Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy,

My husband says:

“There is a difference between a couple intending never to have children and a couple expecting that it will never be prudently possible for them to have children. Intention is a crucial concept in Catholic ethics, and it differs from foresight. A couple who thinks that they will have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for all of their married lives is foreseeing that they (probably) won’t have children, but they aren’t necessarily intending not to have children. And they can be quite open to trying to have children on the condition that it is ceases to be imprudent to do so–say, because of a medical advance. And no one should be open to trying to have children except on the condition that it is not imprudent to do so, since prudence is a virtue and to act against a virtue is wrong.”

Ok but where is that difference expressed in Church law or theory?

The impediment to marriage seems to directly contradict that.

honestly I think the reason this issue touches me so deeply is because really at it’s heart it is about marriage and it’s definitions and purposes. Something that is absolutely the single biggest issue facing the Church today. From contraception, to gay “marriage” to divorce and remarriage all the issues touch on the very definition and nature of marriage and the Sacrament thereof. We live in a word where we struggle to verbalize that a marriage is between the opposite sex! We either have not defined it well enough or are prevented from getting the message out there.
This is why this issue is really really important.

here we have a definition of Marriage that the Church says that if you are opposed to having children you cannot get married. a couple must also be able to preform the act. And I know we were supposed to leave it out but even in a Josephite marriage if just ONE partner decides they do not want to continue, it the other must oblige.

The Church says the opposite of maternal age in and of itself being a SOLE reason to avoid. Because the Church, marries people at all ages that are premenopausal and menopausal, with the express intent to not refuse children. Which is what one would be doing for a couple of years if one had the SOLE reason to avoid.

Physical capacity for consummation lacking.[14] Per Canon 1084 §3 “Without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.” Both parties, however, must be physically capable of completed vaginal intercourse, wherein the man ejaculates “true semen” into the woman’s vagina. (See [2] for details.) To invalidate a marriage, the impotence must be perpetual (i.e., incurable) and antecedent to the marriage. The impotence can either be absolute or relative. This impediment is generally considered to derive from divine natural law, and so cannot be dispensed.[15] The reason behind this impediment is explained in the Summa Theologica:[16] “In marriage there is a contract whereby one is bound to pay the other the marital debt: wherefore just as in other contracts, the bond is unfitting if a person bind himself to what he cannot give or do, so the marriage contract is unfitting, if it be made by one who cannot pay the marital debt.”

This though off topic ( and probably belongs on that other thread was interesting.

True Semen.

Does this mean a man who has had a vasectomy cannot get married> I thought they could?

 

[Rau]

I have difficulty with the logic of the ambiguity of it’s employment, not of it’s legitimacy or the Church’s authority.

I have difficulty with the idea of gauging seriousness, not with the idea that I can guage a different threshold than someone else.

I don’t see “ambiguity”, but rather an acknowledgement that “seriousness” is in the “eye of the prayerful parent”? Couples experience the events and circumstances of life differently, and that is taken into account. If you find lots of kids “easy”, and I find it “highly stressful”, I’m not required to suffer more to meet your threshold, nor do you get a free pass to come down to mine. There is no “objective line in the sand” of morality at stake here, well - not one that man can judge.

 

[Rau]

Every pregnancy with every woman carries with it a percentage of death. So yes, there has to be a threshold at which a percentage is reasonably serious or not.

…So we can see that there is - and historically you can be sure it was MUCH higher - a certain percentage of risk of the death of a mother. One cannot just use this as a reason alone to not have children.

But certainly there are thresholds to be met that make it a serious and just reason in and of itself. But what are those thresholds?

Is there not a lesson in the fact that neither you nor anyone else can answer your last question?

Imagine that there was such a threshold - explain how millions of different couples, acting honestly, could ever hope to discover it the very same threshold? Or is your thinking that the Church should have said that “Risk of spousal death greater than X% constitute Just Reasons”?

It seems unavoidable to conclude that individuals must form the judgement themselves and they will come to different answers.

The potential for death of spouse is only one of an array of factors to which the exact same thought processes apply.

 

[Rau]

HoosierDaddy,

My husband says:

“There is a difference between a couple intending never to have children and a couple expecting that it will never be prudently possible for them to have children. Intention is a crucial concept in Catholic ethics, and it differs from foresight. A couple who thinks that they will have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy for all of their married lives is foreseeing that they (probably) won’t have children, but they aren’t necessarily intending not to have children. And they can be quite open to trying to have children on the condition that it is ceases to be imprudent to do so–say, because of a medical advance. And no one should be open to trying to have children except on the condition that it is not imprudent to do so, since prudence is a virtue and to act against a virtue is wrong.”

That’s interesting. I recall another thread where the couple were at high risk of Tay Sachs. Their thinking was that they would marry, but for so long as the risk remained high (realistically - the odds would say that it would be their entire marriage), they would use NFP. A future medical discovery that collapsed the risk would see them happily seek pregnancy. The alternative view would be that they should not marry until such time as the medical circumstances changed. I assume the reasoning from your husband would say it is OK to marry and use NFP in these circumstances?

 

[Rau]

The Church says the opposite of maternal age in and of itself being a SOLE reason to avoid. Because the Church, marries people at all ages that are premenopausal and menopausal, with the express intent to not refuse children. Which is what one would be doing for a couple of years if one had the SOLE reason to avoid.

It may be that a couple (in the event they are married) would have a good reason to avoid permanently, and let us assume that that requires them to not marry. But, they do go ahead and marry. Now that they are married, the good reason does not go away. They can (properly) avoid. Their error was (under these assumptions) seeking marriage, not the avoiding. To say that they were wrong to marry, AND that they are not free to avoid - does not make sense to me. [Sort of “double-jeopardy” ]

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Ok but where is that difference expressed in Church law or theory?

The impediment to marriage seems to directly contradict that.

honestly I think the reason this issue touches me so deeply is because really at it’s heart it is about marriage and it’s definitions and purposes. Something that is absolutely the single biggest issue facing the Church today. From contraception, to gay “marriage” to divorce and remarriage all the issues touch on the very definition and nature of marriage and the Sacrament thereof. We live in a word where we struggle to verbalize that a marriage is between the opposite sex! We either have not defined it well enough or are prevented from getting the message out there.
This is why this issue is really really important.

here we have a definition of Marriage that the Church says that if you are opposed to having children you cannot get married. a couple must also be able to preform the act. And I know we were supposed to leave it out but even in a Josephite marriage if just ONE partner decides they do not want to continue, it the other must oblige.

The Church says the opposite of maternal age in and of itself being a SOLE reason to avoid. Because the Church, marries people at all ages that are premenopausal and menopausal, with the express intent to not refuse children. Which is what one would be doing for a couple of years if one had the SOLE reason to avoid.

This though off topic ( and probably belongs on that other thread was interesting.

True Semen.

Does this mean a man who has had a vasectomy cannot get married> I thought they could?

A man who has had a vasectomy still has true semen. The sperm is lacking.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

It may be that a couple (in the event they are married) would have a good reason to avoid permanently, and let us assume that that requires them to not marry. But, they do go ahead and marry. Now that they are married, the good reason does not go away. They can (properly) avoid. Their error was (under these assumptions) seeking marriage, not the avoiding. To say that they were wrong to marry, AND that they are not free to avoid - does not make sense to me. [Sort of “double-jeopardy” ]

I believe Vico this thread posted some guidelines regarding carriers of Thalassemia or as it was known in the 1950s Mediterranean anemia. Look at the link he included.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Of course we can conclude that! Every pregnancy with every woman carries with it a percentage of death. So yes, there has to be a threshold at which a percentage is reasonably serious or not.

A little rough justice (math) here…

At a country level, India (19% or 56,000) and Nigeria (14% or 40,000) accounted for roughly one third of the maternal deaths in 2010. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Sudan, Indonesia, Ethiopia, United Republic of Tanzania, Bangladesh and Afghanistan comprised between 3 to 5 percent of maternal deaths each. [17] These ten countries combined accounted for 60% of all the maternal deaths in 2010 according to the United Nations Population Fund report. Countries with the lowest maternal deaths were Estonia, Greece and Singapore [18].

From Wiki (again)

And outside of the US.

So we can see that there is and historically you can be sure it was MUCH higher a certain percentage of risk of the death of a mother. One cannot just use this as a reason alone to not have children.

But certainly there are thresholds to be met that make it a serious and just reason in and of itself. But what are those thresholds?

You seem to want the Church to give explicit guidelines regarding motives for abstaining. The Church expects us to have well formed consciences and to be generous and prudent and recognized that avoiding or attempting conception are decisions that can only be made by a couple.

A few posts back I posted about my on and his volunteering activities in Africa where he teaches among other things, NFP. Feel free to read it.

 

[PaulinVA]

Premise:

1. Refusal to have children is an impediment or factor that can invalidate a marriage.
2. The Church marries people at any age between 16/14 to, well, death.
3. Because of Number 2 the Church would marry a couple pre menopausal but later in years, say 40s
4. The couple cannot “refuse” to have children.

So how can age alone be a reason to avoid when the Church specifically addresses this issue about refusal to have children?

Definitely an edge case, but it’s interesting to discuss. The 40 year old couple, in their vows, agree to accept children as they come. They do not agree to seek children out, to actively try to have children. So, if their intent is to be faithful to Church teaching and try to avoid pregnancy due to maternal age, but agree they will accept any children that come, what’s the problem?

 

[Rau]

Definitely an edge case, but it’s interesting to discuss. The 40 year old couple, in their vows, agree to accept children as they come. They do not agree to seek children out, to actively try to have children. So, if their intent is to be faithful to Church teaching and try to avoid pregnancy due to maternal age, but agree they will accept any children that come, what’s the problem?

The debate is not about that vow, which I interpret the same way you do.

 

[Rau]

A man who has had a vasectomy still has true semen. The sperm is lacking.

What makes “true semen” the relevant measure on the question of ability to perform the Act. This seems arbitrary?

 

[gardenswithkids]

You seem to want the Church to give explicit guidelines regarding motives for abstaining. The Church expects us to have well formed consciences and to be generous and prudent and recognized that avoiding or attempting conception are decisions that can only be made by a couple…

Well, I don’t expect explicit guidelines since the Church has not provided them yet. However, those on this thread who clearly and definitely say that “Yes! maternal age alone is a serious reason enough reason to use NFP” are declaring for other couples something that the Church has not clearly stated.

If anyone can provide an official Church statement that says maternal age alone is adequate reason for couples to use NFP, please do so. But to my awareness the Church has given no such explicit guidelines, so it’s foolish for people on this thread to pretend that it’s always okay for couples to use NFP simply because the woman is over a certain age.

 

[PaulinVA]

Well, I don’t expect explicit guidelines since the Church has not provided them yet. However, those on this thread who clearly and definitely say that “Yes! maternal age alone is a serious reason enough reason to use NFP” are declaring for other couples something that the Church has not clearly stated.

If anyone can provide an official Church statement that says maternal age alone is adequate reason for couples to use NFP, please do so. But to my awareness the Church has given no such explicit guidelines, so it’s foolish for people on this thread to pretend that it’s always okay for couples to use NFP simply because the woman is over a certain age.

Since the Church has not provided a list of serious reasons, you can not state that maternal agealone* is not *a serous reason. It cuts both ways.

And, as we’ve established, it’s relative. Some people are willing to accept the risks of getting pregnant at 45, others are not.

 

[Rico_S]

. However, those on this thread who clearly and definitely say that “Yes! maternal age alone is a serious reason enough reason to use NFP” are declaring for other couples something that the Church has not clearly stated.
.

No. We are saying that it CAN be serious enough reason…not that it always is for every couple. The other camp in this thread is saying that mother’s age CANNOT be serious enough reason alone to avoid for ANY couple.

If anyone can provide an official Church statement that says maternal age alone is adequate reason for couples to use NFP, please do so.

Are you able to produce an official church statement that says maternal age alone is NEVER adequate reason for any couple to use NFP?

 

[Vico]

No. We are saying that it CAN be serious enough reason…not that it always is for every couple. The other camp in this thread is saying that mother’s age CANNOT be serious enough reason alone to avoid for ANY couple.

Are you able to produce an official church statement that says maternal age alone is NEVER adequate reason for any couple to use NFP?

Maternal age alone is not an acceptable reason (read the linked document for what is acceptable). Among reasons, a medical condition that exposes the woman to a greater risk than normal is valid. See:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

 

[bitterhope]

Maternal age alone is not an acceptable reason (read the linked document for what is acceptable). Among reasons, a medical condition that exposes the woman to a greater risk than normal is valid. See:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

I would say that is pretty clear. I don’t know how rare it is for a woman to get older. It happens to all of us. “Old” moms have always been common.

 

[Vico]

I would say that is pretty clear. I don’t know how rare it is for a woman to get older. It happens to all of us. “Old” moms have always been common.

Age is not an issue, per the statement.

 

[Rau]

Maternal age alone is not an acceptable reason (read the linked document for what is acceptable). Among reasons, a medical condition that exposes the woman to a greater risk than normal is valid. See:
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

Age is bound up,with medical, eugenic, social and perhaps economic factors.

 

[Xantippe]

Just catching up—apologies for replies to stuff 4 pages ago.

MaryGail36 said:

“Wouldn’t people bending the NFP rules due to not having a “serious” reason be actually abandoning the method.”

Yes!

MomaMary8 said:

“I think you are trying to borrow trouble, Xantippe. Creating imaginary scenarios, no matter how possible they might be is not a healthy way to discern the future. You must look at the reality of life to properly discern any situation.”

The reality of life is that my mom had breast cancer when she was about two years older than I am today and that if I had breast cancer while pregnant, I would perhaps face a tragic choice with regard to treatment. Not to mention that my mom was largely absent from our lives when she had her chemotherapy. With the youngest of us being around 7 a the time and me being 15, it was not an impossible situation, but I imagine that it would be very difficult/impossible to combine being an effective mother to small children and a cancer patient.

cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/pregnancy-and-breast-cancer

I certainly don’t obsess over this sort of thing (in fact it was just over the past few days that I was putting two and two together with regard to my mom’s age then, my age now, and cancer treatment issues), but yes, going forward it does have to enter into my calculations.

“I hope you do the same in regards to your risk of breast cancer, but please don’t let it hang over your head like a black cloud.”

I don’t. If I were passionately committed to having another baby at all costs, I would probably do so, but I’m not.

HoosierDaddy said:

“I will refrain from the methods and how they are taught but in the classes I taught we were taught to teach couples different rules to “shave” off days of abstinence. We told people that most people only had to be abstinent 5-6 days a month.”

I wince on your behalf. That’s terrible.

I think I’d tell people (if I were asked) that one can normally expect abstinence about half the time and under conservative (but not hyper-conservative NFP), about 2/3 of the month.

The 5-6 days doesn’t make any sense.

PaulinVA said:

“There are some people who are overwhelmed with one child. Some who have life issues. Some who can’t plan their way out of a wet paper sack and a family of mom and dad and two kids overtaxes their abilities.”

Yes, indeed.

I was certainly overwhelmed with two kids from my oldest’s 2nd birthday (when I discovered I was pregnant with baby brother) until around her 8th.

I also get really stupid when pregnant.

gardenswithkids said:

“Many people do want more children, but they let themselves get talked out of it by societal pressures that tell them they are “too old”–when their biology says they are not.”

Society is kind of funny about this. Society (at least as represented by the editors of checkstand magazines) thinks that when stunning 40-something actresses have a baby, that it’s the best thing ever.

 

[PaulinVA]

Age is not an issue, per the statement.

The statement you quoted is not an all-inclusive list. The Church does not have an all-inclusive list. If it did, we wouldn’t need threads like this.