The Church, the Pope, NFP and Eugenics

[MysticMissMisty]

Did the Catholic Church ever promote eugenics, at least insofar as the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP)?

It would seem so.

In an address to Italian midwives in 1951, Pope Pius XII seemed to suggest that various reasons, including what he termed “eugenic” ones, are sufficient for married couples to engage in NFP.

Link: https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

This might suggest that the possibility (great or small?) of parents conceiving a child with a genetically-caused birth defect is sufficiently grave reason for the married to use NFP, possibly for a marriage-long period of time.

One might even go so far as to suggest that NFP in these cases is obligatory on parents who might, to whatever degree, have a child with a genetically-caused medical condition.

Yet there are many children with disabilities who live very happy and fulfilled lives. Why would anyone suggest that we try to deny them the gift of life simply because it might be “less perfect” than one without a disability?

As a well-adjusted and very happy person who has a genetically-caused visual impairment, I would appreciate any clarification and your thoughts on these matters. Considering that the Pope cannot teach error as far as salvation in the name of the Church, did (and/or does) the Church, at least in cases of NFP, promote the idea that eugenic reasons are sufficient for using either temporary or permanent NFP solutions? Would She deny the beauty of life to someone because he/she might have a likelihood, great or small, of having some disability or other? (Of course, the ideal would be for the child not to have a disability. I’m not denying that.) IF NFP is either recommended or obligatory in these cases, does the Church state that NFP methods should be occasional, frequent, or marriage-long?

Thanks.

P.S. I also just posted this question to EWTN’s Open Line to get further opinions nn this.

 

[jlc2k2]

Allowing something does not make it the recommended course. Where are you coming across the idea that it may be obligatory or recommended?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Why would anyone suggest that we try to deny them the gift of life simply because it might be “less perfect” than one without a disability?

It’s not a suggestion. It’s an example, that was given in the following order: medical, eugenic, economic. They are no doubt related to the current situation of the parent.

The only “we” in this is the parents. If they have serious concerns about their ability to handle children at the time, they can practice NFP.

 

[heidi_storage]

I read the whole thing, and was puzzled as to what you meant until I came to “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.” Is that your concern?

This pope rhapsodizes over life and the creation of a human in the image of God. He specifically dismisses the idea that children are to be considered “burdens.” In context, he asks midwives NOT to propagandize in favor of avoiding relations. Seems to me the best reading of this would refer to carriers of mutations that cause lethal conditions, such as Tay-Sachs.

I highly doubt he is referring to people with other genetic conditions–such an interpretation would be at odds with the rest of the document. And frankly, most if not all of the population has some nasty thing they could potentially pass down–tendency to heart disease, cancer, autoimmune diseases, mental illness, addiction. We are humans in a fallen world; there is no “master race.”

 

[1ke]

One might even go so far as to suggest that NFP in these cases is obligatory on parents who might, to whatever degree, have a child with a genetically-caused medical condition.

No, one may not go so far as to say that, because the Church doesn’t teach that. You have just made that up WHOLESALE out of nothing.

What the document says is that a couple may have a serious motive to space or plan children. It does not say we are obligated to do so for any reason whatsoever, and certainly not for eugenic reasons.

 

[1ke]

Yet there are many children with disabilities who live very happy and fulfilled lives. Why would anyone suggest that we try to deny them the gift of life simply because it might be “less perfect” than one without a disability?

No one has.

This is entirely Misty making things up that the Pope never said. Nor anyone else.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

For the record I dont subscribe to nfp theologically. I understand that the Church has said it is ok. I disagree. However, I do not see what you see in that address to midwives. And I think it does a disservice to any rational discussion about the Church in this area to say otherwise.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

So, what I am understanding is that this text should be interpreted as NFP being “an allowable option” in certain grave situations, but that in none of them is it obligatory that NFP be followed?

What if a married couple, then, to take another example, finds themselves in such dire poverty that even the necessities of raising children are hampered by this. Wouldn’t practically anyone say that it is obligatory for these parents to use NFP in such a situation?

Then, if it is obligatory here, why not in other cases such as “eugenic” ones? If these two cases are somehow different, how would you argue that they are? If certain cases of potentially genetically passed down conditions require NFP, say, because of their severity, then, where do we draw the line? At blindness, such as my own? At deafness? At something more severe (though, I must say, I have had many people say that these are the absolute worse conditions that can exist)? I would argue, though, that most deaf and blind people (at least the ones that I know) who got that way via genetics quite love their lives despite the challenges. If given the choice, they would rather have existed than not. Most of us are quite fulfiled despite our disabilities and many of us believe that those who are not, who pity themselves every day, etc., just need to be educated about how fulfilling life can be in their situations and even moreso with the right resources to adapt to their situations. So, at least in the case of these kinds of genetically caused conditions, I have always felt that what one can get out of life despite them should outweigh the challenges posed by them.

Granted, there are others who don’t think that way, and I would say that they would not be sinning if they used NFP intermittently or marriage-long because of the way they think. Perhaps this is what the teaching on NFP ultimately comes down to? One is permitted to make sincere prudential judgments regarding it based on one’s own life experience centered, of course, on the moral teachings of the Church?

 

[jlc2k2]

You are starting from a false premise. The Church never says it is obligatory to use NFP or avoid conception.

 

[1ke]

but that in none of them is it obligatory that NFP be followed?

Natural Family Planning is information gathering and periodic abstinence (if trying to avoid) or engaging in intercourse (if trying to conceive).

It is never mandatory to track your fertility or engage in any avoiding or spacing at all. Nor is it mandatory to track your fertility to try to conceive. One can simply leave it to nature.

 

[1ke]

What if a married couple, then, to take another example, finds themselves in such dire poverty that even the necessities of raising children are hampered by this. Wouldn’t practically anyone say that it is obligatory for these parents to use NFP in such a situation?

Prudent, yes. Obligatory, no. The couple themselves is sovereign over their fertility.

 

[1ke]

Then, if it is obligatory here,

It is not obligatory, ever. The rest of your post is irrelevant, because it is not obligatory.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Poor people have the same right to welcome children as do wealthy people. No, Misty, poor people are not required to abstain from having children.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Not only is it not mandatory, it’s not even the recommended. Its allowed.
The default is not to use NFP. NFP is the exception, not the rule.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

So, then, what you are saying is that this is a prudential judgment based on life experience and the personal conviction on which it is based, so long as it is filtered through the moral teachings of the Church?

So, then, since, from my well-informed perspective, disabilities such as I have described are not so horribly tragic as to be grounds for NFP, my position, were I not to engage in it even with the possibility of passing on my condition, would be a valid and acceptable one? (though, I suppose I can see some instances where the disability is so severe/painful/limiting that NFP would be a valid thing to consider, though I would argue that such severity would be pretty extreme before it would outweigh a reasonable enjoyment of life)

I was also reading on another NFP thread where someone said that, if someone has a severe genetic condition that could easily be passed on, that means that that person is not called to marriage? Is this true? Is this valid?

 

[1ke]

would be a valid and acceptable one?

Yes.

So, then, what you are saying is that this is a prudential judgment based on life experience and the personal conviction on which it is based, so long as it is filtered through the moral teachings of the Church?

Yes.

I was also reading on another NFP thread where someone said that, if someone has a severe genetic condition that could easily be passed on, that means that that person is not called to marriage? Is this true? Is this valid?

Without seeing the other thread and it’s context, it is difficult to comment. However, a genetic/hereditary condition is not an impediment to valid marriage. So it sounds like someone’s opinion, certainly not Church teaching.

A person who has a genetic condition and who is therefore unable or unwilling to engage in intercourse, or who insists on sterilization, contraception, or who has a permanent intention against children as a result would not be a candidate for marriage.