Sure.
That post was from years ago.
She is correct (as I too noted) that it does not need to be life or death.
But
yes it needs to be just (not evil) – indeed it needs to be serious.
The Church in her documents of rather recent date have been consistently giving emphasis to that need for “serious reasons”.
Yes one needs a
serious reason.
And yes- the reason
must be jus**t -it cannot be evil. One can use the terms together such as: I must have a just reason to use deadly force in self -defense --and that just reason must of course be rather serious -like the person is trying to kill me.
One ought not play off “just reason” against “serious reason”
When is it moral? Well the reason must be just (not evil) - the reason must be serious.
The Church in the more recent documents such as the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI uses more the term “Serious” to denote the reasons needed to make use of only the infertile times via periodic continence.
The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**497. 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.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
And From the Compendium of Social Doctrine:
232.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.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
Now that serious reason need not be “life or death” serious.
All sorts of serious reasons can happen in life. They are not limited to say grave health concerns or the like. But they are serious reasons not just any reason that seems good. It falls to the married couple to judge such (looking at the criteria the Church has given -and perhaps seeking objective advice) before God.
It remains serious - it is not some willie nillie reason - or out of selfishness -or so one can collect cars…but need not be “life or death serious”.
What I don’t like is that you’re making these big long posts with pasted material and are trying to somehow insinuate that what I have said in my post in incorrect. Instead of using the word serious, I’d like to use the word “just.” Stop talking about life or death… we all know (especially me) that it does not need to be life or death.
This is what our apologist Michelle Arnold said:
“In short,** just reason suffices** and just reason can include a desire to space children in such a manner that the parents’ financial, physical, and emotional resources are not overtaxed. Those who maintain that only life-or-death reasons suffice to use NFP are obliged to demonstrate from Church documentation where the Church has required that.”
And I agree with that. If you think it is unorthodox and heretical because she is using the word just rather than the word serious, I would take it up with the CAF president.
