False. It is quite evident in the Bible that fertility cycles were widely known. (Clean and unclean) This idea that women in the past did not know how babies were made is a misrepresentation of history. In fact, the argument could be made very well that people knew BETTER then than now. ABC has taken care of that for us and reduced it to am answer on a high school biology test. When I was in youth ministry many young people who asked questions about why the Church was against ABC and who were sexually active had no idea when one could get pregnant or what their cycle was. Many thought a period was ovulation.
By calling people crazy for a religious belief you are smearing more than just Catholics who do not like NFP. And saying it is a new thing is not really accurate either. Perhaps you have head of the Amish and other religions who also shun medical treatment. Now, I have never met a Catholic who thought this.
I find people endlessly curious. Hoosier, you were so indignant about the biased reporting of the original article and how it was her interpretation of the audience reaction. Yet I find this tactic such a strong feature of your own ‘reporting’ of my post. It sent the conversation off into an altogether different direction based on your misrepresentation of my post.
I did not say people in the past didn’t know about fertility cycles at all. I said they lacked knowledge about those cycles. The ability to control family size was limited by this lack of knowledge. The opportunity for husbands to be part of that plan through knowledge was even less available. General attitudes towards women and their shared place in the ‘marital debt’ has improved across society. A positive of that lack of knowledge was a more cultural expectation to stay chaste until marriage. It was not just seen as a Catholic thing and its a lot easier to be chaste when it is a general taboo not to be. Also whilst our knowledge of fertility has increased along with many other technological improvements, our capacity to cope with larger families has reduced by less availability of extended family to share in the parenting and even down to the need for bigger vehicles to cope with bigger families. When I was a kid, we regularly crammed 4 or 5 children in the back of the holden, with a baby on Mums lap to go to Mass or visit relatives etc. It’s against the law to do such things now.
There are so many factors that make the ability to more accurately plan your family size a godsend and I mean… truly from God.
When I addressed the providentialist mindset in regards to medical treatment, I wasn’t suggesting this is a Catholic providentialist thing. I was thinking of the Christian sects that refuse blood transfusions and organ transplants etc. But as is also mentioned, there is a providentialist stronghold around events like childbirth, breastfeeding and gynacological issues that sees its position as morally superior rather than a personal preference that may or may not have godly motivations.
With that example… I was addressing the mistake of the *theoretical *providentialist.
That is speculation on what they thought. I’m sure comfort played a part in it but we don’t really know what the average person thought do we?
We do have a clear perspective on what providence really means to us, via the CCC…
306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.
307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170
To me this makes the issue of choosing family size out of the bounds of anyones elses judgement and makes NFP primarily about protecting the integrity of the sexual act against fracture and abuse and to guard against the concupisence that tends to prioritise sexual gratification over genuinely working as co-operators with God in responsibly planning our families.
However sometimes the plan is for some marriages to not plan. That does not make them animals, but rather just have a different plan than you.
This is where the author distinguished between personal providentialists and theoretical providentialists. To not plan and to welcome unlimited children into your life as a reflection of you, your preferences and capacities to cope… is perfectly in line with Church teaching and as she says the Church has a preferential love for these families. But the idea that
not planning is morally superior to planning, indicates a rejection of our gift of being co-operators with God in choosing our family makeup and esteeming the meaning of our animal urges. It’s about the erroneous default
attitude of the
theoretical providentialists.
If only you had just written this part of the post. A very true paragraph!
