I know marriage has to have an openness to life, but is there a cutoff to that? Like if a couple only wants to have one or two kids, are they allowed to use NPF for the rest of their marriage to avoid having another? Or is that bad, because they're no longer open to creating another life? Are they allowed to choose how many kids they want in advance, or do they have to keep having kids until it's no longer sound to do so?
Good question @thought-bubble-doodly-doo.
The encyclical letter Humanae vitae has the response to this:
With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time. (Humanae vitae, #10)
Part of responsible parenthood in the Catholic tradition is prudently making the decision to have further children or not. As long as natural family planning/NFP/fertility awareness methods are used, then it is acceptable to limit the amount of children one has, given personal discernment.
The openness to life comes in when, for whatever reason, an unexpected pregnancy occurs and the married couple chooses to accept new life. This is all under ordinary circumstances where having another child is a matter of personal preference and not due to other concerns.
Now, let us add some nuance, and with this I bring in my own theological take.
There are instances in married couples’ lives where having more children is not only financially difficult but possibly life threatening. There are two approaches I have seen and agree with for these circumstances.
The heroic option is to abstain from sex altogether to prevent conception. An analogy for this is the decision of St. Gianna Molla to put her unborn child’s life first. She had a fibroma (a tumor) discovered while she was pregnant with her last child. She chose surgery on the fibroma instead of abortion or a hysterectomy. There were complications that lasted through pregnancy but St. Gianna’s goal was the life of her child. Her daughter was born and a week later St. Gianna died of sepsis.
The ordinary option, when having another child would be life threatening and NFP/fertility awareness is not enough, is to use artificial birth control methods. However, and I cannot stress this enough, direct abortion is never the answer should an unexpected pregnancy occur.
As a quick primer on the distinction between direct and indirect abortion is as follows:
A direct abortion is a procedure or medication that is directed at ending embryonic/fetal life. Example: mifepristone/misoprostol.
An indirect abortion is a procedure or medication that is directed at resolving another matter, and unfortunately it leads to the death of an embryo/fetus. Example: an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fallopian tube is surgically removed and as a result the life within dies.
This might seem like a lot of hair-splitting but these matters fall under the principle of double effect.
Let me return to the example of heroic or ordinary measures. In the example given of St. Gianna, the heroic option was surgery on the fibroma because it led to complications and saved the life of the child. However, St. Gianna could have reasonably chosen hysterectomy, the removal of her reproductive organs, with the intention of removing the fibroma and any possible complications related to it.
As far as I am aware, the Church has not provided a thorough take on ordinary measures for artificial birth control for married persons. A few popes (Benedict, for example) have made remarks that suggest condom use can be licit when partners have diseases such as HIV/AIDS, but as a theologian myself I would like to see a thorough teaching on artificial birth control for married persons that incorporates openness to life and the nuances of health complications.
