Be Fruitful and Multiply (Round 2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Augustine3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I come from a large family, We each had chores , once we were old enough. We are all very close. However, we were expected to study hard and go as far as we could in our studies. None of us were expected to parent younger siblings. We turned out fine.

My apologies for not being clear. I was referring to situations (here I am not referring to anyone on CAF), where there are many children and the only way the parents can cope is for the younger kids (daughters really) to take over substantial care of the younger kids while mum concentrates on the newborn. So the girls are really mothers to the younger kids. This is a lot more than just helping out. So, I feel strongly, that the decision to have as many children as possible should never be on the basis that the younger children can take on part of the load. Children are entitled to their own lives and have the ability to discern what is available to them.
Of course kids should still have time of their own. But I guess I would just like to further clarify something. You, I hope, are not claiming that kids chores should neverinclude helping out with younger siblings, but that kind of sounds like what you are saying. I guess I just don’t understand whatis so different about doing something for one’s sibling that makes it a taboo chore that will scar a child.🤷
 
Two great answers.
No, you don’t HAVE to go to a priest… but if you’re, personally, having a difficult time discerning whether or not your motives are selfish at any given time, then YES, absolutely - discuss this with a priest or spiritual director.

Remember, nothing is ever PERMANENT. You may have a very valid reason for wanting to delay pregnancy at a certain point.
But allow God to bless you in ways that you may not even fathom at this time… *allow *Him to give you the graces necessary… be they time, talent, health, finances - WHATEVER may be holding you back!..
Things CAN (and often DO!) change.

NFP should always be DYNAMIC - decided on a month-by-month basis… PRAYERFULLY.
No permanent decisions.
Yes, this. Normally I would say the couple, and only the couple, can discern what is right for them in this area. But the OP has acknowledge that they are seeking (name removed by moderator)ut to help make a decision of whether their decision involves sin. I would say that if circumstances are such that the couple is willing to abstain from sex, then circumstances are such that they have a “just reason”. But if there is doubt…public opinion is not the way to go.

From Em_in_FL: " **Remember, nothing is ever PERMANENT…Things CAN (and often DO!) change…NFP should always be DYNAMIC - decided on a month-by-month basis…PRAYERFULLY.
No permanent decisions.
** " Yes…yes…yes…this exactly!!! OP…this is the key you are looking for…and such is the very nature of NFP/NBR, IMHO.
 
Of course kids should still have time of their own. But I guess I would just like to further clarify something. You, I hope, are not claiming that kids chores should neverinclude helping out with younger siblings, but that kind of sounds like what you are saying. I guess I just don’t understand whatis so different about doing something for one’s sibling that makes it a taboo chore that will scar a child.🤷
Helping out like helping the younger kids dress for Church etc, yes but taking over child rearing tasks where the older child is shown and prepares her future as a mother and wife (nothing wrong with being a mother and wife so please hear me out), with no encouragement for self development, further studies. No all girls want to go for further studies, not all have the ability to do so but they be allowed and encouraged to see all possibilities. A woman is not just defined by her roles as wife and mother. She is her own person. Invariably, it is the older girls who look after the younger children.

My point also is that no one should have more children than the parents themselves can manage.
 
Two great answers.
No, you don’t HAVE to go to a priest… but if you’re, personally, having a difficult time discerning whether or not your motives are selfish at any given time, then YES, absolutely - discuss this with a priest or spiritual director.

Remember, nothing is ever PERMANENT. You may have a very valid reason for wanting to delay pregnancy at a certain point.
But allow God to bless you in ways that you may not even fathom at this time… *allow *Him to give you the graces necessary… be they time, talent, health, finances - WHATEVER may be holding you back!..
Things CAN (and often DO!) change.

NFP should always be DYNAMIC - decided on a month-by-month basis… PRAYERFULLY.
No permanent decisions.
I would say that is true. I am sure even for the OP, although he and his wife may feel he would only be able to cope with two, they may well change their minds after the first two were a little older. Only the two of them can know and decide.
 
Yes, this. Normally I would say the couple, and only the couple, can discern what is right for them in this area. But the OP has acknowledge that they are seeking (name removed by moderator)ut to help make a decision of whether their decision involves sin. I would say that if circumstances are such that the couple is willing to abstain from sex, then circumstances are such that they have a “just reason”. But if there is doubt…public opinion is not the way to go.

From Em_in_FL: " **Remember, nothing is ever PERMANENT…Things CAN (and often DO!) change…NFP should always be DYNAMIC - decided on a month-by-month basis…PRAYERFULLY.
No permanent decisions.
** " Yes…yes…yes…this exactly!!! OP…this is the key you are looking for…and such is the very nature of NFP/NBR, IMHO.
👍
 
Helping out like helping the younger kids dress for Church etc, yes but taking over child rearing tasks where the older child is shown and prepares her future as a mother and wife (nothing wrong with being a mother and wife so please hear me out), with no encouragement for self development, further studies. No all girls want to go for further studies, not all have the ability to do so but they be allowed and encouraged to see all possibilities. A woman is not just defined by her roles as wife and mother. She is her own person. Invariably, it is the older girls who look after the younger children.

My point also is that no one should have more children than the parents themselves can manage.
I agree with you of course that the chores given to children should not be so burdensome that they cannot develop themselves as people and pursue their own life as they wish through education etc. I think it comes down to a disagreement on wording. You talk about it being irresponsible for parents to get their children to help out with their siblings, but what you really mean is to the extent that it removes their children’s own opportunity for education/self-development. You say that parents should have no more children than they themselves can manage, but I assume that you do not mean by that that families where both parents work shouldn’t have kids because they would have to put them in daycare. Where do you draw the line of what is and is not the parents themselves managing as opposed to getting others to help out? No one can raise a family without help from others. I think that ultimately what you are getting at is that parents should be mindful of the welfare of their children when they decide how many children to have, that they should realize that if they have too many it will put an undue burden on the children that they already have and that it is not good for their family to do so. Which I agree with and I would think the vast majority of parents who say having more kids is easier because siblings will help out with each other would also agree with, but they just tend to use different wording than you to describe this.
 
My point also is that no one should have more children than the parents themselves can manage.
An interesting observation on judging the poor.

Especially in the third world.
Should impoverished nations never know marital and familial love? Should we educate them in abstinence instead of farming? Is it the moral understanding that in war torn or impoverished areas that the sight of Children should be non existent? How about we apply that to history as well. The entire middle ages are out. Why have a kid that will die in the plague or of starvation. As well as a certain poor carpenter family that we all know so well…

Hardly seems Catholic or even complete in the understanding of what children are and why we are to multiply.

Also, why be more strict on this that the Holy Church herself. In all this political discussion about marriage if there is one thing we have learned is that marriage is specifically for creating and raising children. The Church does not approve or deny marriages based on income. There is no priest or bishop in somalia that will deny a marriage based on poverty, political affiliation, or war. point being that the Church bases it’s decision on theology, and the openness to human life. The Church EXPECTS those without visible means to have Children. She expects it because God expects it. There is no marital rite for the poor that differs from the rich in the wording of the mission to bring forth children.

We are not to judge. Isnt that what we have been telling each other. Yet would you judge the poor, ignorant, war torn, uneducated, and starving. Would you deny them the Holy mission and calling and vocation to have children just because they may not have all that “we” do?

Dont think it is just in the third world that this exists. It is right in our hometowns. From the struggling family on foodstamps, to the ones taking advantage of assistance for afterschool childcare, to the soldiers serving our country and are absent from the home while away at war. I’m as right wing as one can get on some things. I abhor the immorality of waste, theft, and abuse of the government and money for the poor. BUT never would I relegate an entire group of people to morally “not have kids” unless they can take care of them.

I read once that in bad economies that the rate of children increases?
The cynic in me says well “Duh” more people at home “together” But the Christian in me wonders about God’s plan to help in troubled times.
While I am not accusing you of eugenics, margaret sanger founder of planned parenthood had a very similar view of who should have kids and who should not.

Sometimes, Mary’s “yes” should be repeated for us all.
 
There are forum rules which state that posting should not be about being personal.
Maybe I misunderstand. This thread is in the family forum and as I browse through the topics I see someones husband is cheating, someone is going through a rough time, someones sister is acting horrible, someone lost a baby, etc

I am wondering what you mean by personal.

Do you mean gossip? Then by all means I agree. But I can tell you that my sister freely rejects God, procreation, family, and most things that you, I and God hold dear.

Is it ugly? Yup.
Is it sad? Yup
Do I pray every day for her? Yup
Do I talk to her? Yup

Is it reality? Yes, no matter if we choose to see that or not.

If we are not to be “personal” then is this site just a collection of hypothetical situations that people are making up?

Lets let the moderators moderate.

Anyway it is off topic so lets move on.
 
I would be interested in seeing your evidence. You would have to factor in the extras your family get from family.
I hardly think it is proper to ask for financial information on these boards.

I think that it is fair to say that we are more blessed than most but make less than most.

Curious. At what point would my claim be valid to you? If we made 20 a year and lived in NY? and mommy bought us a boat? Or if we made 15 and lived in ohio on farm? Or if we made 60 and lived in colorado in a small town with a ski lift and lessons were 20 dollars?
 
No it doesn’t. The Church says that natrual birth regulation, using only the infertile periods, periodic continence, is not only “in conformity with the objective criteria of morality” (CCC 2370) but also “represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.” (CCC 2399)

Can you please provide the Church teaching, from an actual Church teaching document (that would be the Catechism or an Encyclical) that says “NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality” or that “NFP can be abused”. We don’t get to make assertions about Church teaching without providing some credible source/information to back it up.

I don’t know what this means. Are you saying that the sin of contraception is in the desire to not procreate as opposed to the actual thwarting of the procreative nature of the marital act? Please clarify.
While I dont have the actual document (if there is one) One can clearly see how the Church regards NFP. NFP is a relatively new technology and there are several different methods. It is not the “Rhythm method” And the Church is very clear that it can be used for spacing births. Or even in extreme circumstances, usually medical, the permanent pause from children in a marriage. But we can also see that it can be abused. In fact there are many threads on these forums that discuss NFP abuse. For instance the Church would refuse a marriage of a couple who planned on using NFP for the length of their marriage. It would be an impediment to marriage to intend to thwart the purpose of the marital sacrament to bring forth life.

Jack and Dianne get married and use NFP to regulate and space birth while being continuously and prayerfully open to God’s call. (Licit)

Jack and Dianne get married and dont ever want kids and decide to use NFP as some sort of “Catholic Birth Control” thereby tricking the system with an imagined loophole. (not licit)

Jack and Dianne have “Junior” and decide that if they have more kids “junior” will not have a nice ferrari so they forgo children to provide all that they can for the one they have. (not licit)

This idea of “taking away from the children you already have” is such a smooth, nice, candy coated lie.

Because when you have kids you will ALWAYS take away material things from the ones you already had. If you make 20 thousand a year or 20 million a year.

But that isn’t what matters, what you are really doing is taking away from the potential life you have to give as a family and you are also taking away the spiritual and familial things that your current children would gain with future siblings.

I have met tons of families who swear that 2 is all they can handle. They say they could never imagine more, that their life would be awful. Funny, I’ve never met a family of 8 that would get rid of 6 of their kids.
 
Funny, I’ve never met a family of 8 that would get rid of 6 of their kids.
I have. I took custody of a fourteen-year-old boy when his family’s resources were tapped out after the births of two special needs, medically fragile siblings in a row. He lived with me until he graduated from high school and enlisted in the military.

I’ve lived in countries where brothels buy children from parents, not for a vacation house or a Jacuzzi or tickets to Disneyland, but for bags of rice and blankets and school uniforms.

I’ve personally met families who’ve sold children to pay for food, rent, and medicine. I’ve met families who’ve given some of their children away to be raised by friends and relatives with the thinking that the heartache of losing a child is preferable to watching that child go to bed hungry most nights.

I used to work with a woman who remembers her father giving her to wealthy(er) neighbors. She was in her forties and still cried when she talked about wanting to go back to her parents’ house after school and her mom telling her she had to go home to her ‘new parents’. And in graduate school I had a linguistics professor whose impoverished parents sold her to a childless couple when she was a toddler. It was her understanding that she wasn’t the first daughter her biological parents had sold.

As a teacher I’ve had any number of students who were living with cousins, neighbors, and family friends - temporarily and permanently - because resources were scarce at home. Too many of my students experience the instability of being farmed out several times a year. Mom’s facing eviction, so she sends junior to live with her sister. Two months later sister loses her job, so she sends junior to live with grandma. Grandma thought she’d be able to afford the extra mouth to feed, and when she realizes she can’t she sends junior to live with her brother. When they tell me their stories I’m honestly shocked that these kids cope as well as they seem to.

Poverty and marginalization do a real number on even the most loving of parents and force them to make humiliating, almost de-humanizing decisions.

And frankly, that you even frame this issue as simply one of parents wanting to forgo more children so that can buy a luxury item or that parents blithely give away 75% of their children for frivolous reasons shows what incredible privilege you enjoy. I’m glad this is the case for your family, but the fact that you seem not to be able to accept that not every family has your privileges is telling.

Luna
 
I agree with you of course that the chores given to children should not be so burdensome that they cannot develop themselves as people and pursue their own life as they wish through education etc. I think it comes down to a disagreement on wording. You talk about it being irresponsible for parents to get their children to help out with their siblings, but what you really mean is to the extent that it removes their children’s own opportunity for education/self-development. You say that parents should have no more children than they themselves can manage, but I assume that you do not mean by that that families where both parents work shouldn’t have kids because they would have to put them in daycare. Where do you draw the line of what is and is not the parents themselves managing as opposed to getting others to help out? No one can raise a family without help from others. I think that ultimately what you are getting at is that parents should be mindful of the welfare of their children when they decide how many children to have, that they should realize that if they have too many it will put an undue burden on the children that they already have and that it is not good for their family to do so. Which I agree with and I would think the vast majority of parents who say having more kids is easier because siblings will help out with each other would also agree with, but they just tend to use different wording than you to describe this.
I think we are on the same page. I am fine with day care. Its important for kids to learn to mix and I am all for nurseries and kindergartens.
 


And frankly, that you even frame this issue as simply one of parents wanting to forgo more children so that can buy a luxury item or that parents blithely give away 75% of their children for frivolous reasons shows what incredible privilege you enjoy. I’m glad this is the case for your family, but the fact that you seem not to be able to accept that not every family has your privileges is telling.

Luna
I suppose every assertion can find an exception. I think if you really focus on my point that you and I agree. The things in this world that people sit in their warm houses and type on the internet about are not the case in many many areas. That is what is so confusing to me.

I’m doing a horrible job of explaining myself in my family and society with the exact point you made. We, who enjoy so much, can only see our own worldview, when in fact many families in worse situations make the moral and Holy decision to have more children.

I absolutely agree with you and was trying to point out that if God intends worse situations to have children then maybe we need to take more seriously our own calling to procreate and not have it boil down to “will it be hard”

Again, the Church does not tell a impoverished family in a war torn reason that for all intents and purposes is living as Holy of a life as they can to not have children. In fact it is procreation that is the solution to many of the problems.

And I think you me, and all us first worlders should spend some serious time thinking about what children are, what marriage is and what we are to provide our children with.

It is odd that if one takes the position that not everyone has to or will get to go to college at all is misunderstood and then if one states that even the poorest should be able to have the calling of family one is misunderstood.

Trust me, if your position is that there are children born into terrible circumstances and more terrible than most here will ever face then you and I agree.

if your premise is that the poor, destitute, uneducated, and diseased should not procreate then I have to part ways with you. Everyone has the right to fulfill God’s plan.
That some people have chosen to conceive (or be forced to conceive) when they should not is an undeniable fact underlined by your examples. And in no way is that something we should aspire to as families. But we also hold ourselves to a lower standard just because of our privilege and that is wrong as well. Our “grave or serious” reason has to be just as “grave and serious” as anyone elses. In no other moral issue does the Church give different criteria and standards to different groups of people or different times of history. Murder is always murder. Adultery is always adultery no matter when, or where or how you live. Sure there are mitigating circumstances, a starving man steals a loaf of bread is still stealing but it is mitigated by his circumstance. But that does not mean that stealing is ever right.
As Catholics we can never use evil to attain good. Which is why we cannot hand out condoms to a family who we know is abusive, has aids, and will sell it’s children. We can try to educate, we can try to incarcerate, we can try to help, but we cannot participate in evil just so we can achieve what we deem as good.

Every child, even the ones sold into the brothels you describe is God’s Child, a potential inhabitant of heaven. A potential saint. And while their life may be horrid, while it may seem in vain, it is united with the suffering of Christ. It is them who Jesus spoke to, it is them who Jesus ministered. Jesus did not tell them they should never have been born. he tells them that they are Him. That they are the body of Christ. He commanded us, not to reduce their numbers, not to make them rich, not to save them from their pain and wretched lives, but to love them, want them and save them for Him. Jesus does not preach about family size, about whether the woman who was a prostitute or the thieves beside him on the cross should never have been born, but about what to do when they are born, about why they should have been born, and about how it is God’s will that everyone should be born.
But we, 2000 years later debate if one of them should be born because cable is expensive or we need an automobile, or taking care of them is hard.

The only person Jesus speaks of it being better if he were not born is Judas.

Even Job had horrible things happen, the point of Job is that nothing is as important as God’s will, not family, riches or health.
 
I think we are on the same page. I am fine with day care. Its important for kids to learn to mix and I am all for nurseries and kindergartens.
So should it be mandated that children “learn to mix” Should this be something parents are required to do to be considered responsible parents?
 
An interesting observation on judging the poor.

Especially in the third world.
Should impoverished nations never know marital and familial love? Should we educate them in abstinence instead of farming? Is it the moral understanding that in war torn or impoverished areas that the sight of Children should be non existent? How about we apply that to history as well. The entire middle ages are out. Why have a kid that will die in the plague or of starvation. As well as a certain poor carpenter family that we all know so well…

Hardly seems Catholic or even complete in the understanding of what children are and why we are to multiply.

Also, why be more strict on this that the Holy Church herself. In all this political discussion about marriage if there is one thing we have learned is that marriage is specifically for creating and raising children. The Church does not approve or deny marriages based on income. There is no priest or bishop in somalia that will deny a marriage based on poverty, political affiliation, or war. point being that the Church bases it’s decision on theology, and the openness to human life. The Church EXPECTS those without visible means to have Children. She expects it because God expects it. There is no marital rite for the poor that differs from the rich in the wording of the mission to bring forth children.

We are not to judge. Isnt that what we have been telling each other. Yet would you judge the poor, ignorant, war torn, uneducated, and starving. Would you deny them the Holy mission and calling and vocation to have children just because they may not have all that “we” do?

Dont think it is just in the third world that this exists. It is right in our hometowns. From the struggling family on foodstamps, to the ones taking advantage of assistance for afterschool childcare, to the soldiers serving our country and are absent from the home while away at war. I’m as right wing as one can get on some things. I abhor the immorality of waste, theft, and abuse of the government and money for the poor. BUT never would I relegate an entire group of people to morally “not have kids” unless they can take care of them.

I read once that in bad economies that the rate of children increases?
The cynic in me says well “Duh” more people at home “together” But the Christian in me wonders about God’s plan to help in troubled times.
While I am not accusing you of eugenics, margaret sanger founder of planned parenthood had a very similar view of who should have kids and who should not.

Sometimes, Mary’s “yes” should be repeated for us all.
Please read my statement in context.
 
I hardly think it is proper to ask for financial information on these boards.

I think that it is fair to say that we are more blessed than most but make less than most.

Curious. At what point would my claim be valid to you? If we made 20 a year and lived in NY? and mommy bought us a boat? Or if we made 15 and lived in ohio on farm? Or if we made 60 and lived in colorado in a small town with a ski lift and lessons were 20 dollars?
My question was in response to your post#42:

“I can guarantee that most Catholics and people in general that have 2 or less kids in a first world country have WAY more income than my wife and I do.”

I have no interest in your finances though you keep bringing them up. You made a claim which you obviously cannot prove. Why say it then?
 
My question was in response to your post#42:

“I can guarantee that most Catholics and people in general that have 2 or less kids in a first world country have WAY more income than my wife and I do.”

I have no interest in your finances though you keep bringing them up. You made a claim which you obviously cannot prove. Why say it then?
Fair enough. They should have absolutely nothing to do with the question anyway. I agree.

My point being that we discern to have more children, yet others who earn more and have more do not? Why? Why is only this aspect of morality different for different incomes?
 
I have. I took custody of a fourteen-year-old boy when his family’s resources were tapped out after the births of two special needs, medically fragile siblings in a row. He lived with me until he graduated from high school and enlisted in the military.

I’ve lived in countries where brothels buy children from parents, not for a vacation house or a Jacuzzi or tickets to Disneyland, but for bags of rice and blankets and school uniforms.

I’ve personally met families who’ve sold children to pay for food, rent, and medicine. I’ve met families who’ve given some of their children away to be raised by friends and relatives with the thinking that the heartache of losing a child is preferable to watching that child go to bed hungry most nights.

I used to work with a woman who remembers her father giving her to wealthy(er) neighbors. She was in her forties and still cried when she talked about wanting to go back to her parents’ house after school and her mom telling her she had to go home to her ‘new parents’. And in graduate school I had a linguistics professor whose impoverished parents sold her to a childless couple when she was a toddler. It was her understanding that she wasn’t the first daughter her biological parents had sold.

As a teacher I’ve had any number of students who were living with cousins, neighbors, and family friends - temporarily and permanently - because resources were scarce at home. Too many of my students experience the instability of being farmed out several times a year. Mom’s facing eviction, so she sends junior to live with her sister. Two months later sister loses her job, so she sends junior to live with grandma. Grandma thought she’d be able to afford the extra mouth to feed, and when she realizes she can’t she sends junior to live with her brother. When they tell me their stories I’m honestly shocked that these kids cope as well as they seem to.

Poverty and marginalization do a real number on even the most loving of parents and force them to make humiliating, almost de-humanizing decisions.

And frankly, that you even frame this issue as simply one of parents wanting to forgo more children so that can buy a luxury item or that parents blithely give away 75% of their children for frivolous reasons shows what incredible privilege you enjoy. I’m glad this is the case for your family, but the fact that you seem not to be able to accept that not every family has your privileges is telling.

Luna
Its very sad but what you have shared is the reality. I watched a documentary where a man described how he buried alive his new born baby girl and said he had to do it as he did not want her to suffer, he could not listen to her cry with hunger.
 
It isn’t just third world countries. When my brother was about 13 my mom had to put him in a foster home for about a year because she couldn’t afford food, gas to get to work, rent, anything and his life was being so disrupted by these issues that he wasn’t even able to go to school. (How could he when there was no electricity or water at home?) No, before anyone asks my mom did not have a drug, alcohol, gambling, or shopping problem. She was just a poor, single mom unable to get by. She was married when he was conceived and born, but her husband turned in to a very violent, abusive person almost overnight. Looking back she thinks it was a mental illness. Trust me, the last thing she needed was more kids.
 
It isn’t just third world countries. When my brother was about 13 my mom had to put him in a foster home for about a year because she couldn’t afford food, gas to get to work, rent, anything and his life was being so disrupted by these issues that he wasn’t even able to go to school. (How could he when there was no electricity or water at home?) No, before anyone asks my mom did not have a drug, alcohol, gambling, or shopping problem. She was just a poor, single mom unable to get by. She was married when he was conceived and born, but her husband turned in to a very violent, abusive person almost overnight. Looking back she thinks it was a mental illness. Trust me, the last thing she needed was more kids.
I would say that would be serious and grave reasons to avoid!!!

The Church would agree. From a Catholic perspective a single unmarried woman struggling to get by would not be asked to “conceive.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top