Maternal Age as a serious reason to avoid pregnancy

[Rico_S]

Wow…after thinking I had this figured out, I am now more confused than ever.

Bookcat seems confident the sin of misusing NFP is not a matter of simple lack of generosity in having more children, but rather the sin is continuing to have sex (even properly ordered) while lacking said generosity.

If practicing complete abstinence, a “serious” reason is not required…and there is no sin in mutually agreeing to not participate in the marital act at all (even having the exact same lack of generosity as the sinning couple misusing NFP as their motive----and in spite of the fact that the marriage is ordered toward the good of spouses **and **procreation and rearing of offspring).

I will have to mull this over some more, but at first glance, this doesn’t seem to line up well.

 

[Bookcat]

Wow…after thinking I had this figured out, I am now more confused than ever.

Bookcat seems confident the sin of misusing NFP is not a matter of simple lack of generosity in having more children, but rather the sin is continuing to have sex (even properly ordered) while lacking said generosity.

That is the nature of the use of NFP to avoid without serious reasons -one is engaging in the marital act only in the infertile times (intentionally) without a serious reason.

Here is what I said:

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”.

If practicing complete abstinence, a “serious” reason is not required…and there is no sin in mutually agreeing to not participate in the marital act at all (even having the exact same lack of generosity as the sinning couple misusing NFP as their motive----and in spite of the fact that the marriage is ordered toward the good of spouses **and **procreation and rearing of offspring).

As I noted above - there can be sinfulness in motive - sure.

And as I noted this is not something that is recommended really -I note it only as a possibility (not relating such to the main q of the thread either) theologically. For they are free to mutually decide this course. And if there is not say a near occasion of mortal sin --that too is part of the equation (which can enter into NFP too by the way) or other serious effects.

Such is not as I noted recommended - the marital act is yes normally to be part of marriage - expressing the self- gift and mutual love …etc. Such abstinance can have not good effects if it is for a long time - or perpetual - including being them becoming irritable, not as loving, temptations against chastity -and other things that effect them and even their children–including of course no more new brother or sister…so yes it is not something willie nillie to enter into …it is a rather serious decision to make- especially if for a long time or perpetual. I only note that it is theological possible.

And it is good to note too: It can be even be good say to abstain for a time to be given more to prayer - or for the penitential season of Lent. No serious reasons needed. (I am not meaning they say - honey - the fertile time is coming up so lets…pray…I am meaning they decide a particular time that can embrace both times in the cycle.) --But as St. Paul noted - they ought to return to their normal marital life after a short time -not to prolong it.

Though some few have entered even into marriage (rare vocation) -exchanging the right to the marital act -but living in complete continence for the sake of a particular spiritual life. Others (again few) have ceased relations for the same reason (again with much spiritual direction and discernment) in response to a particular vocation.

 

[Xantippe]

BookCat said:

“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.”

In the case of self-defense, “serious” means that the response needs to be proportionate and appropriate to the situation.

For instance, even if a six-year-old would like to kill you with with their bare hands, deadly force in response is disproportionate and inappropriate to the situation.

“It can be even be good say to abstain for a time to be given more to prayer - or for the penitential season of Lent. No serious reasons needed.”

I would say that is a serious reason. It’s certainly not a frivolous reason.

It certainly would have been regarded as serious in those times and places in the Christian world where marital abstinence during Lent has been obligatory.

 

[Xantippe]

Vico said:

“* The Eugenic indication: almost absolute certainty that one will bring into the world physically or psychologically deformed children.”

Is this a quote from an actual document or your composition?

I have to note that even a 50%, or 25% or even 10% or 5% chance of giving birth to a seriously disabled child sounds like a serious reason to me.

It certainly isn’t a frivolous reason.

 

[Bookcat]

BookCat said:

“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.”

In the case of self-defense, “serious” means that the response needs to be proportionate and appropriate to the situation.

For instance, even if a six-year-old would like to kill you with with their bare hands, deadly force in response is disproportionate and inappropriate to the situation.

Right.

“It can be even be good say to abstain for a time to be given more to prayer - or for the penitential season of Lent. No serious reasons needed.”

I would say that is a serious reason. It’s certainly not a frivolous reason.

It certainly would have been regarded as serious in those times and places in the Christian world where marital abstinence during Lent has been obligatory.

No I would not say such is a “serious reason”.

It is important to avoid misunderstands an so to highlight that the Church does not say “serious reason” = “not a frivolous reason” (though yes a frivolous reason is not a serious reason to be sure).

Again - in terms of “for prayer” - there is absolutely on making use of “periodic continence” there - in the sense of NFP to avoid a new conception. Hence no serious reasons needed.

The couple has set aside some particular time for prayer - not looking at “is it a fertile time?”

(unless of course the have serious reasons to avoid and so time it so one dedicates that time for prayer!)

They are not “only making use of the infertile times” for marital relation -they are simply abstaining from marital relations for that time dedicated to prayer (not that we should not pray always~!..but with a particular dedication. No serious reason needed.

 

[Xantippe]

Would it have been a serious reason in those times and places when there was a Church discipline of marital abstinence during Lent?

To this day, many Orthodox Christians observe this discipline. Presumably, in that case, the existence of the discipline is a serious reason.

Bookcat said:

“Again - in terms of “for prayer” - there is absolutely on making use of “periodic continence” there - in the sense of NFP to avoid a new conception. Hence no serious reasons needed.”

So one doesn’t need serious reasons to not have sex with one’s spouse?

Also, I was just looking up the definition of “frivolous.” The internet tells me that “frivolous” means “not having any serious purpose or value.” In other words, “frivolous” is an opposite of “serious.”

 

[Bookcat]

Would it have been a serious reason in those times and places when there was a Church discipline of marital abstinence during Lent?

If such took place in centuries past again

1. Periodic Continence - of the kind meant by NFP did was not really known back then.
2. Again they would not be seeking to avoid a new conception by avoiding the fertile times and making use of the infertile times -so it has nothing to do with “serious reason”.

 

[Bookcat]

Also, I was just looking up the definition of “frivolous.” The internet tells me that “frivolous” means “not having any serious purpose or value.” In other words, “frivolous” is an opposite of “serious.”

Such is not a theological term…and the Church is not using saying “serious” per se = “non frivolous” anyhow.

 

[Bookcat]

To this day, many Orthodox Christians observe this discipline. Presumably, in that case, the existence of the discipline is a serious reason.

The Orthodox practice -whatever it may be - is not germine here.

 

[Bookcat]

So one doesn’t need serious reasons to not have sex with one’s spouse?

No.

---

Now one needs a serious reason to – make use of only the infertile times.

And of course there is the obligation of each spouse to the other to not deny marital relations.

 

[Xantippe]

Also, let’s bear in mind that the marital duty is not just procreation, but also education of offspring. There might easily be conflicts and trade-offs between continued procreation and adequate education of existing children. (I have certainly noticed that my supervision of my big kids with regard to homework and chores has been impaired ever since the appearance of their baby sister–I used to be much more on the ball.)

 

[Cricket2]

Thanks, Paul in VA!

I don’t think there’s an obligation to avoid in most cases, but I would say that age alone is potentially a serious reason, particularly as age increases and the likelihood of a successful pregnancy approaches zero.

Here’s a chart showing maternal age vs. fertility vs. risk of miscarriages. As you can see, the steep fall in fertility in the 40s is largely accounted for by the steep rise in miscarriages. At some point in the later 40s, there’s over a 90% chance of miscarriage.

geneticsandfertility.com/maternal-age-reproduction/

And these miscarriages are more than likely due to chromosomal abnormalities that make it impossible for the fetus to live. Of course the most known birth defect in late life pregnancies is Down’s Syndrome. It is now known that the father’s age can also be a contributing factor to these defects. So if both parents are up in years the problem is greater than ever.

I think older parents just need to be open to the fact that there is less chance of conceiving and if they do conceive a greater chance of having a child with a birth defect that is due to chromosomal abnormalities. Be ready and willing to accept and raise a child that is affected this way.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’ve read Germaine Grisez 's section dealing with this topic in his work The Way of the Lord Jesus.

It is Volume II, Chapter 9 section F.

I understand that he is one of the best, orthodox theologians still living. He is the last living theologian that worked on Humanae Vitae. He worked with Father John C. Ford, another highly respected moral theologian, also involved in the preparation of Humanae Vitae.

I won’t comment on what it says. I would just suggest to peruse it.

 

[Bookcat]

I’ve read Germaine Grisez 's section dealing with this topic in his work The Way of the Lord Jesus.

It is Volume II, Chapter 9 section F.

I understand that he is one of the best, orthodox theologians still living. He is the last living theologian that worked on Humanae Vitae. He worked with Father John C. Ford, another highly respected moral theologian, also involved in the preparation of Humanae Vitae.

I won’t comment on what it says. I would just suggest to peruse it.

Yes I have his works I, II and III (but tis not my favorite -not fond of his style and I do not always agree with all he might say but he is orthodox and I use them for reference …and I even spoke with him years ago on a particular moral issue seeking his advice)

 

[thewanderer]

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).

You are clearly still misunderstanding me book at, I agree with this entire post, however, I still disagree with the idea that in the particular instance where a couple abstains for the sake of avoiding children they are not under the same requirements as those who abstain but also make use of the fertile times. Nothing I am saying contradicts the fact that there are many reasons couples can abstain, including just a mutual decision that they both want to for no particular reason. However, if their reason for abstaining is to regulate births then they need serious reasons to justify, not the abstaining, but the regulating of births.

 

[Bookcat]

You are clearly still misunderstanding me bookcat, I agree with this entire post, however, I still disagree with the idea that in the particular instance where a couple abstains for the sake of avoiding children they are not under the same requirements as those who abstain but also make use of the fertile times. Nothing I am saying contradicts the fact that there are many reasons couples can abstain, including just a mutual decision that they both want to for no particular reason. However, if their reason for abstaining is to regulate births then they need serious reasons to justify, not the abstaining, but the regulating of births.

I am glad you agree there

And I understand you disagree as you note. You will not though I believe find any Catholic theological source that states that your disagreement is correct.

(I provided a theological example source where what I noted is the case…they are free …)

They are not exercising their right to the marital act -and assuming they are avoiding any near occasion of mortal sin (etc as noted above-- readers note I gave lots of reasons why this is not the course to normally take for any long periods-- in posts above).

Thus they are not engaging in periodic continence while making use of the infertile times – they are simply not engaging in the marital act at all. They do not need a serious reason for such (that criteria is in terms of the use of infertile periods alone) - for there is no obligation per se (aside from their obligation to each other) for them to engage in the marital act - say for the Month of May or May and June… etc.

If they were making use of the infertile times -then yes then they would need a serious reason*.

*which does not mean it need be a life or death thing…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Bookcat.
I just wanted to chime in real quick and comment that you have handled this thread excellently. I have continued to read and I am fascinated by your posts and am thinking and praying about this very subject and these writings.

All:

NFP threads and even the thread this spun off from have a tendency to get pretty personal and emotions can get raised. I want to thank all for such a great thread. Not only has it been charitable with a hard subject but all involved, not just bookcat, have been quite helpful with the issues.

 

[Rau]

If a couple decides they do not want more children, and decide to abstain till menopause, then I understand from bookcat’s post that there can be no sin “of NFP” there because the couple did not exploit the infertile times.

Should the infertile time of post-menopause be viewed differently or in the same way?

 

[Bookcat]

If a couple decides they do not want more children, and decide to abstain till menopause, then I understand from bookcat’s post that there can be no sin “of misuse of NFP” there because the couple did not exploit the infertile times (no serious reason)

Should the infertile time of post-menopause be viewed differently or in the same way?

(readers note my various posts above - much ought to be considered in such --(and not good motive etc_ – a decision-and such is not recommended…seek out counsel if one is thinking of such -for the marital act is normally part and partial of marriage)

---

The key for post-menopause: the virtue of temperance.

(it is key of course for all times…but it remains a key then as always)

CCC

Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion"

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

(the other aspects too of course can be there -they couple may judge to say take some short time dedicated to prayer -so long as not a near occasion etc …etc)

 

[Bookcat]

CCC

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. **At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.**