Catholics that say they'd never have any biological children for this reason

[Memaw]

We need to get this straight. Her sister has “always said” So she evidently had the fear that she could pass something on to her children before she ever got married. Also she said, “if she were to ever want a child” She would make her husband. Well she found out they could pass something on to them, So now "she " decides she will never chance it. She doesn’t think she can handle it. Seems shes very concerned about herself more than anyone else. I still think “she” needs help in more ways than one. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rau]

We need to get this straight. Her sister has “always said” So she evidently had the fear that she could pass something on to her children before she ever got married. Also she said, “if she were to ever want a child” Well she found out they could pass something on to them, So now "she " decides she will never chance it. She doesn’t think she can handle it. Seems shes very concerned about herself more than anyone else. I still think “she” needs help in more ways than one. God Bless, Memaw

Clearly, by “never”, she means, “for so long as this circumstance remains”. (The “circumstance” being the 25% chance of a terribly ill child with no cure.) She is entitled to be concerned about herself in assessing just reasons for use of NFP.

I think the pivotal question is this: is a 25% risk of a Tay Sachs child, (and a 50% risk of a child who is a carrier), a just reason to use NFP ? Now we can’t answer that absolutely for another person, but I can say that I would find it so.

 

[rayne89]

Maybe I am wrong here, I just want something clarified. I thought if a family decides not to have more children AT ALL then even NFP goes out the window ans only abstinence was allowed. I thought we could not use NFP as “long term birth control” but just SPACING children when there is just need. Please correct me if I am wrong. I was just unaware a husband and wife were allowed to stop having kids indefinitely without abstinence. In fact I thought a marriage was only valid if both spouses agreed to have children regardless of any risk. I ask because my GF and I might consider marriage.

I have one child and we have to use NFP indefinitely because I have a severe heart condition that would make pregnancy again almost certainly fatal for me. The church allows it in a case such as mine.

 

[Memaw]

Clearly, by “never”, she means, “for so long as this circumstance remains”. (The “circumstance” being the 25% chance of a terribly ill child with no cure.) She is entitled to be concerned about herself in assessing just reasons for use of NFP.

I think the pivotal question is this: is a 25% risk of a Tay Sachs child, (and a 50% risk of a child who is a carrier), a just reason to use NFP ? Now we can’t answer that absolutely for another person, but I can say that I would find it so.

For as long as this circumstance remains could be forever. That’s never in her lifetime. I know several families that have “inherited” situations and like I said some very serious. but that didn’t stop them from having a family. Actually, I have one myself but I didn’t even know about it till the Dr. that delivered my last baby, (# 9) told me. He discovered it. It is very rare blood disorder. I asked if my kids could have it and he said as rare as it is I doubt it. While this is mild compared to most, I can still understand her concern. But like I said ,she needs help to understand the right way to handle it. Our opinions are not important. God’s are. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Allegra]

OR, the tribunal simply may not grant one, which is why lay people can’t just claim with certainty that any marriage is valid or not valid. They have to wait for a tribunal to declare it. Period.

And yet it is common knowledge what sort of situations constitute an invalid marriage. Period.

 

[Rence]

We need to get this straight. Her sister has “always said” So she evidently had the fear that she could pass something on to her children before she ever got married. Also she said, “if she were to ever want a child” Well she found out they could pass something on to them, So now "she " decides she will never chance it. She doesn’t think she can handle it. Seems shes very concerned about herself more than anyone else. I still think “she” needs help in more ways than one. God Bless, Memaw

I disagree, but we’re both entitled to our opinion. Fearing passing on a congenital defect to children is certainly a valid concern and fear. With regards to whether or not she has an ‘invalid’ marriage, she probably doesn’t care. And unless one of them applies for an annulment in the future, it is little likely to be addressed at all.

 

[Rence]

And yet it is common knowledge what sort of situations constitute an invalid marriage. Period.

Obviously not as common as you say, and unlikely to be addressed unless one of them applies for an annulment sometime in the future.

 

[Rence]

This couple definitely needs the help of a knowledgeable priest and possibly Catholic counseling. Our opinions really don’t matter at all. God Bless, Memaw

You are very right that our opinions really don’t matter at all. It will not make one ounce of difference in this couples’ lives. If they want the help of a priest to address this concern, they will. If they don’t want it, they won’t seek it. It’s unlikely someone will contact the diocese and report them.

 

[severus68]

We need to get this straight. Her sister has “always said” So she evidently had the fear that she could pass something on to her children before she ever got married. Also she said, “if she were to ever want a child” Well she found out they could pass something on to them, So now "she " decides she will never chance it. She doesn’t think she can handle it. Seems shes very concerned about herself more than anyone else. I still think “she” needs help in more ways than one. God Bless, Memaw

That is very uncharitable. If she needs help, its not from us.

 

[severus68]

:

I understand the parents desire children. Acting rationally, their decision may be to avoid pregnancy pending a medical advance that can cure their defective genetic makeup or cure the (potentially ill) child. Should said medical treatment not arrive, then the (valid) marriage may produce no children.

In my view, a 25% risk of an horrendously ill child is a just reason to use NFP. Each parent needs to judge what level of risk constitutes just reasons.

Adoption is a wonderful decision, it gives a great gift to a child actually in need.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My sister has always said, she would be hesitant to have children, because of fear that something would be wrong. She said that if she were to want to have a child, she’d have and make her husband have a blood test first before they started trying to conceive, which she did, and it turns out that they’re both carriers of Tay-Sachs…I guess I would be too since she is? So glad my husband must not be, or we got lucky, because our boys are completely healthy, but when both parents are carriers, there’s a 25% chance that their children will have it, and it’s…awful. My sister said, because of that, she will never even chance it, because she doesn’t think she could handle it, and if she got pregnant, she could never abort, but she doesn’t want to go through that. However, last year, her and her husband adopted an adorable, healthy, little girl from Thailand, they’re wonderful parents and my niece is very doted on. What is your opinion and the churches position on choosing adoption instead of having your children biologically?

Well. One thing that has not been clear to me on this thread is why the sister had this insistence on testing for any potential diseases from day one. That seems odd and indicates to me a flawed attitude toward life from the get go. Was there some reason she was nervous about this? Does Tay Sachs run in the family? How accurate are the tests.

You also commented that your sisters sex life was none of your business and you did not want it to be. But we are debating something that has to do with your sisters sex life. I think exactly how a Catholic couple avoids conceiving is relevant.

For instance lets just say that your sister uses “The Pill” and its abortifacient qualities came in to play 8 times in her life. That is 8 babies that were aborted. So when we are talking about the morality of the situation there needs to be more information for us to actually have any sort of fruitful discussion.

Your sister could have had a very good reason to be concerned and get tested, she could be using NFP in the most conservative moral and Catholic way.

Or she could have had a flawed view of procreation in the first place and be using ABC to make sure she never has to view a less than “perfect” child.

Either way none of us know. And without more information all the opinions are fruitless.

 

[severus68]

IMHO, God doesn’t tell us to be open to healthy life, but to any life. Carrying the Tay Sachs gene does not make for an automatic affliction for the child. I’d would put my faith in God that he won’t give me any more struggle than I can handle in life. Because as he said he will not forsake, me so I’d hold him to that and beg for his help in dealing with the struggle having a disabled child would be. OF course, those children are also blessings in life, so I’d have to be thankful for that aspect as well.

If you have a child with Tay-Sachs, yes agreed. However, its another thing to bring into the word a child with an appreciable possibility of suffering greatly. While God puts in the soul, people conceive children. God also gives us free will. While children are a blessing to us, with such suffering of an innocent who does not understand and will never understand that suffering, why not avoid such conception (with NFP, abstinence)?

Not everyone has the ability to take care of children with severe difficulties, hence, leaving them at hospitals etc.

 

[severus68]

I disagree, but we’re both entitled to our opinion. Fearing passing on a congenital defect to children is certainly a valid concern and fear. With regards to whether or not she has an ‘invalid’ marriage, she probably doesn’t care. And unless one of them applies for an annulment in the future, it is little likely to be addressed at all.

Exactly!

 

[Rau]

Well. One thing that has not been clear to me on this thread is why the sister had this insistence on testing for any potential diseases from day one. That seems odd and indicates to me a flawed attitude toward life from the get go. Was there some reason she was nervous about this? Does Tay Sachs run in the family? How accurate are the tests.

You also commented that your sisters sex life was none of your business and you did not want it to be. But we are debating something that has to do with your sisters sex life. I think exactly how a Catholic couple avoids conceiving is relevant.

For instance lets just say that your sister uses “The Pill” and its abortifacient qualities came in to play 8 times in her life. That is 8 babies that were aborted. So when we are talking about the morality of the situation there needs to be more information for us to actually have any sort of fruitful discussion.

Your sister could have had a very good reason to be concerned and get tested, she could be using NFP in the most conservative moral and Catholic way.

Or she could have had a flawed view of procreation in the first place and be using ABC to make sure she never has to view a less than “perfect” child.

Either way none of us know. And without more information all the opinions are fruitless.

I too wonder what prompted the idea to get tested, but from a purely rational perspective, if there is a way for a couple to check whether they exhibit a much elevated risk for serious child related illnesses, it makes sense to be tested, and thus seek treatments, be prepared, or in some cases, avoid pregnancy. The chance of a random couple both being Tay Sachs carriers is fairly low, less than 1 in 50,000. For some reason, the chances are far, far higher if one or more of the couple is/are Jewish.

While I agree with most of your other observations / conjectures (ie. we have imperfect information, as always) ultimately, I think the issue is that this couple knows they have a 1 in 4 chance of producing a terribly ill baby, and a 1 in 2 chance of producing a baby who is a carrier, and the OP asks whether refraining from pregnancy (we assume by licit means) in that circumstance is OK.

 

[Memaw]

That is very uncharitable. If she needs help, its not from us.

Not my words! I have said several times she needs help.I have said before that our opinion counts for nothing!! Read my posts. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I too wonder what prompted the idea to get tested, but from a purely rational perspective, if there is a way for a couple to check whether they exhibit a much elevated risk for serious child related illnesses, it makes sense to be tested, and thus seek treatments, be prepared, or in some cases, avoid pregnancy. The chance of a random couple both being Tay Sachs carriers is fairly low, less than 1 in 50,000. For some reason, the chances are far, far higher if one or more of the couple is/are Jewish.

While I agree with most of your other observations / conjectures (ie. we have imperfect information, as always) ultimately, I think the issue is that this couple knows they have a 1 in 4 chance of producing a terribly ill baby, and a 1 in 2 chance of producing a baby who is a carrier, and the OP asks whether refraining from pregnancy (we assume by licit means) in that circumstance is OK.

If she was soo worried, they should have been tested before marriage and then based their decision on whether to marry with those odds against them. Sometimes we are called to make great sacrifices in life. My Mother was very much in love with a fine protestant man and when they talked of marriage, he revealed that he would never allow his children to be raised Catholic. So my Mother refused to marry him and it broke her heart.(my Aunt told me this, Mom’s older sister.) She later married my father had 12 children and all raised Catholic. Thank God my Mom had the courage to follow God’s will, not hers. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rau]

If she was soo worried, they should have been tested before marriage and then based their decision on whether to marry with those odds against them. Sometimes we are called to make great sacrifices in life. My Mother was very much in love with a fine protestant man and when they talked of marriage, he revealed that he would never allow his children to be raised Catholic. So my Mother refused to marry him and it broke her heart.(my Aunt told me this, Mom’s older sister.) She later married my father had 12 children and all raised Catholic. Thank God my Mom had the courage to follow God’s will, not hers. God Bless, Memaw

If a couple is going to get tested, sooner is clearly preferable to later! They may or may not have decided to marry, had they had the facts at the time-who knows? But I don’t think that changes anything in the present - the decision-making now has to be done in the present, with the facts as they are.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

My husband and I are both of Italian descent.

Thalassemia is a genetic blood disorder that tends to run in Mediterranean populations Italian, Greek etc) Actually, it seems that carrying the gene for thalassemia seemed to offer some protection against malaria.

DH and I were tested after we were married, because we learned that his first cousin was a carrier, making it more probable that he could be a carrier.

We both tested negative.

Thalassemia is fatal, but in the past forty years or so the life expectancy has gone from just a few years to possibly more than forty.Thalassemia has actually been cured in some children through bone marrow transplantation

There could be also medical advances to allow for better treatment for Tay Sachs. Today, for this couple having a child with Tay Sachs is a grave reason to avoid. Perhaps in the future, they will feel more comfortable with attempting to conceive.

If the couple in question is using NFP currently to avoid, it is a de facto monthly decision. No one can read into the future and say that next month or next year or five years from now, the couple might not use NFP to avoid. Not even them.

When Catholics marry, they vow to accept children lovingly. NFP is permitted, because as a method for avoiding pregnancy, each and every marital act is opened to the transmission of life.

NFP is permitted for serious reasons, even indefinitely.

 

[severus68]

Not my words! I have said several times she needs help.I have said before that our opinion counts for nothing!! Read my posts. God Bless, Memaw

It was your remark about her being more concerned about herself.

 

[Rence]

Well. One thing that has not been clear to me on this thread is why the sister had this insistence on testing for any potential diseases from day one. That seems odd and indicates to me a flawed attitude toward life from the get go. Was there some reason she was nervous about this?

It’s not odd to me because I know of a lot of people who test for inherited, especially if certain conditions run in the family. I think the more educated patients are, the more they seek out information.