Be Fruitful and Multiply (Round 2)

[ahs]

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.

I see what you are saying. And I do agree to an extent. Certainly is is not an absolute sign of absolute unselfishness. I think silicasandra has said it well:

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.
(But then again, that’s just the same charity we should be extending in most situations.)

(emphasis mine)

I do belive, though, that no one could ever set out to prove, per se, some couple’s selfishness who is using NFP. It will always boil down to an outside party’s opinions of what that couple should be doing vs. the discernment of that couple. Since we cannot look into any person’s head, so to speak, and know their unique situation/curcumstances/etc…only that couple and God will ever know whether something is selfish. All we know, and all we can teach, is that children are a blessing and a primary purpose of marriage and that the Church, in her wisdom, has left the decisions of family planning to the couple…so long as the procreative nature (and/or unitive) of a conjugal act is not thwarted by contraception.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

I have to admit that I am still really confused about what you are actually disagreeing with, but thats alright, I guess its not rally important anyway.

 

[whm]

I do belive, though, that no one could ever set out to prove, per se, some couple’s selfishness who is using NFP. It will always boil down to an outside party’s opinions of what that couple should be doing vs. the discernment of that couple. Since we cannot look into any person’s head, so to speak, and know their unique situation/curcumstances/etc…only that couple and God will ever know whether something is selfish. All we know, and all we can teach, is that children are a blessing and a primary purpose of marriage and that the Church, in her wisdom, has left the decisions of family planning to the couple…so long as the procreative nature (and/or unitive) of a conjugal act is not thwarted by contraception.

Yes, and I would add a simple truth that sometimes gets glossed over these days is that 100% of the purpose of sex is the conception and nurturing of children. Yes, it has benefits to both the husband and wife, bonding and so forth, which strengthens their relationship and supports the raising of the children. Every time a couple (who are physically capable of reproducing) has sex there is a chance that a baby could be created. That is what they are actually doing when the have sex is attempting to create a baby(perhaps not their intention, but it is the biological reality of the act). Anyway, I think contemplating on this reality can help them make the best choice for their situation (nfp, abstinence etc). This reality also needs to be balanced with the dangers of mortal sin, which also gets glossed over at times.

Another point I agree with is that NFP is not easy and people attempting it are not necessarily taking the easy way. If they understand that sex is an attempt to create a child (or children), then by definition they are open to life. I personally believe if this reality is kept in mind, the couple will make a good choice.

Another way to make this point is to say - It is one thing to say NFP isn’t working for me because I can’t determine my fertile period and quite another to say NFP didn’t work for us because the wife became pregnant.

btw someone else may have said this, but in response to the original post. No, it is not sinful to only have 2 children. There is no absolute requirement that a married couple have sex(in particular after the consummation of the marriage although even that is not an absolute requirement). Which therefore proves that there are circumstances where have only 2 kids (when more are possible) is not sinful.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, and I would add a simple truth that sometimes gets glossed over these days is that 100% of the purpose of sex is the conception and nurturing of children.

I have to disagree with you here… if that were the case then it would be wrong for a couple to have sex while infertile, ie, while pregnant, during the wife’s infertile period, after menopause etc. You might want to rephrase the point you are making.

 

[whm]

I have to disagree with you here… if that were the case then it would be wrong for a couple to have sex while infertile, ie, while pregnant, during the wife’s infertile period, after menopause etc. You might want to rephrase the point you are making.

I don’t think so. I did not say you should only have sex when you want(or can conceive) a baby. I said that the function of the act is for creating babies and the benefits are aligned with nurturing babies that are created. I expand on this point throughout the post.

I don’t know if it is impossible for pregnant women to conceive another child while already pregnant. Obviously they can at very early stages (non identical twins). There are also cases when there babies conceived weeks apart and share the womb. Granted something very strange would have to take place in the latter stages of a pregnancy for conception to occur.

 

[CroCatholic]

After reading most of the arguing happening here, I have a headache… I just wanted to share our personal experiences.

we’re expecting #5 in December. When we were originally married we decided that 3 was the magic number of kids for us… I am beyond happy that we didn’t stop there. We would have missed out on our 4th who is just an amazing little person and we look forward to watching #5 (and any future children) grow.

I am 29, I’ve been married to my wonderful husband for just over 7 years. I was married at 22, had our first, 17 days before our first anniversary and have pretty much been pregnant ever since. I was the only one of my “friends” to go this route and have lost most of my “friends” because of this. I am an at home mom with a degree (social work) that I’ve never used, I’m exhausted both physically and mentally, I am swimming up to my eyeballs in laundry, I’ve exhausted every recipe in my arsenal in the hopes to create just one dinner where everyone eats their meal without complaint or conflict. Our oldest was diagnosed this past CHRISTMAS EVE with type 1 diabetes… On top of everyday life, I am now a walking talking pancreas. I do all the after school activities, doctor and dentist appointments, lunches and dinners. I probably haven’t slept a solid 8 hours in over 6 years. We could have family vacations every year if we didn’t send our kids to Catholic school, I could wear nothign but designer clothes if I didn’t have to buy four (soon to be 5) sets of everything every winter… I am no supermom, my husband isn’t superdad, Most days we feel like we could have done much better… We would still have more kids. When one of my kids wraps their arms around my neck and tells me they love me or that I’m the best mom on earth, I know that we’re doing good. If children aren’t worth the hard work and sacrifice, I don’t know what is?!
My point? It’s not easy. It’s not supposed to be easy… It’s totally worth it though!

OP, it sounds to me like you haven’t made up your mind on the # of children you feel called to have… If you do have more you will never regret it, trust me

My mother was the only girl in a family of four children that grew up in the former yugoslavia, during communism. It was her job to assist her mother with all household chores including making her brothers beds and polishing their shoes for them. She also had to tend to the farm animals (milk the cow, feed and kill chickens, collect eggs etc.) tend to the garden, cook and look after her younger cousins after school every day. She still managed to finish her homework and the equivalent of high school before she moved with her to Canada at 19 years old. According to some of you, this would result in certain death for the majority of north american teens today. The end result of all of her childhood was a responsible, resourceful and wise adulthood. That’s all I have to say about that…

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think so. I did not say you should only have sex when you want(or can conceive) a baby. I said that the function of the act is for creating babies and the benefits are aligned with nurturing babies that are created. I expand on this point throughout the post.

I don’t know if it is impossible for pregnant women to conceive another child while already pregnant. Obviously they can at very early stages (non identical twins). There are also cases when there babies conceived weeks apart and share the womb. Granted something very strange would have to take place in the latter stages of a pregnancy for conception to occur.

Yes, I understand that that is not really what you mean to say, which is why I suggested that you choose a different phrase to express your point. If you say that conceiving children is 100% of the point of having sex that kind of implies that to have sex when unable to conceive is to go against the very nature of the act. I get it, you’re trying to emphasize the link between sex and babies, but you need to phrase it differently.

 

[benjohnson]

I would also like to point out that in my life, my wife and I were not prepared for our first child.

Our home was in shambles, our cars were old and broken, and we both were in debt. We didn’t need God.

In truth, we contemplated aborting our new child.

But, I tell you, something wonderful happened - that child made us “grow up” to be the parents we needed to be. We stopped eating out and spending on luxuries, we took care of our belongings, we worked harder, and we started going to church for the sake of our new child and for our family.

That child was a gift to us - a ringing bell!

Waking us up from slumbering through life.

 

[ahs]

Yes, and I would add a simple truth that sometimes gets glossed over these days is that 100% of the purpose of sex is the conception and nurturing of children. Yes, it has benefits to both the husband and wife, bonding and so forth, which strengthens their relationship and supports the raising of the children.

Those statements contradict one another. I think thewanderer has seen your point though, and I think I can see it as well.

Yes, I understand that that is not really what you mean to say, which is why I suggested that you choose a different phrase to express your point. If you say that conceiving children is 100% of the point of having sex that kind of implies that to have sex when unable to conceive is to go against the very nature of the act. I get it, you’re trying to emphasize the link between sex and babies, but you need to phrase it differently.

If I understand you correctly, whm, you are trying to say that the “primary purpose” of the marital act is procreation…with secondary benfits such as bonding…yes? IT would be impossible to say "100% " for procreation and leave any room for bonding, etc…right?

Every time a couple (who are physically capable of reproducing) has sex there is a chance that a baby could be created.

Yes.

That is what they are actually doing when the have sex is attempting to create a baby(perhaps not their intention, but it is the biological reality of the act).

Not per se. They may have no intention of creating a baby and only desire to give themselves fully to one another (which implies teh nature of the act…but disregards intent of procreating). The biological reality of the act is that they are uniting in a manner which is primarily *ordered toward * procreation, regardless of what they attempt or what their motive is. “Attempting to create a baby” necessarily accounts for the intent of teh couple to conceive…while “engaging in act which is ordered toward procreation” speaks of the nature of the act regardless of their intent. There is a difference there. One cannot say “they are attempting to have a baby”…but one can say “they are open to conception by engaging in the conjugal act which is ordered toward procreation”.

…This reality also needs to be balanced with the dangers of mortal sin, which also gets glossed over at times.

Mortal sin? The mortal sin of what? Which mortal sin are we talking about here? I thought we were discussing periodic abstinence, not contraception. Please clarify…and perhaps provide a source from Church teaching that we can refer to.

Another point I agree with is that NFP is not easy and people attempting it are not necessarily taking the easy way. If they understand that sex is an attempt to create a child (or children), then by definition they are open to life. I personally believe if this reality is kept in mind, the couple will make a good choice.

I think I understand what you are getting at…but you are using words that blurr the facts. For example, "…understand that sex is an attempt to create a child… " Define “sex” as the Churhc defines it. The Church uses the term “conjugal love” or “conjugal act/union” and discusses it in CCC 1643-1654. The words that would equate to “sex is an attempt to create a child” won’t be found either there or in any encyclical. There is an important distinction between that and saying the primary purpose of sex is procreation.

 

[MarkInOregon]

It’s not about trust, they just don’t want the extra headache and physical running around which is quite demanding. This may sound selfish but it gets tiring one day after the next after the next after the next.

God bless,

We have 5 children–it’s not all that more demanding than it was with 2. Much of the extra headache and physical running around is self inflicted by the parents. Life is tiring with or without kids. I find many people will run around doing all kinds of things for work or other “self-fulfillment” activities and they only complain when it is “extra” kids who take up their time or funds.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Thanks for your post, you have presented some very interesting points.

Is there supporting evidence to support what you said e.g. catechism, canon law etc.?

P.S. If you don’t mind me asking but how on earth can you afford 5 kids with schools fees, clothing etc.? Does your wife work?

God bless,

While this was not directed to me–l’d like to respond–as I have 5 children also. My wife and I made a good living until 2 1/2 years ago. It was still a struggle but that was because a good portion of our income–more than any of my sibblings made gross–went to grade school and college tuition. Well my wife is no longer working and with that job went over 60% of our income. It’s been a real struggle. We don’t do lots of things we used to. My daughter has school loans that she wouldn’t have had. My kids have fewer clothes. We don’t really take a vacation, we shop differently for food, we don’t just hop in the car and run here or there–we plan our trips. My point is you can live on a lot less than you think you can. We are making it on what I make and if you had asked me if we could 3 years ago–I would have said I don’t see how. We live differently now. My wife is home with our younger children–which has been a blessing. We actually cook now. We just live more simply and we have learned a lot–while at times it doesn’t feel like it–I think it has been a blessing and when and if my wife is able to return to work–we will continue to live in a similar manner–we simply won’t have the same stress when the car needs a repair. I think many today live with the assumption that kids need all these things–own room, own computer, ipod, ipad, phone etc. etc. etc. – when in reality they don’t all need their own.

Peace,
Mark

 

[whm]

If I understand you correctly, whm, you are trying to say that the “primary purpose” of the marital act is procreation…with secondary benfits such as bonding…yes? IT would be impossible to say "100% " for procreation and leave any room for bonding, etc…right?

I am talking more basic, about biology 101. Sperm is being deposited in a female. The Church requires that, outside of accidents or inability to complete the act this must occur every time a husband and spouse has “relations”.

But to answer you question yes there can be two or more purposes that coexist, overlap. They can be equal or one can be greater than the other.

Not per se. They may have no intention of creating a baby and only desire to give themselves fully to one another (which implies teh nature of the act…but disregards intent of procreating). The biological reality of the act is that they are uniting in a manner which is primarily *ordered toward * procreation, regardless of what they attempt or what their motive is. “Attempting to create a baby” necessarily accounts for the intent of teh couple to conceive…while “engaging in act which is ordered toward procreation” speaks of the nature of the act regardless of their intent. There is a difference there. One cannot say “they are attempting to have a baby”…but one can say “they are open to conception by engaging in the conjugal act which is ordered toward procreation”.

I understand what you are talking about, but I wasn’t going that deep. See above comment. I am not debating the morality of NFP or sex, but suggest a method of going through the decision process as to whether to use it or not. I think that you and wander are anticipating a different argument from me that comes from a theological perspective.

Mortal sin? The mortal sin of what? Which mortal sin are we talking about here? I thought we were discussing periodic abstinence, not contraception. Please clarify…and perhaps provide a source from Church teaching that we can refer to.

I am sorry, I should have expanded. If avoiding sex leads one of the married people vulnerable to committing mortal sins (porn, masturbation, contraception etc), that should be an important consideration in the decision making process.

I think I understand what you are getting at…but you are using words that blurr the facts. For example, "…understand that sex is an attempt to create a child… " Define “sex” as the Churhc defines it. The Church uses the term “conjugal love” or “conjugal act/union” and discusses it in CCC 1643-1654. The words that would equate to “sex is an attempt to create a child” won’t be found either there or in any encyclical. There is an important distinction between that and saying the primary purpose of sex is procreation.

I am not trying to blurr the facts I am try to cut through to all the fancy language to the biological reality. Phrases like conjugal act/union are absolutely full of theological, beautiful meanings and truths(and also extend beyond the time of the act itself), however they do not get to the very basic point I am trying to make, that the biological physical actions of sex are designed to unit a sperm with an egg. When a couple chooses to use NFP(to pick a day to have sex) they are doing something where their bodies are trying to do what it takes conceive a child.

Couples that practice NFP together and have had the proper instruction etc, probably go through this type of decision process every month and by definition would be well aware of the biological realities. Based on the threads I’ve read over the years there are a lot of folks that don’t get the proper instruction and don’t practice it together or simply miss the forest for the trees. NFP is not the answer to the statement that “we can’t possible have another child” The statement "NFP doesn’t work for us, we got pregnant x times should also not be made (which is different than the statement I can’t determine my fertile periods using NFP, which should result is seeking help). NFP (to avoid) is an answer to the statements like “we are not sure we want another child just yet” or “we would like to space our children” or “we want to take it month by month” I am not basing this on selfishness vs not selfish arguments, only on the reality and inherent “limitations” of using NFP to avoid. The possibility of pregnancy should always be considered a very real possibility.

 

[thewanderer]

I am talking more basic, about biology 101. Sperm is being deposited in a female. The Church requires that, outside of accidents or inability to complete the act this must occur every time a husband and spouse has “relations”.

But to answer you question yes there can be two or more purposes that coexist, overlap. They can be equal or one can be greater than the other.

I’m sorry, but saying that 100% of the purpose (ie end, point etc) of sex is conception then that means that there can be no other purpose, such as bonding etc. That is what I am trying to point out. Don’t say that babies are 100% of the purpose of sex. That is incorrect and not what you are trying to say.

 

[MarkInOregon]

ok…

In our world I see the opposite. People are coerced into NOT having children. From a very young age. And that is not something you can escape in Church walls, it infects us all.

Funny, I am just pointing out that God wants us to have kids within the vocation of marriage and that historically people have had way more kids with less, yet somehow that is coercing others…

Moore11,

Yes–it is sad how simply pointing this out makes you the “bad guy” and subjects you to scorn from others. It is amazing the hoops we will jump through to justify our life style. For our 3rd, 4th and 5th children the most dominate refrain we heard was not congratulations or we’re so happy for you or aren’t you blessed–it was “Hey, you know what causes that don’t you?” That tells you all you need to know about which direction the coercion runs in this society. Just wanted you to know you are not alone in your observations.

Peace,
Mark

 

[whm]

I’m sorry, but saying that 100% of the purpose (ie end, point etc) of sex is conception then that means that there can be no other purpose, such as bonding etc. That is what I am trying to point out. Don’t say that babies are 100% of the purpose of sex. That is incorrect and not what you are trying to say.

Well I guess I won’t get an A in grammar this year. Perhaps I should have said 100% of the time. But in my mind gasoline can be 100% fuel, but is can also be a liquid at the same time and be 10% ethanol. A book can be 100% literature and 100% paper or it can be an ebook. I can be 100% American and 50% German and 50% British. Better yet 100% of my purpose can be to love God and I can still love my family.

Sex can be about conception and sex can be about pleasure. It can also be only about conception (can be painful for some for example). Sex should morally always be about bonding, but is not all the time (fornication, for example), but is always about the body trying to do its part to facilitate conception even if frustrated by the participants, even if one of the participants is of the same gender. All of the physical reactions that take place are oriented towards an attempt at conception or in the case of pleasure encouraging the current or a future attempt. The bonding effect is mixed in with that and supports the same purpose of conceiving plus nurturing the child by strengthening the union of the potential parents. The spiritual/theological effects are only present in marriage, under moral circumstances(no contraception ect).

 

[thewanderer]

Well I guess I won’t get an A in grammar this year. Perhaps I should have said 100% of the time. But in my mind gasoline can be 100% fuel, but is can also be a liquid at the same time and be 10% ethanol. A book can be 100% literature and 100% paper or it can be an ebook. I can be 100% American and 50% German and 50% British. Better yet 100% of my purpose can be to love God and I can still love my family.

Sex can be about conception and sex can be about pleasure. It can also be only about conception (can be painful for some for example). Sex should morally always be about bonding, but is not all the time (fornication, for example), but is always about the body trying to do its part to facilitate conception even if frustrated by the participants, even if one of the participants is of the same gender. All of the physical reactions that take place are oriented towards an attempt at conception or in the case of pleasure encouraging the current or a future attempt. The bonding effect is mixed in with that and supports the same purpose of conceiving plus nurturing the child by strengthening the union of the potential parents. The spiritual/theological effects are only present in marriage, under moral circumstances(no contraception ect).

look, I’m not trying to be offensive, or picky for the sake of it or anything, I hope you realize that. I am pointing it out because otherwise your position will be misunderstood by others. It happens all too often that a poor choice of words convinces non-Catholics, and sometimes even Catholics, that the Catholic Church’s opinion of sexuality is warped, twisted, and illogical. That is all I am trying to avoid here.

 

[whm]

look, I’m not trying to be offensive, or picky for the sake of it or anything, I hope you realize that. I am pointing it out because otherwise your position will be misunderstood by others. It happens all too often that a poor choice of words convinces non-Catholics, and sometimes even Catholics, that the Catholic Church’s opinion of sexuality is warped, twisted, and illogical. That is all I am trying to avoid here.

Well mission accomplished then, it shouldn’t be unclear for anybody who read my entire post plus our discussion. The Catholic Church in no way teaches that you have to intend to create a baby every time you have sex. However it is always a possibility a baby will result (unless you are physically and permanently incapable of conceiving, in which case you can still morally have married sex).

I guess the interpretation you are worried about never even entered my mind, since why would somebody who believes you can only have sex with the sole intention of creating a baby give advice on using NFP? I will be a little more careful in the future, as the fact that you were confused proves that my post was not clear enough.

 

[Moore11]

After reading most of the arguing happening here, I have a headache… I just wanted to share our personal experiences.

we’re expecting #5 in December. When we were originally married we decided that 3 was the magic number of kids for us… I am beyond happy that we didn’t stop there. We would have missed out on our 4th who is just an amazing little person and we look forward to watching #5 (and any future children) grow.

I am 29, I’ve been married to my wonderful husband for just over 7 years. I was married at 22, had our first, 17 days before our first anniversary and have pretty much been pregnant ever since. I was the only one of my “friends” to go this route and have lost most of my “friends” because of this. I am an at home mom with a degree (social work) that I’ve never used, I’m exhausted both physically and mentally, I am swimming up to my eyeballs in laundry, I’ve exhausted every recipe in my arsenal in the hopes to create just one dinner where everyone eats their meal without complaint or conflict. Our oldest was diagnosed this past CHRISTMAS EVE with type 1 diabetes… On top of everyday life, I am now a walking talking pancreas. I do all the after school activities, doctor and dentist appointments, lunches and dinners. I probably haven’t slept a solid 8 hours in over 6 years. We could have family vacations every year if we didn’t send our kids to Catholic school, I could wear nothign but designer clothes if I didn’t have to buy four (soon to be 5) sets of everything every winter… I am no supermom, my husband isn’t superdad, Most days we feel like we could have done much better… We would still have more kids. When one of my kids wraps their arms around my neck and tells me they love me or that I’m the best mom on earth, I know that we’re doing good. If children aren’t worth the hard work and sacrifice, I don’t know what is?!
My point? It’s not easy. It’s not supposed to be easy… It’s totally worth it though!

OP, it sounds to me like you haven’t made up your mind on the # of children you feel called to have… If you do have more you will never regret it, trust me

My mother was the only girl in a family of four children that grew up in the former yugoslavia, during communism. It was her job to assist her mother with all household chores including making her brothers beds and polishing their shoes for them. She also had to tend to the farm animals (milk the cow, feed and kill chickens, collect eggs etc.) tend to the garden, cook and look after her younger cousins after school every day. She still managed to finish her homework and the equivalent of high school before she moved with her to Canada at 19 years old. According to some of you, this would result in certain death for the majority of north american teens today. The end result of all of her childhood was a responsible, resourceful and wise adulthood. That’s all I have to say about that…

Thanks for your story.
We have three with one on the way and I am typing this while on the couch with our littlest who is sick in the wee hours of the morning. And I am just thinking how lucky I am to be cuddled next to the cutest thing that we couldn’t afford but were open to life for!

 

[Walking_Home]

I think this kind of thing is common in families. I get it the other way around. “when are you going to stop having kids?”

I’ll tell you, there is nothing you can say nor amount of times you can say it that they will understand or come around to. So stop trying. Ask yourself why this bothers you. Ask yourself what you need from the interaction and conversation to walk away happy. It better not be, “I accept you as a person, I understand you, and validate your lifestyle” Because you wont get it.

---

The above is from another thread – but it has bearing on this one. How accepting, understanding, validating – are those with a larger family themselves being — when they go around trying to lay on “guilt trips”/and or what else they can thing of – to coerce others with smaller families – to have a larger number of children. Looks to be – a one way street with the “I accept you as a person, I understand you, and validate your lifestyle”.

 

[Moore11]

---

The above is from another thread – but it has bearing on this one. How accepting, understanding, validating – are those with a larger family themselves being — when they go around trying to lay on “guilt trips”/and or what else they can thing of – to coerce others with smaller families – to have a larger number of children. Looks to be – a one way street with the “I accept you as a person, I understand you, and validate your lifestyle”.

hmm. I never have experienced it the other way around as you describe. It seems to me to be society and the culture that is against LARGE families. I have never ever had someone ask me why my wife wasn’t pregnant. I have never ever witnessed in person someone “putting a guilt trip” on someone who was honestly living their familial vocation in accordance to God’s will. In fact I find that I can’t even imagine a scenario in which someone would accost someone else and berate them for not having kids. (how would one know they were not infertile) I just don’t see this at all. But I do see the other way around. My wife, just today was at the store getting some lunch. A lady asked her when her due date was and she said it was in december. The lady asked if it was my wife’s first. My wife said no that it was her fourth and the lady’s smile quickly turned serious, the lady then told my wife to buy a TV.
And that is just today!!! It happens all the time and not just from strangers. My own mother does not want us to have more than 2. Ever.
It isn’t just the on purpose comments as much as it is the innocent attitudes of people everywhere!

The protestant schools in my area offer a sliding scale of tuition based on number of siblings that go there. Decreasing by 25% until the 5th kid who gets to go for free! The Catholic schools. nope. Or even a restaurant that offers kids eat free! They dont mention it is a 1 to 1 ratio (1 kid entree to an adult entree.)

heck just watch a large family walk into Church. no matter how well behaved teh children I guarantee you that you will find looks and people who do not want a large family near them at Mass. But it just doesnt happen the other way around. I have never gone to Mass, and glared at someone who has 2 children for not having more.
What shocks me is the absolute guts some people have to say things to you. From the strangers who tell you what Isle the condoms are located to the family members who refer to you as earth destroying “Breeders”

Funny, I just dont see random big family Catholics going into the stores and asking the young unmarried couple who’s 5 dogs are waiting in the subaru outside why they dont get married and have kids. And I dont see (at least in my family anyway) someone going up to a homosexual family member and asking them why they are contributing depopulation by being a active homosexual. And I dont see someone going up to a divorced person in my family and berating them for a divorce… I guess it happens but perhaps the “guilt” some feel is their own conscience. One of my most obnoxious and vocal critics is a family member who has 2 teenage girls and he got a divorce from his 1st wife and has been shacking up with a girlfriend for 10 years. He is unemployed and makes constant comments to us about using birth control. I realize it is his own guilty conscious talking to him never ever have said anything about his lifestyle. But sometimes seeing a happy married successful couple embrace and be open to life kind of tweaks some nerves on some people who think life is all about money, and what feels good right now.

We live in a society and world where most self identifying Catholics use ABC. Abortions are rampant. And life is under attack. I hardly think the ones doing the accosting and guilt tripping are the christian large family demographic.

There are no shows on TLC about a normal 2 kid family. But we love to watch the “freak” shows of giant families as some sort of unnatural oddity.