B
Bookcat
Guest
Without comment on the rest - just wanted to offer that the term really to use is “avoid” not “prevent”.
- Status
M
mommamaree
Guest
Why? I fail to see the difference between the two words. Don’t they mean basically the same thing?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Prevent - tends more to indicate one is doing something actively to stop something -and thus more implies contraceptives (using contraceptives to prevent conception - to hinder conception).
I think avoid is the better term and the one that gets used in NFP (avoid for serious reasons via abstinence during fertile times - or help achieve during fertile times.)
M
mommamaree
Guest
Okay. Thanks for the explanation. I will try to AVOID using the word prevent from now on with respect to conception. But my good intentions won’t necessarily PREVENT me from slipping up and using the wrong word.
But seriously, thanks.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
I’m not really sure that is the case for older parents. First off, if the couple is able to conceive and bear a baby, that means their bodies are at least healthy enough for conception, pregnancy and childbirth. Illness can take a toll on fertility, so those most inclined to illness and early death may already be less likely to become parents at advanced age. Not all 40 year olds are the same–some may have bodies that resemble 30 year olds, while others age more rapidly and seem more like 50+ year olds.
Also, lifestyle affects health and fertility. Younger people with extremely active lifestyle might negatively affect their longevity if they take risks. Parents generally live more mundane, safer lifestyles that leave us less prone to accidents, but young parents sometimes take still risks. We old geezers are far less likely to be found hang gliding or rock climbing. Plus going through a mid-life crisis with young children leaves us less likely to be able to afford those fancy red sports cars.
Lifestyle choices make a big difference in how long we live, but accidents happen and they can claim the life of young parents too. Accidents can also dramatically alter the life of a young child–so even if a parent has a healthy child, that doesn’t mean the child will stay healthy. There are just so many factors that are involved.! Despite advances in technology, we still cannot predict the future. But God knows the future; we can trust Him.
Lastly, even if the parents die when their child is young, that’s not a reason to not have children. I wrote about how I had older parents, but I didn’t mention then that both my parents lost one of their parents when they were young–not because their parents were old but because their parents died young. Yes, it is sad when a parent dies, but sometimes young parents die too. What are we to do? Not have children because we all have mortal bodies and there will all one day die? How silly is that! The future of humanity depends upon the fact that people who are destined to die have children anyway.
“Remember, man, that you are dust and to dust you shall return.” The Church put those ashes on people of all ages–not just those of us above the age of 37.
M
maryjk
Guest
First let me say, I agree with you.
Maternal age shouldn’t be an automatic reason to avoid pregnancy. And like most reasons to avoid pregnancy, age is a personal thing.
But, I think you have to admit that losing your parent or parents when you are 10 is vastly different than losing them when you are 40.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Thanks. I meant to write “therefore” and not just “there” in the part you highlighted.
Yes, I would agree with you that there’s a difference between losing parents at the age of 40 vs. the age of 10. But who can tell when he or she is going to die? Death strikes both young and old. I checked the average life expectancy in the US by state. It varies from around 75-81.48. Based on that, if the “average” person had a child at age 45, that “average” child would be 30-41.48 years old by the time the parents died. I was born to older parents and was in my late 30’s when they died.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy (Now I have even more reasons to move to Hawaii! :tanning: )
M
maryjk
Guest
Again, I agree.Thanks. I meant to write “therefore” and not just “there” in the part you highlighted.
Yes, I would agree with you that there’s a difference between losing parents at the age of 40 vs. the age of 10. But who can tell when he or she is going to die? Death strikes both young and old. I checked the average life expectancy in the US by state. It varies from around 75-81.48. Based on that, if the “average” person had a child at age 45, that “average” child would be 30-41.48 years old by the time the parents died. I was born to older parents and was in my late 30’s when they died.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy (Now I have even more reasons to move to Hawaii! :tanning: )
But. . . . . isn’t there always a but?
Maternal age is a personal thing.
My mother was really just a kid when she had my sister. (19). And just 21 when she had me.
But by the time she was 45, she had already had a couple of health scares that would have made her think twice about having a child that late. She was healthy at 45, but she now had a predisposition for a couple of issues.
It seems like NFP use rarely comes down to one thing.
Take me. If asked I will tell people that I have health issues. So what does that mean? Well, I have a deformed uterus. Because of that, I cannot carry a baby to term. Our son was born 9 weeks early. And that was after weeks of bed rest. I have been told that any subsequent baby would be born even earlier. That doesn’t count the fact that due to the structure of my uterus, I have a very high chance of an ectopic pregnancy. High enough that when I got pregnant, the doctor brought me in the very next morning for an ultrasound. Also, due to the deformity, I have a high risk of miscarriage.
Now, any one of those might give someone pause. High chance of ectopic. Maybe that won’t happen. Okay, preterm? I did it once, right? But when you add everything together? I realized that my son was a beautiful gift and that I am happy with him.
Someone else might have decided that they should have tried to have more children. But for me, one was enough.
It seems to me that maternal age would be similar. One family would look at their risks and take the chance. And one would look at the risks and think, no way. Maybe the second family has the grandparents living with them. Maybe the husband has health problems.
Like I said, it is a very personal thing.
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
It is different, but, for one, are the odds really that significantly higher? The average age of death is 76 for men and 81 for women. Even if the mom and dad were 50 when the kid was born, the kid will be an adult by the time the parent reaches the average life span age. Parents can die at any age. My dad, an otherwise very healthy and fit Army Ranger who won 2nd place (to his boss) in a military athletic competition that included American and foreign soldiers, died in his early 30’s of cancer (I was 3). At school, out of my classmates that I knew with “older” parents, only one has lost her father, and she wasn’t a kid anymore when it happened. Other than him, all the moms and dads of my friends that were older than my mom are still alive. In fact, growing up, in our school, a few students did lose parents, and they were all younger parents. The causes I remember are: car accidents, private plane accident, and heart attack (which happened to a younger father, not the older ones). I know a wonderful lady who people used to confuse her with being the grandmother of her younger children. She is now a beautiful grandmother and her children are very happy she was open to life and received them regardless of her age. (Her husband is also older, and a wonderful grandpa, but it wasn’t that big a deal that he was older, for some reason). I am happy and grateful I was given life even if I lost my dad at a young age. Almost 30 years later it still makes me very sad, but it doesn’t mean I cannot keep working to try to get closer to God every day, and isn’t that what matters? In fact, his example before he left this Earth (he was an amazing man!) makes me want to be a better woman. In his short life he left such a positive impact on so many people.
R
Rau
Guest
Can you give reasons for these answers, and name the sin involved?
M
maryjk
Guest
I am not advocating that women in their 40’s shouldn’t have children. Heck, my own grandmother was 40 when she had my mother. (Mom’s dad was 49 when she was born, but he died before she was 2.)
What I am saying is that maternal age can be a consideration.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Couple 1 objectively there is sin - for they do not have serious reasons.
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI:
- When is it moral to regulate births?
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.
- What are immoral means of birth control?
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.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
Couple 2 may not sin at all (such is mutually agreed upon and not a near occasion of sin …)
or there may be some sin due to putting one or the other into near occasions of sins of lust. Or again their motive may be sinful “I do not want to share my toys with more children”…it is hard to say outside of a real context -and much is for the couple to judge before God (though perhaps with advice).
One would confess what it was …such as “not having serious reasons”…etc
R
Rau
Guest
Bookcat, why is there more doubt in respect of case 2? Would not complete abstinence for the purpose of avoidance, absent just reasons, be commission of the same sin as NFP absent just reasons.
7
7armyrugrats
Guest
Yes, I do believe it would. I have gone the abstinence route in my marriage when I needed to avoid due to health concerns. It would be wrong to do that simply because you don’t want children. And before someone brings up Josephite Marriages, most couples are not called toward a Josephite Marriage and priests do not have to allow a couple desiring a Josephite marriage permission to wed. Many of those couples are turned down, and the ones who are allowed to marry work closely with a priest as their spiritual director.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I used the term “serious reasons” with the Compendium.
The married couple in #2 do not need “serious reasons” to decide mutually not to engage in the marital act indefinately. But such ought to be prudently judged…
This is often not though to be advised -even St. Paul advised that the couple return to normal marital life -when they took time off to devote to prayer (and they did not need a serious reason for such -nor do we -for they were just abstaining for a set time -not for only using the fertile time. In later times some would abstain during say Lent).
Back to the couple #2 -They are not exercising the marital act at all - they are not exercising the marital act only in infertile times -but not at all. I would not think their reasons need not be “serious reasons” to not exercise that marital act by mutual agreement. But can there be sin that enters in? Sure. It could -such as putting one of the spouse in a near occasion of mortal sin or deciding to not have children because one wants to life some otherwise disordered life or something…
But couples have for non sinful reasons (that is not unjust reasons) or for even high good reasons -forgone marital relations by mutual agreement. Normally though such I would say* ought not* be the course taken.
Canonized married Saints have followed that path down through the centuries. And there is even the rare vocation where the couple never exercise the right to the marital act.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Wow, that is an amazing distinction. Thank you for the past few posts. You are educating me.
B
Bookcat
Guest
added to it above. twas editing.
B
Bookcat
Guest
And remember too that such is part of fostering mutual love…so again not I would think the course a couple ought normally to take.
T
thewanderer
Guest
BookCat, I’m afraid I must disagree with you about those using complete abstinence having less of a need for serious reasons.
From your own post
From your own post
This quote makes it clear that any time a couple wishes to try to “regulate births” they need to have a serious reason to do so. This is true no matter what. There is no getting out of it, using complete abstinence to avoid conception is an attempt to “regulate births” and so the statement that just reasons are required apply just as much to it as to NFP.
B
Bookcat
Guest
What is being discussed?
The making use of infertile times…not the cessation of marital relations.* The whole context is regarding the context of engaging in the marital act*.
There is not an obligation per se for a married couple to exercise the right to marital relations. There is an obligation to each other- yes (see St. Paul et al) -but that can be as I noted -without repeating all I wrote above - can be not exercised by mutual consent -and prudent judgment…(and there could be an obligation at times out of charity to keep the other from falling in terms of chastity) And there are even those who enter marriage itself -exchanging the right to marital relations but who mutually decided not even to consummate. A rare vocation -but it has and does happen. And of course there are those who do the same but after some time living a normal marriage life.
Indeed as I noted there are Canonized Saints who lived perpetual continence in marriage.
Again I am not recommending such (read posts above) as a way to go.
- Status