B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
But all of your posts have indicated that if she were married and in the same financial situation she should still have more kids.
- Status
M
Moore11
Guest
Nope. that is not my position at all. You misunderstand.
my position is that ANYONE living a holy and providential life is in tune with and seeks what God wills for their life. Any family of 1 kid, 10 kids or 20 kids has to discern their purpose.
From a Catholic perspective a family MUST start off with two people open to children. To accept those children lovingly from God and live within His will. It is not to seek selfish wants. That applies not only to children but to ones spouse as well.
Lets turn it around. Do you think it wrong if a woman such as you described, who was destitute but in a marriage and was living a life guided by God decide to have a child? I dont and I get a little tired of so many Catholics thinking that NFP is some sort of catch all solution to a problem.
I would assume that if the woman in question was in a healthy marriage then I would not pass judgement on a decision to conceive. I would not tell a couple who is struggling with so many financial things that could stress a marriage to also make sure they do not fulfil their marriage.
It’s a valid question. If your mother was married and otherwise living a life in communion with the Catholic Church, would it be “wrong” of her to conceive a child?
M
Moore11
Guest
The point is BEL that family situations change, that bringing life into the world is always the optimal plan. But sometimes and in some situations some can decide to abstain. Medical, financial, emotional, etc… As I have pointed out in many posts there are valid reasons to abstain, NFP is a Holy and wonderful option. I have also pointed out that some people abstain for reasons that differ in severity.
Jane in America could avoid for reasons such as We would have to go on a school lunch program.
Dave in America could avoid because his wife might die if she were to get pregnant.
But in other times and places people may choose not to avoid even if they are in danger or starving. It is confusing to me because it seems to be a contradiction and not consistent with all other Catholic Teaching.
Catholics must not steal or murder. This is always wrong. The acts can be mitigated by circumstances but the acts themselves are never right. No matter what. A rich CEO cannot steal millions from a pension fund and a starving person cannot steal food. I cannot murder for a pair of shoes and I cannot murder if a person has a gun to my head and demands I kill someone else. In each case the culpability of someone can be mitigated by circumstances but you still have grave matter, you still have sin.
So, we teach that I, living a life of luxury by some standards cannot steal an ipod. And somebody in Somalia cannot steal someone’s chicken. If either of us does. It is grave matter. This is the position of the Church, this is why we can have uniform confession of sins.
But not so in this case. Not so in the murky ethics of sexuality. And I struggle with that. A decision from a Catholic perspective to get married and not be open to life is wrong.
So, why in one situation can something be sinful for someone but not for another? Why is it right for one person to conceive but not another in a worse situation?
And finally why do so many in western society view “hardship” different than others? Why can one person decide (and it has been stated on these forums) that one should not have kids unless you are prepared to pay for college for them and some can decide that they will be called to have another child while in extreme poverty? How is the same standard of morality applied. How is this consistent with Catholic teaching in morality? And how are we to apply this morality through history. Today we have medicine, assistance, technology, and wealth. Thousands of years ago in a different place this was not the case, yet morality, holiness and the command to fulfil the Purpose of marriage has should never change.
It is confusing to me.
L
Luna_Lovecraft
Guest
Agreed. And it’s the Catholic way to assume that couples are doing this.
The Church teaches that decisions about family size must be made by the husband, the wife, and God. Not the husband, wife, God, and other family members, friends, neighbors, fellow parishioners, whomever, who see it as their duty to get their word in.
We could post forever and come up with a billion difference scenarios and go back an forth about whether or not a couple has just reasons to avoid getting pregnant. And then tweak each scenario a bit and argue if now their reasons are just. But the fact is that every couple’s situation is unique to them, situations change all the time, and we as outsiders have absolutely no idea what’s going in other marriages or how God is working in those marriages.
Luna
T
thewanderer
Guest
Maybe you should think about it this way. There is no one standard of what is a necessary amount of charitable giving. If one person gives 10% of their income, another 15% and another 25% would you say that the person giving 10% or 15% is sinning because they didn’t give 25% when someone else did? No, of course not. And this is especially true if the person giving 10% (or even 5, 2, 1 % etc) is being charitable in other ways, giving time, love, etc.
Basically, since the question at hand is one of selfishness, whether talking about not being charitable or about deciding to not have kids for selfish reasons, there is a wide range of perfectly acceptable responses. There is a very black and white line, we ought not to be selfish. But what defines selfish? That is much more difficult to determine and depends immensely on the particular circumstances involved, which is precisely why the Church does not give a more precis line than to say each couple must discern this matter carefully so as to ensure they are not making selfish choices. It is impossible to draw an accurate line anywhere else.
A
ahs
Guest
(There is no such document.) I think I see what you are getting at, but please note that the Churhc does NOT say anything about “usually medical” reasons or anything else as to what the main “just” reasons are or will be.
I don’t think so…and I don’t think any such threads truly exist that show NFP being abused. All we have are people saying “We use NFP for such-n-such” followed by other people trying to discern whether or not such-n-such is a valid reason. This is no indication of “abuse” of NFP. I think NFP-abuse is an oxymoron, and I’ve explained why at least a couple times.
It would be an impediment to marriage to intend to thwart the purpose of the marital sacrament to bring forth life.
Please cite the appropriate Church teaching that you are referencing that suggests that NFP thwarts the purpose of the marital sacrament. I think you are gravely confused on the difference between natural birth regulation and being closed to procreation.
And you can stop right there. Using NFP is an automoatic sign, (which I have explianed before why I believe this) that the couple is “continuously and prayerfully open to God’s call”.
Irrelevant. Some couples can handle more, some less. You and I don’t get to decide how many children a couple can handle. The Church also does not decide that…instead the Church leaves it to each couple to discern. The proper manner of course, being that process that Em_in_FL explained for us.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m sorry, but I just cannot buy the line that it would be absolutely impossible to use NFP selfishly. Maybe it would be really difficult for most people, but impossible? No, such extreme statements about humanity are really never true. So while I by no means ascribe to the idea that most NFP users are being selfish, I just cannot accept the use of NFP as an absolute pass on whether or not the couple is being selfish. It is, of course, not our place to judge any other couple, but to claim that NFP (ie, abstinance) will magically mean that the people involved aren’t being selfish is ridiculous.
S
silicasandra
Guest
I agree with you - using NFP is not an absolute guarantee that a couple is not behaving selfishly. But if a couple is willing to use NFP, with the sacrifices that it entails, I definitely think it more likely than not that their reason to abstain is serious - even if it’s not something that I would have to deal with in my life. It may be an “absolute” in terms of how we apply it to others - if a couple says that they are using NFP (in a situation other than this forum where they are advice-seeking), the default should be to assume their reasons are in line with Church teaching.I’m sorry, but I just cannot buy the line that it would be absolutely impossible to use NFP selfishly. Maybe it would be really difficult for most people, but impossible? No, such extreme statements about humanity are really never true. So while I by no means ascribe to the idea that most NFP users are being selfish, I just cannot accept the use of NFP as an absolute pass on whether or not the couple is being selfish. It is, of course, not our place to judge any other couple, but to claim that NFP (ie, abstinance) will magically mean that the people involved aren’t being selfish is ridiculous.
(But then again, that’s just the same charity we should be extending in most situations.)
S
severus68
Guest
I have to disagree with you on this. If a couple want to have sex but refrain on the fertile days (when so many posters say the wife most wants to sleep with her husband), it is a hardship for both. What if neither was too much into sex and seldom had it, so they had no children. What if both decided to abstain permanently? Are they sinning in the last two cases? If not, why are those circumstances different?I’m sorry, but I just cannot buy the line that it would be absolutely impossible to use NFP selfishly. Maybe it would be really difficult for most people, but impossible? No, such extreme statements about humanity are really never true. So while I by no means ascribe to the idea that most NFP users are being selfish, I just cannot accept the use of NFP as an absolute pass on whether or not the couple is being selfish. It is, of course, not our place to judge any other couple, but to claim that NFP (ie, abstinance) will magically mean that the people involved aren’t being selfish is ridiculous.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m curious, but how in the world do you get from what I said to the claim that a low sex drive or a josephite marriage would be sinful???
S
severus68
Guest
I didn’t. I asked if that is not sinful when it excludes children, why would using NFP be? It would then appear as if the Churh is saying, if you want to have sex, you have to have children as if children were a burden, the cost even for marital relations. I do not think that is what the Church is saying at all.
T
thewanderer
Guest
No, of course that is not what the Church is saying. Whether or not a couple has sex, or how often they have sex has nothing to do with whether or not they are being selfish in their desire to avoid children. So I still don’t understand why you are bringing this up as though it were connected. The point isn’t that it is always sinful to do (or refrain from doing) something which causes children. The point is that when one desires to avoid children (note that it is quite possible to abstain for other reasons in which case the scenarios would have nothing to do with the point that I am making) it is possible to desire to avoid children out of a selfish motivation. I really don’t understand how anybody could deny that statement. We’re human, it happens. The particular point I was making that you apparantly disagreed with is that it is possible to have a selfish desire to avoid children while abstaining. Again, I really don’t understand why anyone would disagree with this, so perhaps this conversation would go further if you would explain why you disagree with this statement?
S
severus68
Guest
My point is that a couple can abstain fully, have sex very seldom and no one would question their not being open to life and their motives but with a couple using NFP for long periods or permanently, there is the question by some on the possible selfishness of their decision.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Well, if they were abstaining full for the sake of avoiding children they need to be just as careful about abstaining for selfish reasons as if they were using NFP, yes. I have actually argued that point elsewhere on CAF. The point is they need to discern whether or not they are being selfish in their desire to avoid children. We all need to work to eliminate selfishness from our lives in all sorts of areas. But I really don’t see how saying this amounts to saying that
This statement seems really weird to me… The Church is not saying any such thing, its simply pointing to the nature of sex itself and saying, look, this is what sex is, isn’t it awesome! And then there are people who look at sex as something else and so start thinking the Church is trying to burden them with something that they don’t see as being a part of sex. Yes, if you do not understand sexuality as the Church does it might look as though the Church were saying that children are the’price’ that you pay for being allowed the pleasure of sex… but thats really not what the Church is actually saying.
S
severus68
Guest
Please read again what I wrote. I do not think you have understood what I meant if you respond with this.
Never mind, its no one’s business anyway how and why people practise NFP but a couple and God
T
thewanderer
Guest
Perhaps I did not understand what you were saying. I took it as being directed at me since it was brought up because you said that you disagreed with me, but looking back to what you actually said I see that it sounds more like you are just trying tto point out that some people look on this scenario inconsistantly? As in there are some people who go around trying to judge others reasons for avoiding when they use NFP but assume all is good no matter what if they abstain permanently? Is that correct?
Like I said, I took that to be directed at me and so I responded by saying that I am not inconsistant as some other people are in that I recognize in both the possibility of desiring to avoid children for selfish reasons (I was, I think, the only one holding that view in one of my discussions here). However, I also, of course, think that people shouldn’t go around judging others reasons for desiring to avoid, whether through periodic or complete abstinance. Hopefully this helps clear up whatever the misunderstanding is between us.
S
severus68
Guest
Yes that was the jist of what I meant. I have never had issues with you. You have always tried to be fair and to understand the views of others. I was not ‘attacking’ you, just disagreeing on a point.Perhaps I did not understand what you were saying. I took it as being directed at me since it was brought up because you said that you disagreed with me, but looking back to what you actually said I see that it sounds more like you are just trying tto point out that some people look on this scenario inconsistantly? As in there are some people who go around trying to judge others reasons for avoiding when they use NFP but assume all is good no matter what if they abstain permanently? Is that correct?
Like I said, I took that to be directed at me and so I responded by saying that I am not inconsistant as some other people are in that I recognize in both the possibility of desiring to avoid children for selfish reasons (I was, I think, the only one holding that view in one of my discussions here). However, I also, of course, think that people shouldn’t go around judging others reasons for desiring to avoid, whether through periodic or complete abstinance. Hopefully this helps clear up whatever the misunderstanding is between us.
V
vsedriver
Guest
if you are practicing NFP for financial reasons, that is a legitimate reason. Unless you are wealthy and could afford a dozen or more kids.
Abstaining from sex is not sinful. What the Church is saying that if you wish to reap the pleasure of sexual activity you must also be prepared to accept any fruits of your labors. Having sex when you are infertile is not a sin. Making yourself infertile so you can have sex is a sin.
S
severus68
Guest
Thank you, you have put it simply, clearly and honestly.
- Status