Hot Topic - No kids after 30

[mpartyka]

Got the Hot Topics email and noticed a question, “Can we limit having children to in our 20s?” The person asking was talking about strictly practicing NFP after age 30, no ABC in mind.

Has it occurred to you that God might want you to have children after you are thirty?..Better let HIM call the shots with your thirties. If He wants to give you children during those years, then submit to Him and be open to what He sends you.

Isn’t that the whole point of NFP? You don’t want kids, and you haven’t experienced any explicit call of God to have kids so far as you are aware, so you try to avoid having kids by not having sex during the fertile times, but if you wind up pregnant, you have the baby and either raise it or give it up for adoption. (The questioner never mentioned adoption; I’m just bringing it up because I presume it’s an option if your circumstances make it impossible to care for a child yourself.)

Even the questioner says, “I just wanted to ask a Catholic expert to see if that would be considered a sin to not be open to life, even if we are Natural Family Planning.” How is using NFP not being open to life? Again, I thought being open to life was the whole point of using NFP, especially seeing how in Humanae Vitae the Pope said that the intentions of people who use NFP and the intentions of people who use ABC are the same:

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result.

So I guess what I’m saying is, why didn’t the priest simply answer the original question, “Yes, so long as you use NFP only, it’s okay to plan on not having children after 30?”

 

[smichhertz]

Isn’t that the whole point of NFP? You don’t want kids…

No, that is not the point. All married couples are called to be open to life. If you have no desire to have kids, then you should not get married.

How is using NFP not being open to life?

It can be not open to life if you are using NFP for the wrong reasons. Remember, Catholics are only permitted to use NFP for grave reason. So if having another child right now would put you in a serious financial crisis, that would be an acceptable reason to practice NFP until you can find a new job, or save up enough money, etc.

But just practicing NFP because you don’t want kids is not in line with Church teaching.

…especially seeing how in Humanae Vitae the Pope said that the intentions of people who use NFP and the intentions of people who use ABC are the same…

What he is saying is “you can’t commit evil to bring about good”. Both have good intentions, but one is committing an evil to accomplish it, the other is not.

As an example, if I wanted to give a friend a gift (good intention), but then say I steal the gift from a store and give it to him (bad act). That’s an example of committing an evil to bring about a good.

So I guess what I’m saying is, why didn’t the priest simply answer the original question, “Yes, so long as you use NFP only, it’s okay to plan on not having children after 30?”

Because “I’m turning 30” is not a grave reason. That’s not an acceptable reason to practice NFP. Now if the wife discovered that she had a serious medical condition where another pregnancy might result in her death, THAT would be an acceptable reason to practice NFP and plan on never having a child.

Hope that helps!

 

[mpartyka]

All married couples are called to be open to life. If you have no desire to have kids, then you should not get married.

They already are married and are open to having kids and are presumably planning to have kids, but only during their 20s. After that, no more kids.

Remember, Catholics are only permitted to use NFP for grave reason…But just practicing NFP because you don’t want kids is not in line with Church teaching.

Okay, that’s a good answer, but that’s not the answer the priest gave. Perhaps it is the answer he should have given?

 

[Mumbles140]

It can be not open to life if you are using NFP for the wrong reasons. Remember, Catholics are only permitted to use NFP for grave reason. So if having another child right now would put you in a serious financial crisis, that would be an acceptable reason to practice NFP until you can find a new job, or save up enough money, etc.

Can you provide the source for where it has been called allowable only by ‘grave matter’? I just did the NFP course with my fiancee, and discussed it in pre-Cana with our priest. Our understanding was that you should be open to having children, as that is part of the duties of marriage (procreation and education of children in the faith). However, if you intend to have children but have a legitimate reason to temporarily withhold from having children, not necessarily ‘grave matter’, then there is no issue.

Also, remember that couples use NFP to get pregnant as well. Some couples, who may struggle with fertility, can use it as a tool to map out their most fertile times.

My view on the matter is that they wouldn’t make it a requirement of pre-Cana if it were ‘only to be used in grave matters’. Not every family wants Irish twins, and I’ve always been under the impression it can be used for ‘spacing’, which is a serious financial matter.

 

[smichhertz]

Can you provide the source for where it has been called allowable only by ‘grave matter’?

I’d be happy to! It comes from Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

SOURCE: vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

So this translation translates it to “serious” but I have heard it translated as “grave” from other sources such as usccb, etc. But it means the same thing either way.

Our understanding was that you should be open to having children, as that is part of the duties of marriage (procreation and education of children in the faith). However, if you intend to have children but have a legitimate reason to temporarily withhold from having children, not necessarily ‘grave matter’, then there is no issue.

That is basically correct, but the term “grave matter” is confusing. Remember “grave matter” is used in moral theology to determine the moral degree to a given act. Not to be confused with “grave reason” which is a legitimate, serious cause to perform an act, it more refers to the intention than the act.

Otherwise, what you stated above sounds right, so if anything I stated misled you, ignore it.

Also, remember that couples use NFP to get pregnant as well. Some couples, who may struggle with fertility, can use it as a tool to map out their most fertile times.

True, but that wasn’t what the OP was addressing so I was simplifying it. This isn’t a situation where the couple was trying to prevent pregnancy.

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding. It sounds like you have the right idea, just misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

[smichhertz]

They already are married and are open to having kids and are presumably planning to have kids, but only during their 20s. After that, no more kids.

So then they would be open to life during their 20s, and closed to life after. Still not permitted by Church teaching. Again, they need to have a serious reason to be doing it, such as medical, financial, etc.

Okay, that’s a good answer, but that’s not the answer the priest gave. Perhaps it is the answer he should have given?

Perhaps, I haven’t read that particular answer. Maybe he wanted them to see the beauty of following the Church’s teaching, rather than flatly laying out the Church’s teaching in a cold manner.

 

[mpartyka]

Interesting. Do most Catholic married couples understand that from the outset of their marriage it is their duty to have as many children as possible – i.e., that the default setting of their marriage from day one till the day one or both spouses die should be “have kids” as opposed to “don’t have kids”? Given that the rate of artificial contraception use among Catholics is about the same as the rate of use in the whole population (I think)?

 

[Rascalking]

Yikes! No kids after 30?! What am I going to do!? I’m a bachelor, and I’m 31! I do want kids! I’m out of time!

Anyone want to get married to me? And fast?!

 

[Mumbles140]

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding. It sounds like you have the right idea, just misinterpreted what I was saying.

Thank you very much for the explanations. It was most certainly a matter of my misinterpreting, and not with what you said. I did learn a lot from this.

I think, also, that if one has serious questions about this, it is always worth it to consult your parish priest or another trusted priest concerning matters of the faith.

 

[smichhertz]

Interesting. Do most Catholic married couples understand that from the outset of their marriage it is their duty to have as many children as possible – i.e., that the default setting of their marriage from day one till the day one or both spouses die should be “have kids” as opposed to “don’t have kids”? Given that the rate of artificial contraception use among Catholics is about the same as the rate of use in the whole population (I think)?

I’m sure many married Catholics are confused or do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church on contraception. It’s very sad because they are denying themselves a happy and holy marriage and family, and sometimes, without even realizing it.

To be clear, it’s not so much “have as many kids as possible” as it is being open to life. A married couple could have one kid and be perfectly in line with the teachings of the church, while another could have 20 kids, and not be in line with teachings of the Church.

 

[mpartyka]

I’m sure many married Catholics are confused or do not understand the teachings of the Catholic Church on contraception.

Not understanding or not following the teachings is one thing. I’m just wondering if these teachings are even being disseminated, given how much similarity there is between the percentages of Catholics who use ABC and the percentages of the population as a whole. I mean, sure, everybody knows that the Catholic Church is against ABC. But the why of it, particularly the positive why of it that says, “One job of a married couple is to have as many kids as possible,” can’t possibly be clear to the Catholic masses if the rate of ABC use among Catholics is the same as that among the general populace (or so one would think).

To be clear, it’s not so much “have as many kids as possible” as it is being open to life. A married couple could have one kid and be perfectly in line with the teachings of the church, while another could have 20 kids, and not be in line with teachings of the Church.

Sure, understood, but this is provided the couple with the one kid had only one kid because it was impossible (i.e., there was a grave reason why they shouldn’t) for them to have another for the whole period of time after the birth of their first child. Correct?

Consider: Let’s say a couple who is fertile, maybe they have kids already or maybe not, perceives themselves to be capable in every way of raising a new child as part of their family. If they want a new child, maybe they’ll even use NFP to have a new child. But if they don’t want a new child, what are they morally obligated to do at that point? Are they to stop tracking NFP readings at that point? Or if they’re still tracking, and the urge to have sex during a fertile time comes upon them, are they obligated to ignore the tracking and have sex, presuming that the urge indicates God’s will for them to procreate (although they still might not)?

 

[smichhertz]

Not understanding or not following the teachings is one thing. I’m just wondering if these teachings are even being disseminated, given how much similarity there is between the percentages of Catholics who use ABC and the percentages of the population as a whole. I mean, sure, everybody knows that the Catholic Church is against ABC. But the why of it, particularly the positive why of it that says, “One job of a married couple is to have as many kids as possible,” can’t possibly be clear to the Catholic masses if the rate of ABC use among Catholics is the same as that among the general populace (or so one would think).

I agree. Even priests and religious don’t understand or sometime deliberately distort the teachings of the Church which just adds to the confusion.

Sure, understood, but this is provided the couple with the one kid had only one kid because it was impossible (i.e., there was a grave reason why they shouldn’t) for them to have another for the whole period of time after the birth of their first child. Correct?

Correct.

Consider: Let’s say a couple who is fertile, maybe they have kids already or maybe not, perceives themselves to be capable in every way of raising a new child as part of their family. If they want a new child, maybe they’ll even use NFP to have a new child. But if they don’t want a new child, what are they morally obligated to do at that point? Are they to stop tracking NFP readings at that point? Or if they’re still tracking, and the urge to have sex during a fertile time comes upon them, are they obligated to ignore the tracking and have sex, presuming that the urge indicates God’s will for them to procreate (although they still might not)?

That’s a good question. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule except to say that they should not deliberately avoid having a child if they do not have a serious reason.

I guess the best rule of thumb would be to say that they should just proceed with their normal sex life. So if they started to get “in the mood” but then stopped deliberately because of the possibility of conception (and with no serious reason), that could be sinful.

 

[OrangeOwl]

I guess the best rule of thumb would be to say that they should just proceed with their normal sex life. So if they started to get “in the mood” but then stopped deliberately because of the possibility of conception (and with no serious reason), that could be sinful.

Well, then. I guess we have officially determined a situation where it would be sinful to not have sex.

Huh.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism (issued 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.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

 

[Bookcat]

Now if a couple does not have serious reasons…(remember this does not mean they have to be life or death things…just serious…which can have many incarnations)…

Does that mean they have to make sure they have martial relations when they are the most fertile?

No I would say no they do not. But they should not intentionally restrict their martial relations that month to only the infertile period…seeking to avoid.

 

[cathoichelp]

What is a “serious” reason … ?
If I got married (and I already have 2 kids )
I would have another child no problem… But being pregnant is not ideal for my current career - plus I would more than likely either completely stop working for 2-3 years (again lol) or work from home…
My career is also important to me - is not having more children for career reasons serious? This is not totally selfish either I support my two children now by myself - and I would like all of my children to be able to go to college ect …
But truthfully I also enjoy working… And I would not want to have children in daycare I’d like to be home while they are little… especially while I am breastfeeding ect -

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of Social Doctrine:

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.

 

[Bookcat]

Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI (with emph):

"With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)"

 

[thomasf]

I guess the best rule of thumb would be to say that they should just proceed with their normal sex life. So if they started to get “in the mood” but then stopped deliberately because of the possibility of conception (and with no serious reason), that could be sinful.

I have a hard time believing that not having sex is sinful, especially in this case.

I also tend to believe that if a couple remains open to life but tries to keep the sexual activity to infertile periods as being a sin. They’re still open to life, and if they happened to get pregnant they would have the baby. Is it really God’s will to just have as many babies as someone can possibly crank out? IMO if it’s God’s will to have a baby, as long as I’m open to life and don’t contracept, He’s going to make it happen. If you’re eliminating the possibility of pregnancy by taking something out of the equation through contraception, that’s one thing. But if you’re going at it, with all the parts in play, just because it’s on certain days of the month doesn’t mean it’s sinful. That’s simply playing the odds. The couple might not necessarily want to get pregnant, but if they did they’re still going to have and raise the baby.

I think sometimes people take the whole open to life thing a bit extreme. Some folks make it sound like unless you’re doin’ it deliberately when you’re most likely to get pregnant you’re gravely sinning. You don’t have to seek out pregnancy if you’re doin’ it, just be open to life.

 

[Bookcat]

Now if a couple does not have serious reasons…(remember this does not mean they have to be life or death things…just serious…which can have many incarnations)…

Does that mean they have to make sure they have martial relations when they are the most fertile?

No I would say no they do not.

But they should not intentionally restrict their martial relations that month to only the infertile period…seeking to avoid.