Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[PaulinVA]

This is exactly my struggle with this theologically. And like I have said before it is what makes it different than other theological questions. But I have to trust the Church. Where else should I go?

I think in this specific area the Church is more silent than vocal. That is the frustrating part.

Of course. Hatred, Racism, lust, anger, coveting. Not only are they sinful they are rarely backed by overt actions. Just thoughts, just lingering thoughts, about mrs johnsons short skirt today, or how I would love to tell off my boss that jerk, or how african americans are subhuman. Sinful, all of them.

Remember the parable about the two brothers? Both sent to the fields. One said he would go, and didn’t. The other said he wouldn’t go, but did. It was the action that Jesus focused on, not the attitude. He said the brother who felt guilty and did what his father told him to do was in the right.

I disagree that thoughts are always sinful, though. I grew up in the South in the sixties and seventies. I have certain ideas. They are not sinful in and of themselves. It’s what I do with them. I understand the adultery in my heart example. But vague thoughts about other people?

 

[Xantippe]

Cathmomof6 said:

“I hear far too often that it is not fair to have a child at 40 only to die of old age when that child is a young adult or to deprive that child of a full life because I might not have the energy you need for a small child!!!”

There’s a major issue with the logic in that sentiment. Here’s the problem–you did not take an existing child and deprive them of a mother or an energetic younger mother. That child was never going to exist unless they had an older mother or a mother who died when they were young.

This is a little complicated, and I’m not sure I have the phrasing right, but do you see the problem?

 

[Rico_S]

I think we risk focussing on the wrong thing by drawing attention to the “NFP” as the tool through which one might sin. ,

Let’s say 2 couples in exact same circumstances decide to avoid pregnancy indefinitely and do not have just reasons to do so.

Couple 1 practices NFP

Couple 2 practices complete abstinence

Is there a difference in the sin of the couples?

 

[Rau]

Let’s say 2 couples in exact same circumstances decide to avoid pregnancy indefinitely and do not have just reasons to do so.

Couple 1 practices NFP

Couple 2 practices complete abstinence

Is there a difference in the sin of the couples?

I am not able to assert that either sins. What sin do you have in mind ?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think in this specific area the Church is more silent than vocal. That is the frustrating part.

Remember the parable about the two brothers? Both sent to the fields. One said he would go, and didn’t. The other said he wouldn’t go, but did. It was the action that that Jesus focused on, not the attitude. He said the brother who felt guilty and did what his father told him to do was in the right.

I disagree that thoughts are always sinful, though. I grew up in the South in the sixties and seventies. I have certain ideas. They are not sinful in and of themselves. It’s what I do with them. I understand the adultery in my heart example. But vague thoughts about other people?

From the Catechism:
2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail…

• by purity of vision, external and internal;** by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments:** “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;

I grew up in the South in the sixties and seventies. I have certain ideas. They are not sinful in and of themselves. It’s what I do with them.

Perhaps if you are self aware enough to know the first sentence is a bias to your “ideas” then you are self aware enough to rid yourself of “thoughts” that could be sinful.

Just a thought. I struggle with racism as well. Just typing that is dangerous but I honestly think most people struggle with it. People of any color.

 

[Rico_S]

I am not able to assert that either sins. What sin do you have in mind ?

I am assuming there is sin involved bc they don’t have just reasons to avoid having children.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Cathmomof6 said:

“I hear far too often that it is not fair to have a child at 40 only to die of old age when that child is a young adult or to deprive that child of a full life because I might not have the energy you need for a small child!!!”

There’s a major issue with the logic in that sentiment. Here’s the problem–you did not take an existing child and deprive them of a mother or an energetic younger mother. That child was never going to exist unless they had an older mother or a mother who died when they were young.

This is a little complicated, and I’m not sure I have the phrasing right, but do you see the problem?

Not only that but we are reaching a point where scientifically we can use statistics to justify all sorts of things. For instance my father died when I was 19 and my sister was 11. Depriving us of a father and my children of a grandfather. He died of leukemia. Technology is actually pretty good these days about detecting things. So it is not so much of a far out science fiction movie to suggest that the time is coming when we can put an expiration date on people. Should this be considered for people to have children? Should my dad have not had my sister because his expiration was 11 years after her birth? It sounds far out but if you watch the news these days, not so much.

Same with NFP, we have the technology and all that is is “information”
It is how we use it that matters.

 

[Xantippe]

HoosierDaddy said:

“Should my dad have not had my sister because his expiration was 11 years after her birth?”

If your mom didn’t want to be left a widow with an 11-year-old daughter, yeah.

I think the future surviving spouse should get a lot of say in this.

 

[Bookcat]

Let’s say 2 couples in exact same circumstances decide to avoid pregnancy indefinitely and do not have just reasons to do so.

Couple 1 practices NFP

Couple 2 practices complete abstinence

Is there a difference in the sin of the couples?

Couple 1 objectively there is sin - for they do not have* serious reasons*. (they have though perhaps a better chance at realizing this and correcting things than a couple who say used contraception).

Couple 2 may not sin at all - 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).

 

[PaulinVA]

Quote:
From the Catechism:
2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail…

• by purity of vision, external and internal;** by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments:** .

Yes, it can be sinful to dwell on on Mrs Johnson’s short skirt.

But, trying to submerge or not act on thoughts that might be racist or sexist is not sinful, in my mind. They just are there. Don’t dwell on them.

To the overall question of maternal age and avoiding in general. Is the sin not trying to have have babies, not having relations on particular days, selfishness, what? I guess selfishness is indeed a sin, but isn’t it tied to acts?

Am I focusing on outward acts too much when I should be looking at interior attitude?

 

[Rico_S]

Couple 2 may not sin at all - 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).

So there is no sin of selfishness in avoiding pregnancy without reason as long as it is done so with complete abstinence?

Or phrased differently…you don’t have to have a good reason to not have additional children as long as you aren’t having sex?

 

[Bookcat]

So there is no sin of selfishness in avoiding pregnancy without reason as long as it is done so with complete abstinence?

Or phrased differently…you don’t have to have a good reason to not have additional children as long as you aren’t having sex?

Sure as I noted there can be some sin due to motive.

But just because a couple does not judge they have serious reasons to avoid a new birth via NFP does not mean that their motive for complete abstinence is selfish.

Many married canonized Saints have taken that route even.

 

[Xantippe]

A rule of thumb I’ve heard (from my husband the ethicist) is that if your reasons are good enough for total abstinence, they’re good enough for NFP.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

But, you have to answer the question of when the sin occurred. If you think that’s a mortal sin, then you can’t present yourself for Communion. At what point are you sinning? Is it when you decide to try to avoid this month? Is it on a fertile night and you don’t have relations? Are you incurring multiple mortal sins, one on each fertile night?

I’ve never really given this thought - what is the sin and when does it occur? It sure seems like the Church is trying to obligate us to have relations on certain days. Or, if there are not just reasons we are not supposed to know the fertile days. Neither of those options make sense to me.

So, to be on topic, if a couple says that the woman is 35 and it is impudent to have children after 35, if they avoid until menopause can that decision be objectively evaluated? Is the decision sinful? Is not having fertile_time relations the sin?

I understand that a couple may choose to not be intimate, without there being sin.

I don’t think the Church is obligating us to be intimate.

I think the sinful aspect is the selfishness. We can be selfish to our spouse.

I know this is an extreme example that I’ve used before. In the film Gone With the Wind, Scarlet decides all by herself that she will have no more babies because her waist has gotten too large. So she banishes Rhett Butler from the bedroom. Clark Gable, being a very good actor, flashes a look of hurt for just a second.

The sin here is Scarlet rejecting her husband for a trivial reason.

That is why the Church says our reasons need to be just. It is could be easy for a couple to be selfish towards each other and deny the other, or put a great burden on the other.

Years ago, when the infamous Margaret Sanger started peddling her product, she went to the impoverished neighborhoods of large cities. She targeted women with many children who were overwhelmed. She gave them contraceptive devices to use without the knowledge of their husbands. I guess the idea of avoiding intimacy wasn’t thought of.

I wonder if NFP were developed then, if these women would have been given the knowledge and a tool to work with their husbands, instead of against them.

Another anecdote, my mom is starting the beginning stages of dementia. She can still remember very clearly her youth. She’s losing a bit of self censor

My great grandparents had 8 children 2 of which died in childhood. My mother always talks about the great love and service the two had for each other.

My mother had an aunt on the other side of the family. She had 17 children, a number of which died in early childhood. I recently wondered how she managed to have such a large family. My mom replied, not because they loved each other, but because my uncle was a “cafone” Italian word for brute.

I understood it to mean her uncle was a bit selfish with the marital debt collecting.

 

[Xantippe]

Mary Gail 36 said:

“I understood it to mean her uncle was a bit selfish with the marital debt collecting.”

That’s a very vivid phrase!

 

[Cathmomof6]

Cathmomof6 said:

“I hear far too often that it is not fair to have a child at 40 only to die of old age when that child is a young adult or to deprive that child of a full life because I might not have the energy you need for a small child!!!”

There’s a major issue with the logic in that sentiment. Here’s the problem–you did not take an existing child and deprive them of a mother or an energetic younger mother. That child was never going to exist unless they had an older mother or a mother who died when they were young.

This is a little complicated, and I’m not sure I have the phrasing right, but do you see the problem?

I agree and understand what you are saying but this is also a very common reason given for not having babies past 35. It is more likely that mom/dad will get sick/die early in this child’s life and to choose that suffering for a child is not fair to child who does not yet exist. Or mom/dad will be too old to keep up with child!! Subsequently, couple should not conceive child!

 

[PaulinVA]

I understand that a couple may choose to not be intimate, without there being sin.

I don’t think the Church is obligating us to be intimate.

I think the sinful aspect is the selfishness. We can be selfish to our spouse.

I like your examples, but in the first part of your post, what if the husband and wife both agree to abstain during the fertile time? Neither is being denied.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I like your examples, but in the first part of your post, what if the husband and wife both agree to abstain during the fertile time? Neither is being denied.

I agree.

 

[mommamaree]

I agree and understand what you are saying but this is also a very common reason given for not having babies past 35. It is more likely that mom/dad will get sick/die early in this child’s life and to choose that suffering for a child is not fair to child who does not yet exist. Or mom/dad will be too old to keep up with child!! Subsequently, couple should not conceive child!

Well, those people can keep their opinions. We older mothers will welcome those babies that God sends to us, right? Cathmom, if you WANT to keep having babies, and you know the risks and you feel you are up to the challenge, then go for it. Don’t listen to the naysayers. A Catholic couple is encouraged to be generous. If a couple discerns a serious reason to prevent pregnancy, they are permitted to use abstinence (complete or periodic) to prevent. But, there are a good many couples who know their reasons could be considered serious, and they decide to NOT prevent anyway. That is what happened with me this past Christmastime. I knew I had just reasons to prevent, but we decided to NOT prevent anyway. I got pregnant my first cycle.
I know you are feeling pressure. But popular opinion can never change what the Church has always proclaimed about the purpose of marriage and the marital act, and the beauty of generosity in childbearing.

 

[Xantippe]

Cathmomof6 said:

“I agree and understand what you are saying but this is also a very common reason given for not having babies past 35. It is more likely that mom/dad will get sick/die early in this child’s life and to choose that suffering for a child is not fair to child who does not yet exist. Or mom/dad will be too old to keep up with child!! Subsequently, couple should not conceive child!”

I think more logical phrasing would be, “I do not want to conceive a child that I won’t be able to see through childhood” or “I think it would be unfair to force my older children to care for younger siblings that they did not ask for in the case of my premature death” or “I don’t want to conceive a child I won’t be able to care for properly” or “It’s unfair to my extended family and society at large for me to conceive a child that I won’t be around to take care of through childhood.”

But we do have to scrap the idea that any wrong is being done to the child himself.