What is the morally correct level of children?

[itsjustdave1988]

I started this thread due to some of the conversations going on in this thread NFP & Money and this thread Is it wrong to have sex when finished having kids?

Fr. Gerald Kelly, S.J. explained the moral distinction between NFP and artificial birth control very accurately and succinctly in his book, *Medico-Moral Problems (1958):
*“The Church teaches that contraception is a sin because it means doing what is evil. It is not the same with [Natural Family Planning (NFP)]. Those who practice [NFP] do nothing evil. They simply omit doing something good — that is, they abstain from intercourse at the time when it might be fertile. Therefore, the morality of using [NFP] must be judged in the same way as other omissions: if the abstinence from intercourse is a neglect of duty, it is sinful; if it does not imply a neglect of duty, it is not sinful.”
It seems to me there’s a common misunderstanding of Catholic moral theology that couples must keep having children, so long as they are able. To do otherwise, according to some, is a neglect of duty. I disagree.

While they certainly may continue having more children, no couple is obliged to have more children beyond what the Church describes as the “morally correct level.” It is the couple’s responsibility to discern what the “morally correct level” is, taking into account the good of the family, state of health and means of the couple, the good of society, the good of the Church, and the good of mankind.

“Just” or worthy reasons are required if**** the couple seeks to use NFP to limit the number of their children below the morally correct level.

According to John Paul II:

The use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.
[John Paul II, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb120.htm”]General Audience address, 5 September 1984

]
Sometimes when talking with some Catholics, one might get the impression that having as many kids as possible is a tenet of our faith, and those that think just two or three kids is the “morally correct level” are simply falling into the a “contraceptive mentality.”

In past discussions on the matter, one traditionalist Catholic stated, “We have never used NFP because we believe that it is up to God to decide how many children we should have…We traditionalists Catholics call this Catholic birth control when NFP is used…Obviously there is something wrong with Vatican II just from this immoral practice of Catholic birth control.”
While no one is obliged to use periodic continence (NFP) to limit the size of their family, Catholic moral theology even before Vatican II did not oblige a couple to have as many children as possible.

Although John Paul II praises large families, he wrote in Familiaris consortio:

“…the fruitfulness of conjugal love is not restricted solely to the
procreation of children…it is enlarged and enriched by all those fruits of moral, spiritual and supernatural life which the father and mother are called to hand on to their children, and through the children to the Church and to the world.” (no. 28)

Consequently, my understanding of Catholic moral theology on the matter is:
**

1. ** **Parents must have special excusing causes (i.e., just reason) to use periodic continence [NFP] to have less than the “morally correct level” of children.
2. ** *Parent need no special excusing causes to use periodic continence if they are simply spacing their children or already have the “morally correct level” of children.

---

To be able to apply the above criteria,couples must conscientiously discerned what is the “morally correct level” of children. No one else can tell them what this level is. This is something that varies by circumstances and time. They must discern this by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind.

Anyone disagree?

 

[eponymic]

There is nothing that you said that I disagree with, prima facie.

However, let’s set up a hypothetical. The Smiths, given a certain set of emotional, spiritual, financial and other circumstances, has decided that while they could raise more children, that their efforts as a married couple would best be served by enriching the lives of those around them, rather than having more children. In this example, the couple has reached their “morally correct level” of children.

At the same time, the Joneses are in an identical set of circumstances, but they decide that they should have more children than the Smiths. As the Smiths had reached a morally correct level, and the moral and spiritual situation surrounding the two families are identical, does this mean that the Joneses have reached a morally incorrect level of children, by having too many? Clearly, the teachings of the Church would be incompatible with such a notion, as this would imply that having a child could be morally negative under a given set of circumstances. Therefore, the “morally correct level” would be a minimum, not a specific number or range.

Let’s say a third otherwise identical family, the Browns, had fewer children than the Smiths. This fact does not mean that the Browns have not reached the morally correct level. This is for the same reason that the Smiths can be at the morally correct level while having less than the Joneses. If a different family has more children under the same circumstances, the morally correct level of children for the Browns (or Smiths) is unaffected. Therefore, if the morally correct level of children for the Smiths is X, then another family having X+1 (as the Joneses) or X-1 (as the Browns) could also have a morally correct level of children.

Finally, it is left up to each individual couple to decide how many children to have. Therefore, if the Smiths determine that they should have two children, it would be morally acceptable for the Browns to have one. Since this is the case, it should also be morally correct for the Smiths to be in a situation similar to the Browns, and only have one instead of two. Keeping with the previous scenario, if the Smiths only have one child, it would be morally correct for the Browns to decide that they will not have any children of their own. However, this is incompatible with the Churches teachings regarding marriage, in that every couple must accept children as the fruit of their conjugal love. This means that the morally correct level of children must be at least one.

There are two caveats to this morally correct level of one child. The first caveat is obviously the case of infertility, or other issues beyond the scope of the family, that causes the couple to have fewer children than they discerned to be morally correct. Secondly, the hypothetical scenario defined above does not state, and is independent of, the current size of the family. Therefore, the morally correct level of children is not about planning the entirety of the family at once, but rather each child, one at a time. Married couples rarely, if ever, plan to get pregnant with the intention of multiple births. The moral choice is either to increase the size of one’s family or not. If the morally correct level of children is non-zero, this implies that there should be no scenario where a couple may decide not to have more children. This seems at odds with the idea that Catholic families are morally allowed to be small, barring infertility or other medical issues.

The answer to the apparent contradiction lies in the words of John Paul II. The family does not have to grow solely in the number of people that comprise it, but also in the moral, spiritual and supernatural aspects of the parents, the children, and the surrounding community. The fruits of conjugal love may take a physical form through children, are greater than a only a physical form. The spiritual size of the family must always continue to grow, even if the physical size of the family does not. Furthermore, this would also imply that the Browns can indeed discern to have the fewest number of children possible, zero, while still achieving a morally correct level as long as the spiritual aspect of their marriage continues to grow beyond themselves.

Children, as a manifestation of conjugal love, as more than just mouths to feed. They are brains to educate, souls to enrich, and love to grow. Children are not restricted to biological entities, and number of physical children is not nearly as important as the spiritual and moral impact that the couple and children have on themselves and their community.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…At the same time, the Joneses are in an identical set of circumstances…

In practice, I have doubts that circumstances, no matter how similar, can be identical.

… but they decide that they should have more children than the Smiths. As the Smiths had reached a morally correct level, and the moral and spiritual situation surrounding the two families are identical, does this mean that the Joneses have reached a morally incorrect level of children, by having too many?

In the determination of the Jones family, if the good of family, the Church, society, and mankind was sincerely considered, just like with the Smith family, then neither commit formal sin in their choice. The morally correct level is in practice and by definition, a subjective number based upon the conscientious judgment of each couple.

Nonetheless, God does know the “objective” number at which below or above this is not, in reality, the “greater good” for the family/Church/society/mankind. A subjective couple may determine that another child is “good”, but the result may produce hardships on health, finances, psychological well-being, etc. which may not objectively be the greater good. Likewise, having no more children may not be the “greater good” for their family, or Church, or society, or mankind.

Nonetheless, the couple’s role is to prayerfully discern what that “objective” number might be, given their unique circumstances, seeking always to do the will of God.

There are no hard and fast norms for making this decision in Catholic moral theology. I presume, although the circumstances were identical, that neither of these two families willfully chose to act contrary to God’s will. I presume each chose in accord with what they believed was the “greater good” for their family, society, Church, and mankind. Thus, neither the Joneses nor the Smiths can think themselves culpable for formal sin by having one more (or no more) children. Even if the circumstances are hypothetically the same, the two families drew different conclusions based upon their conscientious discernment.

Consequently, ***in practice *the “morally correct level” is a subjectively-based number, (i.e., some number greater than zero). It’s value–by definition–is a conscientious determination made by the couple, based upon their understanding of the good of one’s own family, the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind. Only God knows whether that prayerful determination was accurate or not, or whether it was based upon honorable motives or not, objectively speaking.

My focus was on Catholic casuistry–the determination of right and wrong in questions of conduct or conscience. This is involves the practical judgments of couples and confessors.

In Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, the word translated “serious” is in Latin, “iustae”, which literally means “just” reasons. In the volume of post-Vatican II documents edited by Austin Flannery (Vatican Council II : More Postconciliar Documents, Boston : Daughters of St. Paul, c. 1982), iustae is translated as “reasonable” (p. 405). Among other virtues, this issue has something to do with the virtue of “justice”, which is concerned with regard to what is obligatory according to one’s state. It concerns fulfilling a duty. This is important in understanding what John Paul II called the “morally correct level” of children which is conscientiously determine by each married couple.

So, what is reasonable? How are we to justly discern if we are ready for more children or not? How do we know what the morally correct level" is? What is the “characteristic service” which is owed by married couples to meet the demands of justice?

Pius XII, in his Address to Midwives (1951) has framed the “just” reasons with having to do with the obligations of married couples, which is to participate in God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” Lacking a grave reason, the married couple is obliged to procreate, to help provide for the “preservation of mankind.” The preservation of society, the state, the Church itself, depends upon the procreation of children. To what extent is each married couple obliged to preserve mankind? How many children does a single couple need to have to provide for the perseveration of mankind, the State, the Church? Seems this number depends very much on changing societal, family, and Church circumstances.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Paul VI wrote the following, in Gaudium Et Spes:

“They [married couples] will thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which may be foreseen. For this accounting they will reckon with both the material and spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally they will consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself” (no. 50).

So it appears Paul VI agrees that the “morally correct level” very much depends upon prudent judgment of present circumstances, the welfare of one’s family, the material and spiritual conditions one lives in, considering also the interests of one’s family, society, and Church.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

A more detailed treatment of the morality of periodic continence is described in Contemporary Moral Theology,Vol. II, Marriage Questions, by John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J., (Westminster Maryland: Newman Press, 1964). This text dedicates three chapters to discussing the morality of periodic continence.

According to Fathers Ford and Kelly:

the duty [to procreate] is the conservation of the family, the state, the Church, the human race. This seems to mean that one measure of the duty as far as legal justice and piety to the race are concerned is the population need of the time…

“[The basis of the obligation] follows the analogy of other duties, whether to individuals or to society. For instance, on the individual plane, the strict duty of charity to one’s neighbor is measured, not only by one’s ability to help, but also by the neighbor’s need. No one is strictly obliged in charity to give as much as he conveniently can to a neighbor whose needs are satisfied by much less than that. Another analogy, this time in the social sphere, is the duty of paying taxes. No government can justly set up a tax rule that each citizen must give the government as much as he can. The just measure must begin with the society’s need. Once the general need is determined, then the tax is levied on the citizens proportionately, according to norms that include their relative ability to pay.”

“The theory is simply that there is a limit to the duty beyond which no couple is strictly obliged by legal justice or piety to have more children. The theory does not say that all couples have the same obligation as regards the number of children they should have. The excusing causes * sufficiently take care of this need for proportion… [The theory] acknowledges that even the wealthy and the healthy can be acting beyond the call of duty by rearing large families.” (p. 421-422).

“As for the expressions ‘grave motive,’ ‘serious reasons,’ etc…they are the equivalent of the expression "proportionate reasons*…AAS, 43 (1951), 845-46. On Nov. 26, 1951, a month or so after the Address to the Midwives, Pius XII, addressing a convention of the “Family Front,” referred to the Address to the Midwives, and mentioned that in it he had asserted the legitimacy, within limits, of using periodic continence for the control of births. And he said of these limits (which are equivalently the “grave motives” of the Address) that they are “indeed quite broad” (”… ilimiti–in verita en larghi"), AAS 43 (1951), 855-60, at 859. In his Address to the Hematologists, 12 Sept. 1958, shortly before his death, he referred once more to the Address to the Midwives, used the phrase “serious proportionate motives,” and said that he had spoken on periodic continence on that occasion "in order to put an end to the anxieties of conscience of many Christians," AAS, 50 (1958), 732-40, at 736." (p. 425-426)

“…couples who already have even one child cannot, in our opinion, be accused of a grave dereliction of their affirmative duty if they decide to have no more.” (p. 426)

 

[Volodymyr_988]

I am going to give an example in my life. Before, when we had one, two, and three children, I didn’t care how many more kids we had. When my wife would tell me that she was pregnant, I was pretty happy. I didn’t care either way. But now, with children under the age of 7… I don’t want any more kids right now.

I think if one’s conscience is informed by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church one can trust one’s “gut” to listen to the urgings of the Holy Ghost who will lead one to the Truth about his/her situation. I think that God wanted us to have the 4 we have, but for now…

NO MORE KIDS!!!

 

[Volodymyr_988]

By the way, thanks to Dave for bumping this discussion back up to the Forum.