Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I would object to those conclusions. For one, that sounds a lot like privileged folks saying that there are too many brown people in the world, which is exactly what Margaret Sanger et al would say. For another, each couple is supposed to decide for themselves, and that means that we should not be sitting around deciding who should or should not be allowed to procreate.

Right. And just to be clear I am on the side of poor people procreating. I am asking rhetorical questions that to me are the inconsistencies with this aspect of moral theology within the Catholic faith. If “responsible parenthood” means anything you wish then why even address it at all? Why add the word “responsible” in there if it means something different to each Catholic?

Such confusion for me on this issue. And the more I learn, the more I study it, the more I apply it to principles of our faith and theology, the more I doubt it. But to be clear, I accept it, and I accept the Church’s position (whatever that happens to be:shrug

The deeper I delve into it. The more “serious” the reason would have to be for me to employ NFP.

I don’t want to become like those “providentialists” but I am struggling with the subjectivity of the moral theology of NFP.

I think it was well established on here that NFP CAN be used for sinful reasons. Now, the question is how to account for and decipher that sin for each couple. And I thought I had it figured out when someone asked what the specific sin was and “selfish” was the main answer but now bookcat has me all jumbled with the idea that yes, selfishness is part of the sin but also the separate use of NFP can be a separate sin in and of itself.

Also, it does not “jive” with my idea of a universal faith and Church. That some have such a different concept of fulfilling a commandment than others is not easily reconciled with history or the Bible.

To me, it smacks of an employment of American or Western economic ideas and view of qualities of life and less of a “teaching of the Church”

I often use the phrase “first world problem” with things like a dropped call on my cell phone, or my DVR not recording a football game I wanted. But there really is a disconnect between our American (western) view of poverty and real poverty. Which is why I am so fascinated by a non western Pope.

 

[Bookcat]

So if that is true then, certainly Africa should not be procreating. Right?

No that is not the conclusion per se.

Perhaps at times it can be reasonable that some there judge to use NFP to avoid -such as during some war where being pregnant is rather difficult.

But keep in mind: Many there with 7 children in poverty are much happier than those with 1 in the USA and a abundance.

"Families in the Third World tend to be larger, poorer, and happier, than those in the West. It is not easy for Westerners to realize the extent to which the people of the Third World, especially in Africa, firmly convinced that children are a blessing…

I have just said that Third World families tend to be larger, poorer and happier, than Western families. Of course one finds exceptions, but these do not invalidate the overall fact. This points out alternatives and suggests options. Which is preferable: “larger, poorer and happier”, or “smaller, richer and less happy”? "

~Msgr. Cormac Burke (who served on the Roman Rota Court) -who now lives in Africa cormacburke.or.ke/

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t want to become like those “providentialists” but I am struggling with the subjectivity of the moral theology of NFP.

You and your wife are persons. Persons joined in the Sacrament of Marriage.

There is many many many aspects of life that involve your “subjectivity” as a person who has to judge and apply the moral principles -and any virtues one has - to particular contingent questions.

This is one of them.

Your circumstances are not the same as mine. Or likely anyone else. There is a many contingent things you may want or need to take into account in judging.

Normally though I would say - one simply lives and is open to life (one is always open to life of course) and does not worry about when the next child will come. That is not choosing to be “providentialists” - it is just normal Christian marriage. Can there be serious reasons that come up? certainly. Are there there times when one ought to ask if such is the case? Sure.

But for many Christian couples - they would simply in the beginning at least - not think too much about it and live.

 

[Bookcat]

I think it was well established on here that NFP CAN be used for sinful reasons. Now, the question is how to account for and decipher that sin for each couple. And I thought I had it figured out when someone asked what the specific sin was and “selfish” was the main answer but now bookcat has me all jumbled with the idea that yes, selfishness is part of the sin but also the separate use of NFP can be a separate sin in and of itself.

.

When one does not have serious reasons - yes such would be a sinful use of NFP to avoid. Such can often yes be out of selfishness -but it is not just the sin of selfishness.

 

[Bookcat]

Also, it does not “jive” with my idea of a universal faith and Church. That some have such a different concept of fulfilling a commandment than others is not easily reconciled with history or the Bible.

To me, it smacks of an employment of American or Western economic ideas and view of qualities of life and less of a “teaching of the Church”

The couple need to judge - from within *their * particular contingent circumstances. Be they in USA or Russa or Poland or Africa or New Jersey.

The criteria must be applied within their lives. This is not like “do not murder”.

Just as what I judge as within temperance according to my needs and life - may be quite different than one in Africa or Italy! Temperance remains the virtue it is -but it must be lived from within a particular context. Very different than say “do not commit abortion” or “do not use contraception” they are objectively gravely sinful choices always and everywhere.

 

[Bookcat]

Which is why I am so fascinated by a non western Pope.

You mean Bl. Pope John Paul II?

He was non-western (central europe).

Pope Francis is from the west – America.

 

[Bookcat]

~Msgr. Cormac Burke (who served on the Roman Rota Court) -who now lives in Africa cormacburke.or.ke/

More:

“In Kenya, in the 1980s, an African who had learned that the Western fertility rate averaged about 1.2, remarked to me: “Western couples must be very poor if they can’t afford to have more than two children…” He was not a qualified “expert” in the Western sense; yet his words may be worth pondering. They could be complemented with another bit of “non-expert” wisdom, this time from the West itself. Some time back in England, I knew a recently married couple, a normal couple who wanted children. One child was born; but then there was an unwanted delay of three or four years. At last the mother became expectant again. Their first-born too was filled with expectations. But - a miscarriage occurred. The father had to tell the child he was not going to have that little brother or sister he wanted. “Look; Mom’s not going to have that baby after all”; and, bowing before God’s inscrutable ways, he added, “it’s better that way…” The child however didn’t bow so easily: “But, Daddy, is there anything better than a baby?..” . … The wisdom of children is part of the bonum prolis.”

 

[mommamaree]

I don’t think we should fear being labeled providentialists. Living together as husband and wife, trusting in God’s providence, engaging in the marital act and not avoiding the fertile times - that IS the default. It is only IF the couple discern serious reason to avoid pregnancy that abstinence, complete or periodic, is a morally licit option to do so. So, since practicing NFP is the exception and NOT practicing NFP is the rule, wouldn’t the default look a whole lot like providentialism? And furthermore, Abandonment to Divine Providence is one of the greatest spiritual classics. I happen to know several couples who fall into the providentialist category, and they are faithful, devout Catholics who are an excellent witness. I know that Dr. Popcak railed against providentialists a while back, but then he also advocates for NFP so much that he asserted that Catholics have a moral obligation to use NFP, which of course is not true.

 

[mommamaree]

Right. And just to be clear I am on the side of poor people procreating. I am asking rhetorical questions that to me are the inconsistencies with this aspect of moral theology within the Catholic faith.

Snip

I don’t want to become like those “providentialists” but I am struggling with the subjectivity of the moral theology of NFP.

To the first statement, I realized they were rhetorical questions, but I thought they still deserved a response.

To the second statement, see my post above. I do not understand the fear of the providential label. I invite your response to my comments regarding providentialism.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I don’t think we should fear being labeled providentialists. Living together as husband and wife, trusting in God’s providence, engaging in the marital act and not avoiding the fertile times - that IS the default. It is only IF the couple discern serious reason to avoid pregnancy that abstinence, complete or periodic, is a morally licit option to do so. So, since practicing NFP is the exception and NOT practicing NFP is the rule, wouldn’t the default look a whole lot like providentialism? And furthermore, Abandonment to Divine Providence is one of the greatest spiritual classics. I happen to know several couples who fall into the providentialist category, and they are faithful, devout Catholics who are an excellent witness. I know that Dr. Popcak railed against providentialists a while back, but then he also advocates for NFP so much that he asserted that Catholics have a moral obligation to use NFP, which of course is not true.

I really like this post.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Normally though I would say - one simply lives and is open to life (one is always open to life of course) and does not worry about when the next child will come. That is not choosing to be “providentialists” - it is just normal Christian marriage. Can there be serious reasons that come up? certainly. Are there there times when one ought to ask if such is the case? Sure.

But for many Christian couples - they would simply in the beginning at least - not think too much about it and live.

I like and agree with this.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’ve read Germaine Grisez 's section dealing with this topic in his work The Way of the Lord Jesus.

It is Volume II, Chapter 9 section F.

I understand that he is one of the best, orthodox theologians still living. He is the last living theologian that worked on Humanae Vitae. He worked with Father John C. Ford, another highly respected moral theologian, also involved in the preparation of Humanae Vitae.

I won’t comment on what it says. I would just suggest to peruse it.

I’m quoting my own post. I would just like to reiterate that it is a good resource that covers many of these issues. It’s available online I believe.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy said:
"
So does this extend to other situations. Since African descendants are prone to sickle cell should that be part of a African American Catholic couple’s serious reasons to not have a child? How about in places where the infant mortality rate is high like Afghanistan?"

I’m not familiar with issues specific to sickle cell anemia, but I do read the Skeptical OB and Jeevan Kuruvilla (a rural Indian Christian mission doctor who deals with some pretty frightful obstetric cases) pretty faithfully, and here are my thoughts for our hypothetical couple in Afghanistan:

1. vaccinate
2. wait until the wife is at least 18 to conceive (remember, Afghanistan has lots of 13-year-old brides)
3. get appropriate prenatal care
4. give birth in a reputable hospital, especially for VBAC
5. space births appropriately with NFP
6. in case of c-section, practice very conservative NFP afterward

If our hypothetical Afghan couple does all of that stuff, they’ll probably do OK and beat the national average for infant and maternal mortality by a long shot.

“Why is it that we have this invisible threshold of statistical analysis and knowledge and monetary benchmarks but the marital embrace of a Holy Catholic couple in Iraq is held to a different standard?”

They want children no less than we want children, and economically speaking, they probably need children rather more than we do.

By the way, my husband tells me that “station in life” is a traditional feature of Catholic moral reasoning in such cases, so it’s not inappropriate to throw that into the calculation.

 

[Xantippe]

mommamaree said:

“Now with some comments in this thread (some recent and some from last week) I am really feeling torn up over this, and I am tempted to throw up my hands and say “fine, I am selfish and I will continue to be selfish” (although I am expecting my fifth) simply because I have the perspective that it is acceptable to evaluate the risks and the circumstances, and decide that I have done all that I am personally capable of, and I want to transition away from babymaking and into grown-child launching.”

I think that the Quiverful and Providentialist doctrine is being represented as standard issue Catholicism, which it is not. Here are some quotes from Humanae Vitae:

"“With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. 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.”

stpeterslist.com/4095/humanae-vitae-12-quotes-on-on-marital-love-and-parenthood/

To hear some people talk, Humanae Vitae might as well never have been written.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy said:

“Honestly this is why NFP is an anomaly in the faith. It is absolutely subjective with the decision as you pointed out belong to the spouses ALONE. Nothing else is like that.”

Not at all. I know we’ve had this conversation earlier, but positive duties are always like this. With negative duties (the “do nots”), you can just avoid stealing, lying and killing, and you’re good, but when you come to something like “honor your parents,” difficulties arise. How much? When?

If you are interested in hearing about positive duties as opposed to negative duties, I could have my husband PM you.

I mentioned the duty to perform charity earlier and I think it didn’t quite register on you how similar the duty to perform charity is to our duties as husbands and wives. We are supposed to give and we are supposed to have children, but how much giving and how many children is not really something that there’s an exact formula for. And how much to give is actually a very, very difficult question. Our family has settled it by going for 10% of net (a little wimpy–we’d like to do 10% of gross, but we’re not there yet), but I know that families that have more than us or fewer children could manage rather more, and I also know that families with much less than us or more children would struggle to give even 1%.

There’s no need to be troubled.

 

[7armyrugrats]

Responsible parenthood is nothing new. Catholics have always believed in responsible parenthood. The problem is too many have adopted the secular meaning that was preached by Margaret Sanger and others like her instead of what it actually is meant.

A parent that places the needs of their family in terms of eternal salvation and does whatever is necessary–within their human power–to raise up saints is practicing responsible parenthood. A parent that died to themselves and lives for their family is a responsible parent. It does not matter how many or how few children that parent has, it isn’t about how perfectly spaced and planned out that conception and birth was, it does not matter how much stuff and activities they can provide. It is all about raising up little saints to be with God in Heaven singing His praises for eternity. It doesn’t matter if they make it to Harvard or Princeton or Yale, it does matter if they make it to heaven.

The secular view of responsible parenthood is making sure all their earthly desires are fulfilled. It’s about making sure they go to the best schools, have a family vacation every year, their own bedroom full of electronics and toys, go to sports/music/pick your activity lesson, and saving up for fully paid college of their choice. All children deserve to be wanted and should be planned. Children may be blessings but we don’t want too many blessings.

Not everything is bad or wrong with the secular view. If a parent can do those things for their children, so be it. My kids have activities they enjoy and tons of toys and gadgets, but to say absolutely no more children simply so I can get more stuff or do more things for my older kids is not a very Catholic view of parenthood. As Catholic parents we are required to provide an education for our children, but the Church also says that parents are the primary educators of their own children–not that we are required to pay for private school and make sure they have good public school options as a back up. As parents we are called to educate them in the faith and morals of Catholicism, that is the education the Church mandates. Many children going to poor inner city public schools receive a wonderful Catholic education provided by their parents at home and do grow up to be saints, and the parents fulfilled the requirement of educating their children. Families outside the US may not even have access to education beyond 4th grade for their children, but if they teach them the faith, they have done their part.

It is frustrating that when a couple decides to trust in God’s divine providence to provide for them, fellow Catholics look at them with scorn and disgust similar to, and often harsher, than the secular world does. Trusting that He will provide does not mean that we are in a competition to make as many babies as possible. What it means is that we acknowledge that God knows our needs better than we know them. I have lost 8 children, I have 2 on the autism spectrum, and five of my kids (included the 2 autistics) have various degrees of speech delays/disorders and learning problems. Many people have told me how hard that must be, and a few have told me that it is irresponsible to continue having kids “with problems.” But all of my kids were created perfectly by God exactly as He planned them. I have the 8 children He knew my family needed to have to help us earn heaven, and He blessed us with 8 personal little saints to watch over us and pray for us and route for us along the way. My life is nothing like I wanted, not even close to what I planned. My life is tons better. God always gives us what we need in order to help us get to heaven, even if it is hard to see that while we are struggling here on earth.

 

[Xantippe]

With regard to the question of the 3rd world, I think we’re underestimating what lengths perfectly average women here in the US will go to to have their 2.00 kids.

I used to read a couple of secular women’s infertility blogs, and perfectly normal women will practically walk through fire to have a baby. This blogger, for instance did so much IVF and IUI that I’m having trouble counting it all up and she had a very serious brush with pre-eclampsia.

alittlepregnant.com/alittlepregnant/archives.html

In real life, I have a Protestant friend whose first baby had a genetically-caused cancer and survived, although with several different fairly serious disabilities. She and her husband then did 7 rounds of IVF to have their second (they wanted to be good and sure to have a baby who wouldn’t get cancer). I don’t know how much all of that fertility treatment cost, but I suspect it adds up to enough to buy a house in cash.

The urge to procreate (as distinct from the sexual urge) is a pretty basic biological drive. I realize that there are some people who don’t experience it, but they are outliers. The normal thing is to say what I heard college girls saying to each other in the grocery store last year when I was rolling my pudgy blonde sweetie pie through the baby food aisle: “I want one!” Those Iraqi women experience that urge every bit as much (with the added pressure of greater economic and social need)–a barren woman in a developing country is in a perilous position.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Responsible parenthood is nothing new. Catholics have always believed in responsible parenthood. The problem is too many have adopted the secular meaning that was preached by Margaret Sanger and others like her instead of what it actually is meant.

A parent that places the needs of their family in terms of eternal salvation and does whatever is necessary–within their human power–to raise up saints is practicing responsible parenthood. A parent that died to themselves and lives for their family is a responsible parent. It does not matter how many or how few children that parent has, it isn’t about how perfectly spaced and planned out that conception and birth was, it does not matter how much stuff and activities they can provide. It is all about raising up little saints to be with God in Heaven singing His praises for eternity. It doesn’t matter if they make it to Harvard or Princeton or Yale, it does matter if they make it to heaven.

The secular view of responsible parenthood is making sure all their earthly desires are fulfilled. It’s about making sure they go to the best schools, have a family vacation every year, their own bedroom full of electronics and toys, go to sports/music/pick your activity lesson, and saving up for fully paid college of their choice. All children deserve to be wanted and should be planned. Children may be blessings but we don’t want too many blessings.

Not everything is bad or wrong with the secular view. If a parent can do those things for their children, so be it. My kids have activities they enjoy and tons of toys and gadgets, but to say absolutely no more children simply so I can get more stuff or do more things for my older kids is not a very Catholic view of parenthood. As Catholic parents we are required to provide an education for our children, but the Church also says that parents are the primary educators of their own children–not that we are required to pay for private school and make sure they have good public school options as a back up. As parents we are called to educate them in the faith and morals of Catholicism, that is the education the Church mandates. Many children going to poor inner city public schools receive a wonderful Catholic education provided by their parents at home and do grow up to be saints, and the parents fulfilled the requirement of educating their children. Families outside the US may not even have access to education beyond 4th grade for their children, but if they teach them the faith, they have done their part.

It is frustrating that when a couple decides to trust in God’s divine providence to provide for them, fellow Catholics look at them with scorn and disgust similar to, and often harsher, than the secular world does. Trusting that He will provide does not mean that we are in a competition to make as many babies as possible. What it means is that we acknowledge that God knows our needs better than we know them. I have lost 8 children, I have 2 on the autism spectrum, and five of my kids (included the 2 autistics) have various degrees of speech delays/disorders and learning problems. Many people have told me how hard that must be, and a few have told me that it is irresponsible to continue having kids “with problems.” But all of my kids were created perfectly by God exactly as He planned them. I have the 8 children He knew my family needed to have to help us earn heaven, and He blessed us with 8 personal little saints to watch over us and pray for us and route for us along the way. My life is nothing like I wanted, not even close to what I planned. My life is tons better. God always gives us what we need in order to help us get to heaven, even if it is hard to see that while we are struggling here on earth.

Beautiful!

 

[Xantippe]

A few more thoughts:

1. Andrea Yates trusted God, too.
2. I think temperament is tremendously important. I strongly suspect (and my sister thinks so too) that our mother is an introvert and needs a lot of solitude. It took me a long time to realize that I was the same. Being around people for very long makes me tired and crabby, even if I’m not doing much at all.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/03/caring-for-your-introvert/302696/

As you can imagine, this is rather a disability for an SAHM with children at home during the day. As it happens, I am a perfectly marvelous SAHM on school days when it’s just me and baby at home together during the day and then I do any serious parenting that needs to be done between about 3:30 and 9, when the older kids are home from school until the younger two children’s bedtime. Unfortunately, school does not run seven days a week, 365 days a year, and I confess that my parenting is less than stellar when I have to do it all day for several days or weeks in a row.

There was a time, years ago, when I was an idealistic bride and dreamed of having a large homeschooling Catholic family. I would have 4-6 perfect little homeschooling scholars, just like the wonderful women I’d read about on the internet.

Then I had some actual children. Unfortunately, as I discovered, unlike my imaginary perfect little homeschool scholars, they were not born 8 years old and the older one did not want to be my little helper. This was a distressing discovery. There were many distressing discoveries to come, including the fact that my children seem to take from nearly 4 to nearly 4.5 years to potty train. That’s nearly half a decade in diapers each, my friends.

Fortunately, there was good news: a) mother’s day out b) preschool c) babysitters d) school e) summer camp. You can pay people (or just use your local public school) and they will help you with your children! It was a miracle! A life-changing, sanity-saving, glorious miracle!

1. More seriously, as a nearly 39-year-old mother of three who has been pregnant four times, I think that there is an analogy to military service. I do not, at this point, feel that I ought to volunteer for service, but if drafted, I will serve, and I will not desert.

 

[Vico]

Vico said:

“* The Eugenic indication: almost absolute certainty that one will bring into the world physically or psychologically deformed children.”

Is this a quote from an actual document or your composition?

I have to note that even a 50%, or 25% or even 10% or 5% chance of giving birth to a seriously disabled child sounds like a serious reason to me.

It certainly isn’t a frivolous reason.

One phrase in that post is derived from an apologetics website, but it is not an authoritative source. The authoritative sources are Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII. We have the right to have those children, even defective, however we may also justly avoid conceiving them.

Casti Connubii (1930) Pope Pius XI:66. What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic “indication” may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it. [52]

1. … Although often these individuals are to be dissuaded from entering into matrimony, certainly it is wrong to brand men with the stigma of crime because they contract marriage, on the ground that, despite the fact that they are in every respect capable of matrimony, they will give birth only to defective children, even though they use all care and diligence.

Gaudium et spes (1965), Pope Pius XII:
87. … For in keeping with man’s inalienable right to marry and generate children, a decision concerning the number of children they will have depends on the right judgment of the parents and it cannot in any way be left to the judgment of public authority. But since the judgment of the parents presupposes a rightly formed conscience, it is of the utmost importance that the way be open for everyone to develop a correct and genuinely human responsibility which respects the divine law and takes into consideration the circumstances of the situation and the time.

*An Address of Pope Pius XII to the Seventh International Hematological Congress in Rome. (Friday September 12, 1958)*We stated in the discourse delivered in 1951 that married couples who make use of their conjugal rights have a positive obligation; in virtue of the natural law governing their state, not to exclude procreation. The Creator, in effect, wished human beings to propagate themselves precisely by the natural exercise of the sexual function. But to this positive law We applied the principle which holds for all the others: that these positive laws are not obligatory to the extent that their fulfillment involves great disadvantages which are neither inseparable from the law itself nor inherent in its accomplishment, but which come from another source and which the law-maker did not intend to impose on men when he promulgated the law.

…

The same principles give an answer to the third question:

*If, after marriage, one discovers the hematological Mediterranean sickness in the couple, is it permissible to advise them against having children? *
You may advise a couple not to have children but you cannot forbid it. On the other hand, it remains to be seen what method the adviser (whether he is a doctor, a hematologist, or a moralist) will suggest to them. Specialized works on the subject provide no answer leaving the responsibility of deciding to the couples. But the Church cannot be satisfied with this negative attitude. She must take a position.

As We have explained, there is no objection to complete continence, to the Ogino-Knaus method, or to the adoption of children.

lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_32moralityeugenics.html
​