

371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. the Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.“246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247”

 

[Walking_Home]

From the Catechism:-

"369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”

371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. the Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.“246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents co-operate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247”

---

 

[EasterJoy]

In my defense, here are my references that come from the Holy Bible (catholic edition) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• 1605 “The woman…is given to him by God as his helpmate; she thus represents God from whom comes our help”.
• 1664 “…the refusal of fertility turns married life away from its supreme gift: the child”.
• Ephesians 5:23~ Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
• The Holy Catholic Church teaches, through Scripture and Tradition, that the husband is the head of his family and has God-given authority over his wife and children. This gift of authority does not give a husband any greater dignity than his wife. Both are equal members of the marital covenant, as is reflected by God creating woman from the side of man (as opposed to his head or feet). Instead, this order of authority reflects the divine order between God, Christ and man. God blessed the marital covenant with this order to maintain peace and harmony in the family, the “domestic church.” Just as Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church (the family of God), so the father is the head of his domestic church (his family)…

Normally my wording would have been more equality-friendly, but when it comes down to brass tacks, any wife should not usurp the authority of her husband unless it puts her in danger of her health or life. God is clear about the consequences of bypassing one’s husband, and the blessings and graces that come from submitting to one’s husband in obedience to their Loving Father. We in the Western world are so used to women being given equal rights to men, we forget that God created a marriage covenant as a model of the Heavenly blueprint: there’s a hierarchy starting with the father, and the reciprocal love, respect and self sacrifice that flows between the members eliminates the opportunity for resentment, abuse, and sin. just saying…

Yes, but…God is also very clear that Christian authority is the authority that washes feet, that does not imitate the secular world.

This is what Jesus told his disciplies when they became indignant because James and John has asked for a priveleged place with him: But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Matt. 20:25-28

And what did he say to James and John? ““My cup you will indeed drink…”

When we say the husband has authority, then, we’re not conceding him authority in the secular sense. He cannot be a tyrant. Look at the Lord’s authority with his mother. He had the greater authority, which was clear from the way he initially responded to her request, but at Cana he was willing to be moved, to listen, to act according to her prompting. She, in her turn, submitted to his sense of things, but left open the possibility that he would concede to her understanding of the situation. Their interchange at Cana is a great model of how Christian submission and authority work!

The most difficult thing for couples to realize is that they have a joint responsibility to submit to the will of God. When it comes to children, children are the supreme gift, and couples are to be open when they can. There cannot be any forcing of one by the other, though. It doesn’t work that way…Christian submission doesn’t work that way and Christian authority doesn’t work that way. So while you submitted yourself freely–which is totally within Christian tradition–that does not mean that any of us can imply that a husband can override a wife’s sense by force of will. Yours did not, and a husband ought not. The wife can’t be beaten into submission, not even with the catechism. She has to open herself freely to her duties, and cannot be forced by anything but her own will. So if your husband had not been able to convince you, then you’d have had to work it out together, right? That is where the questioner is.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I am praying for this scenario within anyone’s marriages who are suffering from disagreement on this issue! I’ve been there! I agree completely with Josigirl, and in my own words, I encourage the wife to defer to the husband’s authority. The husband submits to and answer to God for his actions, and the wife submits to and answers to God for her submission under her husband. This is a divinely appointed duty for wives, to defer to their husband as God’s representative on earth. By putting the decision about future children in her husband’s hands and trusting God to bless her husband’s decisions, she gains her husband’s trust and God’s blessings upon her head. This seems to go completely against current cultural trends emphasizing women’s rights and gender equality, but God’s not ever followed cultural trends, has HE! If you claim to believe and accept God as your authority, then His Word is the rule, and to skirt His rules will result in trouble! I personally came up against this many times throughout the last 22 years of childraising - I have 10 children ages 21 to 3! I originally thought I wanted 4 children, and actually used a diaphram against my husband’s opposition after baby #4 until God convicted me to toss it. After that time, I struggled with every time my husband desired another child, especially with #8, a son. I was exhausted struggling and opposing what was against the desires of my heart, to keep birthing babies instead of adopting orphans, which is what I wanted. Each time I gave up control to God, and each time (every 2 years) another child would come. THANK GOD for His persistence! I am overwhelmed every day, not with tiredness or stress, but with love and thankfulness for these amazing and remarkable people I helped bring into this world!!! All the edema, hypertension, heartburn, fears, and hurting joints are worth the blessings I am multiplying all over the world in my children. Our quiver is full, and our mission clear! We are filling the Faith with energy and vitality, and I love seeing another child leave the nest and break out on his or her own! That is my story, and to the wife who’s husband wants to limit the number, the same grace applies, and the Divine opportunities abound! God doesn’t ignore our heart’s desires - He answers them in time, in His way. Do you trust God? Do you really trust that God has control over your life? Over the n umber of children He has pre ordained for you? This isn’t an issue of wife vs. husband, this sounds like wife vs. God and a lack of trust. Have faith and claim it even when you don’t feel it. Obedience to God doesn’t require feeling good about it! You obey because you agreed to when you accepted the Lord as your Saviour. Obey and trust, and pray for peace and grace when in conflict. Anyone have other thoughts?

Lisa, I think it is beautiful that you honored your husband’s desire for additional children. :tiphat: The original poster asked about what happens when a couple disagrees. You gave a lovely response of what might happen.

People in our society today often seem to think that the spouse who wants another child should lose and drop the subject. Not every women is like you and not husband is like yours! You are both obviously very blessed.

However, I don’t happen to agree with your position that the man should get to decide this matter. Far too often I have heard of women who long for another child but their husbands said “No.” We’ve read threads where the husband is angry that the wife is pregnant, as if she inseminated herself. We live in a society that has so far separated the idea of marriage and the sexual union from pregnancy and childbirth that sometimes a spouse who engages in marital relations with the other spouse gets mad and upset when the natural consequence of pregnancy occurs!

May God bless you for being open to having more children when your spouse expressed desire for more. (Oh, He already did. )

Where did we get this notion that every child must be “planned” by the parents? It certainly doesn’t seem very Catholic to me! It sounds more like something from…Planned Parenthood.

 

[Walking_Home]

Lisa, I think it is beautiful that you honored your husband’s desire for additional children. :tiphat: The original poster asked about what happens when a couple disagrees. You gave a lovely response of what might happen.

People in our society today often seem to think that the spouse who wants another child should lose and drop the subject. Not every women is like you and not husband is like yours! You are both obviously very blessed.

However, I don’t happen to agree with your position that the man should get to decide this matter. Far too often I have heard of women who long for another child but their husbands said “No.” We’ve read threads where the husband is angry that the wife is pregnant, as if she inseminated herself. We live in a society that has so far separated the idea of marriage and the sexual union from pregnancy and childbirth that sometimes a spouse who engages in marital relations with the other spouse gets mad and upset when the natural consequence of pregnancy occurs!

May God bless you for being open to having more children when your spouse expressed desire for more. (Oh, He already did. )

Where did we get this notion that every child must be “planned” by the parents? It certainly doesn’t seem very Catholic to me! It sounds more like something from…Planned Parenthood.

---

Actually – we are not to throw caution to the wind-- and just go at it-- until a woman’s ovaries give out.

Married Love and the Gift of Life

Are couples expected to leave their family size entirely to chance?

Certainly not. The Church teaches that a couple may generously decide to have a large family, or may for serious reasons choose not to have more children for the time being or even for an indefinite period (Humanae Vitae, no. 10).

In married life, serious circumstances—financial, physical, psychological, or those involving responsibilities to other family members—may arise to make an increase in family size untimely. The Church understands this, while encouraging couples to take a generous view of children.

What should a couple do if they have a good reason to avoid having a child?

A married couple can engage in marital intimacy during the naturally infertile times in a woman’s cycle, or after child-bearing years, without violating the meaning of marital intercourse in any way.

This is the principle behind natural family planning (NFP). Natural methods of family planning involve fertility education that enables couples to cooperate with the body as God designed it.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/married-love-and-the-gift-of-life.cfm

 

[gardenswithkids]

---

Actually – we are not to throw caution to the wind-- and just go at it-- until a woman’s ovaries give out.

The article you quoted also says, “When a couple decides to postpone pregnancy, NFP can be very effective.” I emphasized the phrase “a couple”. Notice that the article didn’t say when just one of the spouses decides to postpone pregnancy while the other spouse would really like to have more children. Also note that the Church documents talk about** postponing** pregnancy, not avoiding pregnancy for the rest of the woman’s fertile years without ever giving another thought to the matter even if the other spouse wants another child.

Couples can use NFP. That doesn’t mean they** have** to use NFP. Not using NFP does not mean they are “throwing caution to the wind”. This thread asked about what to do when one spouse wants more kids. Not using NFP does not guarantee that the couple will have more children, especially as the woman nears the end of her fertile years. The Church allows NFP but doesn’t require it, so neither should we place those burdens on one another. When couples cannot agree about trying to have another child or not, deciding not to worry about pregnancy one way or the other* is* a viable option.

I know my next statement is a very foreign concept in our society, but **we do not have to live in a perpetual state of either trying or not trying to conceive! **

 

[Walking_Home]

The article you quoted also says, “When a couple decides to postpone pregnancy, NFP can be very effective.” I emphasized the phrase “a couple”. Notice that the article didn’t say when just one of the spouses decides to postpone pregnancy while the other spouse would really like to have more children. Also note that the Church documents talk about** postponing** pregnancy, not avoiding pregnancy for the rest of the woman’s fertile years without ever giving another thought to the matter even if the other spouse wants another child.

Couples can use NFP. That doesn’t mean they** have** to use NFP. Not using NFP does not mean they are “throwing caution to the wind”. This thread asked about what to do when one spouse wants more kids. Not using NFP does not guarantee that the couple will have more children, especially as the woman nears the end of her fertile years. The Church allows NFP but doesn’t require it, so neither should we place those burdens on one another. When couples cannot agree about trying to have another child or not, deciding not to worry about pregnancy one way or the other* is* a viable option.

I know my next statement is a very foreign concept in our society, but **we do not have to live in a perpetual state of either trying or not trying to conceive! **

---

Yes – couple – but it does not mean that one side can decide on his/her own-- to throw caution into the wind – without taking the other spouse into account. A couple together can decide that conditions are such – to welcome another child --or to postpone for some length of time. But what should never be done – is for one spouse to manipulate/coerce/impose/force more children on the other.

 

[gardenswithkids]

---

Yes – couple – but it does not mean that one side can decide on his/her own-- to throw caution into the wind – without taking the other spouse into account. A couple together can decide that conditions are such – to welcome another child --or to postpone for some length of time. But what should never be done – is for one spouse to manipulate/coerce/impose/force more children on the other.

But it seems to me that you think it’s is all right that one spouse can force/manipulate/coerce/impose the other to have no more children. Your default position seems to be that the one who doesn’t want more children wins the argument.

I never said that anyone should be “manipulated”, but society seems to be manipulating us to think that we have to use birth control unless both partners agree to try for a child. There is absolutely nothing that I have ever seen in any official Church document to support that position.

Unless the spouse who doesn’t want more children intends to spend their remaining fertile years sleeping apart from his/her spouse, it is not possible to guarantee there will be no more children. Birth control methods with 99% effectiveness rate means 99/100 don’t get pregnant each year, leaving one out of ever hundred users to get pregnant each year.

Just as using birth control doesn’t always meant that the woman will not get pregnant, and* not using birth control will not always result in pregnancy*. (Any infertile couple that has tried for years to get pregnant can attest to that last face–and I thank them for their faithful, silent witness.) Fertility is a blessing. Children are blessings. There is no guarantee that God will bless a married Catholic couple with a child if they “throw caution to the wind” (as you phrase it) and trust God to decide the matter when spouses cannot agree. God might bless a faithful Catholic couple who trusted Him with a pregnancy that they did not plan (because they couldn’t come to a mutual agreement and therefore planned nothing), or He might not. I suggested a strategy that coerces no one into anything.

 

[severus68]

But it seems to me that you think it’s is all right that one spouse can force/manipulate/coerce/impose the other to have no more children. Your default position seems to be that the one who doesn’t want more children wins the argument.

I never said that anyone should be “manipulated”, but society seems to be manipulating us to think that we have to use birth control unless both partners agree to try for a child. There is absolutely nothing that I have ever seen in any official Church document to support that position.

Unless the spouse who doesn’t want more children intends to spend their remaining fertile years sleeping apart from his/her spouse, it is not possible to guarantee there will be no more children. Birth control methods with 99% effectiveness rate means 99/100 don’t get pregnant each year, leaving one out of ever hundred users to get pregnant each year.

Just as using birth control doesn’t always meant that the woman will not get pregnant, and* not using birth control will not always result in pregnancy*. (Any infertile couple that has tried for years to get pregnant can attest to that last face–and I thank them for their faithful, silent witness.) Fertility is a blessing. Children are blessings. There is no guarantee that God will bless a married Catholic couple with a child if they “throw caution to the wind” (as you phrase it) and trust God to decide the matter when spouses cannot agree. God might bless a faithful Catholic couple who trusted Him with a pregnancy that they did not plan (because they couldn’t come to a mutual agreement and therefore planned nothing), or He might not. I suggested a strategy that coerces no one into anything.

Children are a blessing but it is not God who makes a child, couples do. So, to say leave it to God, is not quite correct. The default position is abstinence until the couple comes to an agreement. It does not matter who wants more children, no child should be brought into the world by a reluctant parent, no wife or .husband should be coerced into having another child. That is why mutual respect and trust and communication is so important in a marriage and definitely before making the decision to marry.

Birth control is not the issue here.

 

[thewanderer]

But it seems to me that you think it’s is all right that one spouse can force/manipulate/coerce/impose the other to have no more children. Your default position seems to be that the one who doesn’t want more children wins the argument.

I never said that anyone should be “manipulated”, but society seems to be manipulating us to think that we have to use birth control unless both partners agree to try for a child. There is absolutely nothing that I have ever seen in any official Church document to support that position.

Unless the spouse who doesn’t want more children intends to spend their remaining fertile years sleeping apart from his/her spouse, it is not possible to guarantee there will be no more children. Birth control methods with 99% effectiveness rate means 99/100 don’t get pregnant each year, leaving one out of ever hundred users to get pregnant each year.

Just as using birth control doesn’t always meant that the woman will not get pregnant, and* not using birth control will not always result in pregnancy*. (Any infertile couple that has tried for years to get pregnant can attest to that last face–and I thank them for their faithful, silent witness.) Fertility is a blessing. Children are blessings. There is no guarantee that God will bless a married Catholic couple with a child if they “throw caution to the wind” (as you phrase it) and trust God to decide the matter when spouses cannot agree. God might bless a faithful Catholic couple who trusted Him with a pregnancy that they did not plan (because they couldn’t come to a mutual agreement and therefore planned nothing), or He might not.** I suggested a strategy that coerces no one into anything.**

On the contrary, depending on the couple doing nothing is a surefire way to get pregnant. The problem is you are disassociating our part in creation from conception. Whenever a person has sex knowing they are (or may be) fertile they are, with full knowledge, engaging in an act whose natural consequence is conception. So, to have sex during ones fertile period is not a non-action either way but actually a positive action towards conceiving. So, to try to claim this is the right path for everyone is to try and convince others that even if they have legitimate reasons for avoiding they should take an action that naturally results in conception, knowing that it naturally results in conception even though they have carefully discerned that doing so would be imprudent because they should just “leave it up to God”. On the contrary, they are not leaving it up to God, but would be putting God to the test by taking such an action. While its true that one does not need to practice NFP, all spouses are called to “responsible” parenthood, which means they need to use their own reason and prudential judgement to discern whether or not it is prudent to have children at any given time, and, if it is not, they are obliged to abstain, whether periodically or completely. It is not ok for either spouse to engage in imprudent behaviour for their own pleasure.

 

[thewanderer]

Children are a blessing but it is not God who makes a child, couples do. So, to say leave it to God, is not quite correct. The default position is abstinence until the couple comes to an agreement. It does not matter who wants more children, no child should be brought into the world by a reluctant parent, no wife or .husband should be coerced into having another child. That is why mutual respect and trust and communication is so important in a marriage and definitely before making the decision to marry.

Birth control is not the issue here.

 

[severus68]

On the contrary, depending on the couple doing nothing is a surefire way to get pregnant. The problem is you are disassociating our part in creation from conception. Whenever a person has sex knowing they are (or may be) fertile they are, with full knowledge, engaging in an act whose natural consequence is conception. So, to have sex during ones fertile period is not a non-action either way but actually a positive action towards conceiving. So, to try to claim this is the right path for everyone is to try and convince others that even if they have legitimate reasons for avoiding they should take an action that naturally results in conception, knowing that it naturally results in conception even though they have carefully discerned that doing so would be imprudent because they should just “leave it up to God”. On the contrary, they are not leaving it up to God, but would be putting God to the test by taking such an action. While its true that one does not need to practice NFP, all spouses are called to “responsible” parenthood, which means they need to use their own reason and prudential judgement to discern whether or not it is prudent to have children at any given time, and, if it is not, they are obliged to abstain, whether periodically or completely. It is not ok for either spouse to engage in imprudent behaviour for their own pleasure.

I agree fully.

 

[7armyrugrats]

This whole thread, as well as many other threads on NFP and similar topics is just ridiculous. As Catholics we are asked to be “open to life.” This is even what we vow at our Wedding Mass! When did we change it to “open to life when it fits into my planned time or if NFP fails me?” Yes, the Church says we may use NFP if we have SERIOUS REASONS, but I find it hard to believe that having had a certain number of children already and feeling “done,” or wanting to buy a house instead of renting, or only being married for 4 yrs so you aren’t ready yet, or most of the other reasons peole throw out there actually qualify as SERIOUS reasons. When posters talk about a contraceptive mentality, this is what they are speaking of. Many people have said you cannot have a contraceptive mentality while using NFP, and I assure you that not only CAN you, but a large number of NFP’ers do. This in no way says NFP is never necessary. Most of us have used one method or another at some point in our lives. But it should be left to serious–truly serious–reasons and NOT for planned parenthood reasons like “every baby deserves to be planned/wanted/desired.” That is rubbish and a misuse of God’s design for married life and the marital act.

And yes, God does know when we are in over our heads and need a break. He has proven it in my life many times. As long as we trust in His will, it all works out. This means taking the bad (eight miscarriages) along with the good (immense blessings–beyond the obvious ones) and remembering to praise and thank Him everyday.

 

[severus68]

This whole thread, as well as many other threads on NFP and similar topics is just ridiculous. As Catholics we are asked to be “open to life.” This is even what we vow at our Wedding Mass! When did we change it to “open to life when it fits into my planned time or if NFP fails me?” Yes, the Church says we may use NFP if we have SERIOUS REASONS, but I find it hard to believe that having had a certain number of children already and feeling “done,” or wanting to buy a house instead of renting, or only being married for 4 yrs so you aren’t ready yet, or most of the other reasons peole throw out there actually qualify as SERIOUS reasons. When posters talk about a contraceptive mentality, this is what they are speaking of. Many people have said you cannot have a contraceptive mentality while using NFP, and I assure you that not only CAN you, but a large number of NFP’ers do. This in no way says NFP is never necessary. Most of us have used one method or another at some point in our lives. But it should be left to serious–truly serious–reasons and NOT for planned parenthood reasons like “every baby deserves to be planned/wanted/desired.” That is rubbish and a misuse of God’s design for married life and the marital act.

And yes, God does know when we are in over our heads and need a break. He has proven it in my life many times. As long as we trust in His will, it all works out. This means taking the bad (eight miscarriages) along with the good (immense blessings–beyond the obvious ones) and remembering to praise and thank Him everyday.

The Church says it is for a couple to decide if there is serious reasons to use NFP, not yours or anyone else’s idea of what is a serious reason.

Every baby deserves to be wanted. It is sad to think otherwise.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Children are a blessing but it is not God who makes a child…

That’s what you believe? Really??? Where in the Bible or the Catechism leads you to believe that?

Couples co-operate with God in creating life, but if you look at the Creed it’s very clear that we believe in “The Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.” If you don’t believe The Giver of Life has a hand in making babies, then your beliefs aren’t Catholic or biblical.

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you form in the womb, I knew you.” (That’s God speaking in the first person.)

… The default position is abstinence until the couple comes to an agreement. It does not matter who wants more children, no child should be brought into the world by a reluctant parent, no wife or .husband should be coerced into having another child. That is why mutual respect and trust and communication is so important in a marriage and definitely before making the decision to marry…

I agree with you that of course mutual respect and trust and communication is very important both in a marriage and before marriage! But forcing long term abstinence on one’s spouse should not be the default position of a healthy marriage between healthy individuals. Forcing long tem abstinence against his/her wishes hardly seems respectful of one’s marriage partner. People getting married rarely expect they are getting into a situation of long term abstinence when they stand before the altar and promise to unite themselves to each other.

…Birth control is not the issue here.

I agree with you. It points to faith and trust in God, as well our understanding and respect for the self-giving nature of marriage where two become one. The theology behind our differing positions reflects much more than our attitude about birth control.