Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You clearly did not understand the point I was making, however, since other posters have since made the same point and you have not objected to them I will assume you agree with all of us but just made a poor choice of phrasing. I have nothing against the importance of willingly and lovingly accepting children. I do have an issue with people making it sound as though it is impossible to avoid children and still be willing to lovingly accept children. That is all.

Yes we probably are pretty close on agreement on the contested point. You singled out exact words I used. Those words are verbatim from the sacrament. So, I figured that if you took exception to that then you had a problem with the words of the Church. It directly pertains to this thread because a couple getting married later affects this topic. And they make promises to not only have sex, but be open to life should it be possible. Not “if the statistics change”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Can I ask? Why are you bringing this up? No one in this thread has said that its ok to go into marriage saying you only want one kid and then stick rigidly to thatsolely because it was your fantasy of what your family would look like.

Actually it is on topic. Because if age ALONE is a just reason then it would stand to reason that a couple getting married later in life WOULD go into marriage with that idea of only having 1 or even NO kids. And the Church is against that.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes we probably are pretty close on agreement on the contested point. You singled out exact words I used. Those words are verbatim from the sacrament. So, I figured that if you took exception to that then you had a problem with the words of the Church. It directly pertains to this thread because a couple getting married later affects this topic. And they make promises to not only have sex, but be open to life should it be possible. Not “if the statistics change”

I took issue with an implication from the way your whole post was phrased, but by now that is irrelevant.
As for this… they actually do not make a promise to have sex, Josephite Marriages are perfectly valid and do not have different wedding vows. As for their promises, they vow to willingly and lovingly accept children as a gift from God, they do not vow to have children so long as it is physically possible. Just like any married couple they would have to evaluate whether or not they have a grave reason to avoid children, and if they do then they are perfectly free to practice either NFP or complete abstinence until such time as the issues are resolved. If that ends up meaning they only have 1 kid or even no kids that doesn’t matter. So long as they have a just reason for using NFP and will lovingly accept any children they might conceive even if conceived while avoiding then they are perfectly fulfilling their marriage vows.

Actually it is on topic. Because if age ALONE is a just reason then it would stand to reason that a couple getting married later in life WOULD go into marriage with that idea of only having 1 or even NO kids. And the Church is against that.

If I was entering menopause or entering marriage after menopause I would also expect to have either 1 or 0 kids, just because physical reality is what it is. There is nothing wrong with entering marriage with the idea that you will have only 1 or 2 kids, or maybe even 0 kids so long as you have a good legitimate reason for it. The problem only comes in if you don’t have any good reason, such as you marry young, but have built up some fantasy that 1 is the perfect number of kids so you have one and then avoid having any more after that (no matter what method you use to avoid, complete or partial abstinence, abc, surgery etc) The only issue is if you decide to avoid kids without a good reason. Because of that you can’t claim that age can’t be a good reason based on what the Church currently teaches about spacing children, as the only thing the Church has to say on the issue is make sure you have a good reason to avoid because otherwise avoidng would be sinful (well, and obviously to use moral methods of avoiding)

 

[Galbin]

I have seen both a midwife and a maternal-fetal specialist for most of my pregnancies. I have a tendency to miscarry, most of them have been between 12-16 weeks, but two were earlier and one was later. All of my miscarriages happened before the age of 35–none since then. My last pregnancy I was 37. Due to a “marker” on the ultrasounds, I was told that my risk for having a Down’s Syndrome child was increased to 1 in 80 instead of 1 in 100. I was offered a blood test that could tell me with 99% accuracy if our baby did have DS which we declined. I know many moms who have children with DS, ironically most these moms had their babies before they were 30, probably because they didn’t think of being tested and therefore didn’t abort. None of these children are in diapers into adulthood as someone posted on another thread said they would be, nearly all hold jobs and are very capable of living a good life. I cannot see how it would be something I would fear. There are much worse things, some of which I do find concerning, but DS is not one of them. The maternal-fetal medicine specialist also pointed out that the majority of women having children in their 40’s and beyond are already high risk for complications and fetal defects because they conceived with medical procedures and not naturally. Women who get pregnant using clomid, IVF, IUI, and all the other procedures and medications are more likely to miscarry, have complications, give birth prematurely, develop diabetes and preeclampsia, as well as have children with various defects/diseases/chromosomal problems. This is across the board for fertility treatment, not just older moms. He also pointed out that these women are more likely to have multiples and that also increases the risks. This doctor was very clear that an otherwise healthy woman in her early 40’s that naturally conceived a baby is not nearly as high risk as the statistics indicate, but most regular OB’s, other doctors, and the general public tend to not realize that these statistics include ALL women of the same age group with no distinctions. Personally I also wonder how the effects of ABC plays into this. Many women are on the pill or have IUD’s from their teens until close to age 40 when they finally decide a baby fits into their plans. This also could play into the whole increased risks/decreased fertility statistics, but I guarantee that will never be stated publicly. That is far to politically incorrect.

You make wonderful points there. It also explains why the women I know who had babies in their 40s were just fine. Hmm… something to think about!

 

[7armyrugrats]

It is not wrong to have an expectation that only 1 or 2 kids will be possible but that does not mean you can justly set that limit and never evaluate that again. If a couple married at 20 and only has one child or is never able to have a child, that does not mean they did something wrong any more than if a couple that married at 40 had only one or none. It isn’t the amount of children, it is the reasons behind the decision the couple made whether or not it is justified.

People are not expected to purposely reproduce with no regards to safety, finances, health, education, etc. I have never thought a couple must or even should have a baby every 10 months (or 2yrs, or pick amount of time) or else they are not fulfilling their sacramental duty to lovingly accept children. Kids are not an accessory to make you look fashionable. Kids are not objects to be had simply because you want one or because you want one more. But children are also not the source of problems that often get attributed to them.

 

[Xantippe]

7armyrugrats said:

“None of these [Down Syndrome] children are in diapers into adulthood as someone posted on another thread said they would be, nearly all hold jobs and are very capable of living a good life.”

And yet there are Down Syndrome adults in diapers–forever. The reason it’s on my radar is that I read the Protestant homeschool blogger at The Common Room, and they have a 20-something Down Syndrome adopted daughter who wears diapers and functions like a three-year-old. The Headmistress calls her The Cherub and she’s apparently very lovable, but it can’t be easy to manage an adult who functions like a preschooler.

As you know, there are also a lot of seriously autistic older children who have a lot of problems with potty training and probably many other disabilities that I’m less aware of that have the same issues.

It’s not fearmongering to mention that as a possibility. A healthy, average child is not ever guaranteed. I think in a lot of these discussions (for instance by the OP in the other thread on whether or not the 37-year-old woman has serious reasons for NFP), a healthy, happy, low-need child is taken as a matter of course.

 

[lerapt78]

Trying to come to an understanding of NFP and “grave reason” is unfortunately one of those rare instances in which the more I try to learn about Catholic teaching on a subject matter, the more I’m left with an even greater amount of questions than before.

If I’m not mistaken, I thought that the purpose of Catechismal teaching (in this and certain other topics) being deliberately non-specific was so that Catholics could enjoy a certain amount of freedom within the broader context of a general moral understanding. Isn’t that the reason the Church does not deliberately list what is to be considered to be “grave reason” - because said reason changes from person to person, and one individual’s reason can indeed be just even though another happens to disagree?

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy said:

“Nothing HAS been like it in 2000 years of the Church. Not tithing, not foreplay, not war, not murder, not theft. Black and white, good and evil, holy and unholy. That is the reality of the theology.”

No way–moral theology is much more complicated than that.

Take for example a simple question: My brother-in-law just asked for $100–should I give it to him?

That is a tremendously complicated question. Do you have the money? Is your household in need? Do you foresee your family being in need in the near future? Can you think of other causes or individuals who would make better use of the money? What is your brother-in-law like? What is the money for? Is he working to the best of his abilities? Is he bad with money? Does he have substance abuse problems or mental health issues that would preclude wise use of the money? Has he asked you before? What did he do with the money last time?

I could grab my husband and come up with dozens of similar examples of simple questions that are actually extremely complicated.

“I do believe that given the gift of time the Church will further guide and define these issues for us. 500 years from now, if Jesus has not come again yet, you can be certain that there will be future councils, and future encyclicals and future popes weighing in on this issue and guiding us. Too bad we will all be dead and our children (few though they may be) will also all be dead.”

This is a very pastoral issue. There’s never going to be a Big Book Of Serious Reasons that every priest will keep for reference in his confessional.

 

[Xantippe]

7armyrugrats said:

“People have started threads stating they never want kids, but that they agree to only use NFP to avoid.”

Yes, and I think those people might be trolls.

 

[mommamaree]

Trying to come to an understanding of NFP and “grave reason” is unfortunately one of those rare instances in which the more I try to learn about Catholic teaching on a subject matter, the more I’m left with an even greater amount of questions than before.

If I’m not mistaken, I thought that the purpose of Catechismal teaching (in this and certain other topics) being deliberately non-specific was so that Catholics could enjoy a certain amount of freedom within the broader context of a general moral understanding. Isn’t that the reason the Church does not deliberately list what is to be considered to be “grave reason” - because said reason changes from person to person, and one individual’s reason can indeed be just even though another happens to disagree?

Yes

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

7armyrugrats said:

“People have started threads stating they never want kids, but that they agree to only use NFP to avoid.”

Yes, and I think those people might be trolls.

Potato potahto. Either trolls or sinfully using NFP. (which oddly some don’t believe in)

As a former NFP instructor I assure you this mentality exists. It exists in my cousin who is getting married soon.
Perhaps half of last year marriage prep couples did not want kids. (we teach a few sessions on marriage prep like parenting.) Many of them use ABC. But a few use NFP.

We are quite close with an NFP instructing couple who are currently struggling as we did with continuing to teach the methods to those who are absolutely contracepting with it.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy,

NFP is too hard to misuse indefinitely like that.

I note that all of your anecdotes are of people who are PLANNING to do it, not who have actually used NFP for 10 years, avoiding the whole time for no good reason.

Take your own example. By your description, you were misusing NFP, and you eventually quit because NFP was too hard on you. In fact, it’s supposed to work like that–if abstinence is too hard compared to the risks involved, you don’t abstain.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy,

NFP is too hard to misuse indefinitely like that.

I note that all of your anecdotes are of people who are PLANNING to do it, not who have actually used NFP for 10 years, avoiding the whole time for no good reason.

Take your own example. By your description, you were misusing NFP, and you eventually quit because NFP was too hard on you. In fact, it’s supposed to work like that–if abstinence is too hard compared to the risks involved, you don’t abstain.

Right, I stopped sinning. Some never do. But you are right, it is hard. But many still misuse it.
It does not change the fact that for YEARS and for many a marital embrace my wife and I committed mortal sin. Just because we changed does not mean we were not guilty of misusing NFP FOR YEARS. COnfessed that is all gone. but your logic is like saying robbing banks is hard because people either quit doing it or get caught therefore theft does not exist.

Had I been a bank robber but quit, it would not change that I had robbed banks.

You know that!

 

[PaulinVA]

Potato potahto. Either trolls or sinfully using NFP. (which oddly some don’t believe in)

As a former NFP instructor I assure you this mentality exists. It exists in my cousin who is getting married soon.
Perhaps half of last year marriage prep couples did not want kids. (we teach a few sessions on marriage prep like parenting.) Many of them use ABC. But a few use NFP.

We are quite close with an NFP instructing couple who are currently struggling as we did with continuing to teach the methods to those who are absolutely contracepting with it.

Number 1, most couples have decades of fertility. They are not done yet. Their faith formation is not yet complete.

Number 2, how do you use NFP contraceptively? Since the Church looks at every act when it evaluates whether a couple is being unitive and procreative, how does it evaluate an act that does not occur? Since I doubt that you are advocating that a couple has to have sex on a specific day, where is the sin?

It’s very strange that the Church wants to evaluate every act that occurs (not the preponderance of the acts) on the one hand , and then on the other hand they want to evaluate the overall month or cycle to ensure that the couple had sex often enough, to make sure that the couple wasn’t “contracepting” That doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Number 1, most couples have decades of fertility. They are not done yet. Their faith formation is not yet complete.

Number 2, how do you use NFP contraceptively? Since the Church looks at every act when it evaluates whether a couple is being unitive and procreative, how does it evaluate an act that does not occur? Since I doubt that you are advocating that a couple has to have sex on a specific day, where is the sin?

It’s very strange that the Church wants to evaluate every act that occurs (not the preponderance of the acts) on the one hand , and then on the other hand they want to evaluate the overall month or cycle to ensure that the couple had sex often enough, to make sure that the couple wasn’t “contracepting” That doesn’t make sense to me.

How familiar are you with NFP? I am not sure where to begin with number 2. and I am not sure what the point of number one is. Yes, people grow in faith. Some people get married and maybe do not need to employ NFP some people employ it. Some do so sinfully and some do so in friendship with God. Some quit in favor of large families, some use it and have large families and some abandon it for ABC. None of that matters. What matters is that you can use NFP sinfully. Of course you can. I did for years. Now I grew, I changed. But that is all irrelevant had I died 5 years ago…

Sin is sin, even when you stop. A couple can use ABC for 10 years and then “grow spiritually” to be open to life. That does not change the 10 years.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Are people on here really finding it so hard to believe that I sinned? That I confessed it and was forgiven? That I sought education and spiritual advice from good holy priests and they all had it wrong? that NFP is not able to be abused? That it doesn’t happen?

I am about ready to tap out…

 

[maryjk]

Number 1, most couples have decades of fertility. They are not done yet. Their faith formation is not yet complete.

Number 2, how do you use NFP contraceptively? Since the Church looks at every act when it evaluates whether a couple is being unitive and procreative, how does it evaluate an act that does not occur? Since I doubt that you are advocating that a couple has to have sex on a specific day, where is the sin?

It’s very strange that the Church wants to evaluate every act that occurs (not the preponderance of the acts) on the one hand , and then on the other hand they want to evaluate the overall month or cycle to ensure that the couple had sex often enough, to make sure that the couple wasn’t “contracepting” That doesn’t make sense to me.

Me either.

I was waiting for someone to pull out the ol’, “contraceptive mentality.” It always happens.

 

[maryjk]

How familiar are you with NFP? I am not sure where to begin with number 2. and I am not sure what the point of number one is. Yes, people grow in faith. Some people get married and maybe do not need to employ NFP some people employ it. Some do so sinfully and some do so in friendship with God. Some quit in favor of large families, some use it and have large families and some abandon it for ABC. None of that matters. What matters is that you can use NFP sinfully. Of course you can. I did for years. Now I grew, I changed. But that is all irrelevant had I died 5 years ago…

And some continue to use it and have small families. Although maybe you don’t see that as a possibility.

Sin is sin, even when you stop. A couple can use ABC for 10 years and then “grow spiritually” to be open to life. That does not change the 10 years.

I’m not sure where you are going with this.

 

[PaulinVA]

How familiar are you with NFP?

24 years to conceive and to avoid.

None of that matters. What matters is that you can use NFP sinfully. Of course you can. I did for years. Now I grew, I changed. But that is all irrelevant had I died 5 years ago…

What is the sin? I’m curious. Is it that without a serious/just reason you didn’t have sex often enough, or you didn’t produce enough babies?

Now, I do understand, and acknowledge, that the Church says that a couple has to have “just” or “serious” reasons to regulate births. But, when is the actual sin committed? Is it a sin of omission?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

And some continue to use it and have small families. Although maybe you don’t see that as a possibility.
I’m not sure where you are going with this.

And some continue to use it and have small families. Although maybe you don’t see that as a possibility.

Of course it is a possibility. Boy as much as I am accused of jumping of conclusions about others motives and intentions I certainly do not have the market cornered. I have never said people cannot have small families. But people sure are defensive about that.

I’m not sure where you are going with this.

Not where I’m sure I’ll be accused that is for sure…