Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[Bookcat]

said here…

I have already answered and explained -such is not about completely abstaining. Readers please read the entire posts I made above for detail.

I understand your thinking there. But do not agree entirely with the evaluation.

An example from one classic work that was used by confessors (Prummer OP) :

“It itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and therefore it is permissible for both parties* by mutual free consent *to abstain from the act either *permanently *or for a time.”

(he then notes the obligation on occasions due to charity …danger to chastity).

And later he notes “both parties are *free * to renounce their right to sexual intercourse”.

They are denying themselves a right…they not exercising it. Tis a total denial a non-exercise of the right.

As I noted such would be “quite serious” to do -and should not be done willie nillie - but I not would say that such requires the “serious reason” -such that is required in making use of only the infertile times for the marital act (then they are still engaging in the marital act). The documents from the Church are in the context of when the marital act is being engaged in. Not about a couple deciding to forgo the martial act completely.

As to other sins - yes it is possible as I noted above for a couple to sin via their motive -p ie selfish materialistic etc reasons as you noted. But that is a adjunct to the question. And I have noted such.

I couple can have non-selfish - good reasons to choose such -but that are not “serious reasons”.

This is not something I would advise (readers see posts above) -nor normally do I think a couple ought to undertake such. It is itself a “rather serious” decision. And the mutual love and union expressed etc in the marital act is a normal part of the great gift of marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

I have already answered and explained -such is not about completely abstaining. Readers please read the entire posts I made above for detail.

I understand your thinking there. But do not agree entirely with the evaluation.

An example from one classic work that was used by confessors (Prummer OP) :

“It itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and therefore it is permissible for both parties* by mutual free consent *to abstain from the act either *permanently *or for a time.”

(he then notes the obligation on occasions due to charity …danger to chastity).

And later he notes “both parties are *free * to renounce their right to sexual intercourse”.

They are denying themselves a right…they not exercising it. Tis a total denial a non-exercise of the right.

As I noted such would be “quite serious” to do -and should not be done willie nillie - but I not would say that such requires the “serious reason” -such that is required in making use of only the infertile times for the marital act (then they are still engaging in the marital act). The documents from the Church are in the context of when the marital act is being engaged in. Not about a couple deciding to forgo the martial act completely.

As to other sins - yes it is possible as I noted above for a couple to sin via their motive -p ie selfish materialistic etc reasons as you noted. But that is a adjunct to the question. And I have noted such.

I couple can have non-selfish - good reasons to choose such -but that are not “serious reasons”.

This is not something I would advise (readers see posts above) -nor normally do I think a couple ought to undertake such. It is itself a “rather serious” decision. And the mutual love and union expressed etc in the marital act is a normal part of the great gift of marriage.

Ah, ok then, so you agree that if a couple decides to selfishly avoid children through complete abstinence they are sinning, you just think that those who selfishly avoid through NFP have an additional sin, is that correct?

I still disagree with you, despite having read and understood your arguments, but at least you agree that it is wrong and immoral to avoid children for selfish reasons no matter what method you use to avoid.

 

[Xantippe]

thewanderer said:

“Ah, ok then, so you agree that if a couple decides to selfishly avoid children through complete abstinence they are sinning, you just think that those who selfishly avoid through NFP have an additional sin, is that correct?”

Like Rau, I’m wondering where would the extra sin be in the NFP situation.

 

[Rau]

thewanderer said:

“Ah, ok then, so you agree that if a couple decides to selfishly avoid children through complete abstinence they are sinning, you just think that those who selfishly avoid through NFP have an additional sin, is that correct?”

Like Rau, I’m wondering where would the extra sin be in the NFP situation.

I believe it is because Bookcat sees, as sin, “the enjoying of sex while simultaneously avoiding children” [that being the “NFP situation”]. In the total abstinence situation, there is no enjoying of sex happening. Whether the latter constitutes any sin is I think a function of the motivation for the abstinence. But regardless, the latter is also a decision to have no (more) children. If that decision is taken at the start of the marriage, one wonders why did they marry in the first place? Is there an implication that its OK to trade-of your right to sex for your obligation to have children - as long as you cease all sex?

In regard to NFP, Bookcat’s view (I believe) is that the Church, in expressing its teaching on NFP, was defining a new sin (avoiding fertile times without just reasons), rather than simply pointing out that overuse of NFP reflects the already established sin of “selfishness”. This is why I asked a number of times “what sin does one commit in using NFP without just reasons”, to which no one gave an answer - presumably because that “sin” does not have a name; Bookcat came the closest when he suggested how one might confess this “sin”. I also asked how could it be wrong to limit children and apply excess talents for the service of others, since that does not suggest a selfish heart. My answer to that last question is: *It is not wrong - the calling to the other acts of generosity provides the just reason; * With that answer, Bookcat’s view of an NFP-specific sin, and my focus on selfishness as the potential sin, collapse to the same thing.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer said:

“Ah, ok then, so you agree that if a couple decides to selfishly avoid children through complete abstinence they are sinning, you just think that those who selfishly avoid through NFP have an additional sin, is that correct?”

Like Rau, I’m wondering where would the extra sin be in the NFP situation.

Don’t worry, I am with both of you as well. I get where they are coming from, and why they want to make that distinction, but it does not fit with my understanding of Church teaching at all. But thats ok, so long as they are willing to agree that in both cases avoiding children for selfish reasons is wrong then, which it seems like they are, well, at least bookcat is.

 

[Xantippe]

I think that NFP and total abstinence have a lot more common ground than Bookcat believes. TMI example: we recently found ourselves doing five months of abstinence toward the end of breastfeeding because things were getting unclear, and we felt like fertility could turn on with very little notice. Was that NFP or was it just plain old abstinence? I can’t really say, but I think that the example suggests that in certain marginal cases, it’s very hard to tell the difference. I would even argue that NFP in order to avoid IS in fact just a fancy name for abstinence.

 

[Bookcat]

Ah, ok then, so you agree that if a couple decides to selfishly avoid children through complete abstinence they are sinning, you just think that those who selfishly avoid through NFP have an additional sin, is that correct?

I still disagree with you, despite having read and understood your arguments, but at least you agree that it is wrong and immoral to avoid children for selfish reasons no matter what method you use to avoid.

Yes - selfishness is yes a sin.

Yes the wrongful use of NFP is another sin - another species of sin.

I did not pull what I noted simply from my thoughts as “my invention” - -it is not a new thing - tis Catholic Moral Theology.

A Blessed Easter!

 

[Bookcat]

This is why I asked a number of times “what sin does one commit in using NFP without just reasons”, to which no one gave an answer - presumably because that “sin” does not have a name; Bookcat came the closest when he suggested how one might confess this “sin”. I also asked how could it be wrong to limit children and apply excess talents for the service of others, since that does not suggest a selfish heart. My answer to that last question is: *It is not wrong - the calling to the other acts of generosity provides the just reason; * With that answer, Bookcat’s view of an NFP-specific sin, and my focus on selfishness as the potential sin, collapse to the same thing.

The species (the kind) to repent of and confess can be expressed for example: “I accuse myself of periodic continence without serious reasons” or “I accuse myself of using NFP to avoid a new conception without serious reasons” - or one could say even “I accuse myself of using NFP without serious reasons but out of selfishness”.
A Blessed Easter!*

 

[thewanderer]

Yes - selfishness is yes a sin.

Yes the wrongful use of NFP is another sin - another species of sin.

I did not pull what I noted simply from my thoughts as “my invention” - -it is not a new thing - tis Catholic Moral Theology.

A Blessed Easter!

It is your interpretation of Church teaching, just as my views on the matter are my interpretation of Church teaching. We each honestly believe that we are correctly representing Church teaching. We obviously can’t both be right, but so long as we are honestly seeking for the truth then it doesn’t really matter that our interpretations are different, we will hopefully both find out the truth one day in heaven.

 

[Vico]

thewanderer said:

“Ah, ok then, so you agree that if a couple decides to selfishly avoid children through complete abstinence they are sinning, you just think that those who selfishly avoid through NFP have an additional sin, is that correct?”

Like Rau, I’m wondering where would the extra sin be in the NFP situation.

Matrimony where the couple do not satisfy the inclination of nature is not sin, rather sin occurs for “married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind.”

From Address to Midwives of Pope Pius XII (1951):The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
**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.

~

The Medical indication [for NFP] is a serious danger to the health or the life of the mother, diagnosed by a doctor, qualified either from a scientific point of view or from a moral point of view.** In such a case the obligation “of providing for the preservation of mankind” (621) ceases, because a woman is not obliged, by the matrimonial contract, to expose herself to dangers or injury which are not ordinarily part of maternity (Courier de Rome, June 1991, p.2).

***(Reference: No. 621 in Papal Teaching: Matrimony. Selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, trans. Michael J. Byrnes. Boston: St. Paul Books, 1963.)
*

 

[Rau]

I agree. The practical effect of this is to say you “need serious reasons to have a small family”.

Matrimony where the couple do not satisfy the inclination of nature is not sin, rather sin occurs for “married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind.”

From Address to Midwives of Pope Pius XII (1951):The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
**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.

~

The Medical indication [for NFP] is a serious danger to the health or the life of the mother, diagnosed by a doctor, qualified either from a scientific point of view or from a moral point of view.** In such a case the obligation “of providing for the preservation of mankind” (621) ceases, because a woman is not obliged, by the matrimonial contract, to expose herself to dangers or injury which are not ordinarily part of maternity (Courier de Rome, June 1991, p.2).

***(Reference: No. 621 in Papal Teaching: Matrimony. Selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, trans. Michael J. Byrnes. Boston: St. Paul Books, 1963.)
*

This is one if the clearest statements on the subject. I cannot escape the conclusion that it implies couples should have children up to the point that serious reasons dictate otherwise, or natural forces bring an end to conception and child bearing. I struggle with this, because it appears to close off a couples option for how they utilize their talents in the world, the balance they want to adopt between parenthood and other good endeavors.

 

[Xantippe]

Rau said:

“I cannot escape the conclusion that it implies couples should have children up to the point that serious reasons dictate otherwise, or natural forces bring an end to conception and child bearing. I struggle with this, because it appears to close off a couples option for how they utilize their talents in the world, the balance they want to adopt between parenthood and other good endeavors.”

I would take “serious” to be the opposite of frivolous, and would argue that “other good endeavors” are a serious reason.

I hope to do more analysis of the documents later, and I may be able to get my husband the ethicist to have a look and do a little analysis later.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Matrimony where the couple do not satisfy the inclination of nature is not sin, rather sin occurs for “married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind.”

From Address to Midwives of Pope Pius XII (1951):The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
**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.

~

The Medical indication [for NFP] is a serious danger to the health or the life of the mother, diagnosed by a doctor, qualified either from a scientific point of view or from a moral point of view.** In such a case the obligation “of providing for the preservation of mankind” (621) ceases, because a woman is not obliged, by the matrimonial contract, to expose herself to dangers or injury which are not ordinarily part of maternity (Courier de Rome, June 1991, p.2).

***(Reference: No. 621 in Papal Teaching: Matrimony. Selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, trans. Michael J. Byrnes. Boston: St. Paul Books, 1963.)
*

That is very interesting. Thanks for posting

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Rau said:

“I cannot escape the conclusion that it implies couples should have children up to the point that serious reasons dictate otherwise, or natural forces bring an end to conception and child bearing. I struggle with this, because it appears to close off a couples option for how they utilize their talents in the world, the balance they want to adopt between parenthood and other good endeavors.”

I would take “serious” to be the opposite of frivolous, and would argue that “other good endeavors” are a serious reason.

I hope to do more analysis of the documents later, and I may be able to get my husband the ethicist to have a look and do a little analysis later.

2 completely off the subject questions.
1 Can you PM me that book.
2 What is a Catholic Ethicist?

 

[Bookcat]

It is your interpretation of Church teaching, just as my views on the matter are my interpretation of Church teaching. We each honestly believe that we are correctly representing Church teaching. We obviously can’t both be right, but so long as we are honestly seeking for the truth then it doesn’t really matter that our interpretations are different, we will hopefully both find out the truth one day in heaven.

Again -tis not really “my idea” -* I receive what has been the Theological understanding and practice in the Church* (not that such is recommended…but it is possible).

An example from one classic work that was used by confessors (Prummer OP) :

“It itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and therefore it is permissible for both parties by mutual free consent to abstain from the act either permanently or for a time.”

(he then notes the obligation on occasions due to charity …danger to chastity).

And later he notes “both parties are free to renounce their right to sexual intercourse”.

They are denying themselves a right…they not exercising it. Tis a total denial a non-exercise of the right. (again I am not recommending such - readers see posts above).

 

[Xantippe]

I think that the Address to Midwives is not nearly as rigoristic as it is being represented in this thread.

From the Address:

“Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind.”

I was earlier googling the minimum average number of births necessary to sustain the population (i.e. provide for “the preservation of mankind”), and Google informed me that in developed countries, you need an average of 2.1 births per woman while in developing countries you may need around 3.4 because of the higher mortality rate. Now, allowing for the fact that not every woman is able or willing to have children, the women who do have children will need to have more than 2.1 or 3.4 each, but that doesn’t get us to more than 3-4 for a developed country or 4-6 for a developing country. This is very approximate (a math person would need to do the actual calculations), but it would appear that “providing for the preservation of mankind” purely in terms of having babies does not necessarily need to consume every healthy, conscientious married woman’s entire reproductive life.

On the other hand, “providing for the preservation of mankind” might very well require a very substantial investment of time and resources on the part of parents, if “the preservation of mankind” is understood more broadly to include the upbringing and education of morally upright offspring who will grow up to serve their fellow man.

“The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages.”

As opposed to marriages with no offspring at all.

“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.”

My husband points out that “medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”” are described here as examples of “Serious motives,” and that those four items are not intended to be an exhaustive list of “serious motives”.

I would add that that “serious motives” might well include Rau’s case of wanting to contribute in some other way than reproduction to general welfare. I also note that “medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”” cover a lot of ground, particularly “economic” and “social.” There’s definitely room in those last two for “Mom and Dad need to use NFP because Mom’s got to work so the kids can go to Catholic school and graduate college with no debt so that they can get married and have kids themselves at a reasonable age.” (Student loans have lately been very harmful with regard to slowing down family formation among the younger generation.)

“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.”

It’s not clear whether the pope here means couples who want no children at all or couples who already have children. This may in fact be primarily addressed to couples who want no children at all, ever.

I forget if this has been posted in this thread, but my husband directs me to Simcha Fisher’s “Why doesn’t the Church just make a list?”

patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2011/03/23/why-doesnt-the-church-just-make-a-list/

Here’s the first paragraph of Simcha Fisher’s piece:

“When Catholics talk about NFP, someone always asks rather plaintively why the Church doesn’t just clear up all the confusion about what does and does not constitute a legitimate reason to avoid a pregnancy. Why not just make a list: on the right, good reasons for postponing a pregnancy; on the left, bad reasons?”

My husband mentions that “serious” in ethical discussions doesn’t necessarily mean anything dire, but just means appropriate and proportionate, given what is at stake.

 

[Xantippe]

My husband was just looking up the official Vatican translation of Humanae Vitae (which being addressed to the universal church is more authoritative than the Address to Midwives). Apparently, the official translation of Humanae Vitae talks of “well-grounded reasons [iustae … causae]” (para. 16) as well as “serious reasons” (para. 10) as if they were interchangeable.

 

[Vico]

I think that the Address to Midwives is not nearly as rigoristic as it is being represented in this thread.

From the Address:

“Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind.”

I was earlier googling the minimum average number of births necessary to sustain the population (i.e. provide for “the preservation of mankind”), and Google informed me that in developed countries, you need an average of 2.1 births per woman while in developing countries you may need around 3.4 because of the higher mortality rate. Now, allowing for the fact that not every woman is able or willing to have children, the women who do have children will need to have more than 2.1 or 3.4 each, but that doesn’t get us to more than 3-4 for a developed country or 4-6 for a developing country. This is very approximate (a math person would need to do the actual calculations), but it would appear that “providing for the preservation of mankind” purely in terms of having babies does not necessarily need to consume every healthy, conscientious married woman’s entire reproductive life.

On the other hand, “providing for the preservation of mankind” might very well require a very substantial investment of time and resources on the part of parents, if “the preservation of mankind” is understood more broadly to include the upbringing and education of morally upright offspring who will grow up to serve their fellow man.

“The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages.”

As opposed to marriages with no offspring at all.

“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.”

My husband points out that “medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”” are described here as examples of “Serious motives,” and that those four items are not intended to be an exhaustive list of “serious motives”.

I would add that that “serious motives” might well include Rau’s case of wanting to contribute in some other way than reproduction to general welfare. I also note that “medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”” cover a lot of ground, particularly “economic” and “social.” There’s definitely room in those last two for “Mom and Dad need to use NFP because Mom’s got to work so the kids can go to Catholic school and graduate college with no debt so that they can get married and have kids themselves at a reasonable age.” (Student loans have lately been very harmful with regard to slowing down family formation among the younger generation.)

“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.”

It’s not clear whether the pope here means couples who want no children at all or couples who already have children. This may in fact be primarily addressed to couples who want no children at all, ever.

I forget if this has been posted in this thread, but my husband directs me to Simcha Fisher’s “Why doesn’t the Church just make a list?”

patheos.com/blogs/simchafisher/2011/03/23/why-doesnt-the-church-just-make-a-list/

Here’s the first paragraph of Simcha Fisher’s piece:

“When Catholics talk about NFP, someone always asks rather plaintively why the Church doesn’t just clear up all the confusion about what does and does not constitute a legitimate reason to avoid a pregnancy. Why not just make a list: on the right, good reasons for postponing a pregnancy; on the left, bad reasons?”

My husband mentions that “serious” in ethical discussions doesn’t necessarily mean anything dire, but just means appropriate and proportionate, given what is at stake.

Examples:

• The Economic indication: a real concrete situation in which the couple’s economic means are insufficient to assume the expenses of another child.
• The Eugenic indication: almost absolute certainty that one will bring into the world physically or psychologically deformed children.
• Serious reasons in the social order:

1. poor housing conditions, which force a couple to live in such crowded quarters that an additional child would indeed create a great burden.
2. a man who expects to be sent to work in a distant place for a number of years, incapacitating him to fulfill his responsibilities as a father.
3. social conditions during wartime.

 

[Bookcat]

“serious” - doesn’t necessarily mean anything dire

Serious is - well serious. But it 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. It falls to the married couple to judge such (looking at the criteria the Church has given -and perhaps seeking objective advice) before God.

 

[Bookcat]

My husband was just looking up the official Vatican translation of Humanae Vitae (which being addressed to the universal church is more authoritative than the Address to Midwives). Apparently, the official translation of Humanae Vitae talks of “well-grounded reasons [iustae … causae]” (para. 16) as well as “serious reasons” (para. 10) as if they were interchangeable.

Right - the reason must be just -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.

The Church in the more recent documents such as the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI uses the term Serious Reasons.

Here is the wonderful summary from it – intended for all including the non-theologian reader:

1. 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.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

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

“serious” - doesn’t necessarily mean anything dire

Serious is - well serious. But it 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. 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”.