S
severus68
Guest
Re your words in bold - so true. Thankfully there are adoptions like yours where race is never an issue. It is about looking at people as people, all children of God.
- Status
W
Walking_Home
Guest
severus68:
ValPal:
Re your words in bold - so true. Thankfully there are adoptions like yours where race is never an issue. It is about looking at people as people, all children of God.
Agree.
B
bstorm
Guest
You have misunderstood my post. That is not my view of couples that adopt, my point was more general and was not aimed at adoptive parents. Here is the train that started this.
Post by Moore11:
“What appears judgemental to me is that when a person even a Catholic person with a correct and holy understanding of teaching states that maybe people should be more open to life than they are and suggest that people reexamine their motives it is pounced upon as “judgemental” when those of us with more than 2 kids experience a judgement EVERYDAY by the world. Not only that but it is rather insensitive to those who cannot have children or have a real hard time conceiving. Imagine how those people feel to hear people all over talk about how they cannot be burdened in their lives with more than 2 kids!?”
Post by severus68:
“People who want children and cannot conceive can always adopt. I think that is a very holy and good thing to do.”
I agree with the paragraph above written by Moore11. Yes, I find it selfish that people blessed by fertility sit around and pontificate whether they should be burdened by a third child or not, while not having any serious reason not to.
I congratulate you on adopting your children and wish you the best for your family.
V
ValPal
Guest
Having children is ALWAYS a choice; forced sexual encounters excepted.
People choose to have sex. People choose to adopt. People choose not to get married because they don’t want children. People that are married choose not to have sex because they don’t want to have any, or any more, children.
Children are a gift, but ultimately it is our choice whether to actively, or inactively, accept that gift.
People choose to have sex. People choose to adopt. People choose not to get married because they don’t want children. People that are married choose not to have sex because they don’t want to have any, or any more, children.
Children are a gift, but ultimately it is our choice whether to actively, or inactively, accept that gift.
A
ahs
Guest
How is it selfish that fertile people discuss/decide whether or not they want another child?
Whose definition of “serious reason” does a couple get to use? Their own, or bstorm’s?
S
severus68
Guest
Interestingly, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states:
“234. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. The intervention of public authorities within the limits of their competence to provide information and enact suitable measures in the area of demographics must be made in a way that fully respects the persons and the freedom of the couple. Such intervention may never become a substitute for their decisions[529]. All the more must various organizations active in this area refrain from doing the same.”
I have highlighted the relevant portion in green.
B
bstorm
Guest
If you ask for an opinion on a public forum you are going to get one. Sometimes people disagree with you. I know, it is shocking. Perhaps if you read the original post you would notice that the OP said:
What if a couple only want 2 kids even though they could have more and **have no serious reason **to limit it to 2, would that be an offence/sin? If so, how serious?
This is OP’s definition, not mine. I am done with pointless conversation.
A
ahs
Guest
I’m not sure why it would be shocking to have people disagree on a forum. Are you suggesting that you think I am shocked by disagreement? I’m not…for what it’s worth.
With all due respect, you were not responding to, or about, the OP. You were explaining how you agreed with one of Moore11’s posts.
We had long established, early into the thread, that the OP was not acting selfishly…that the hypothetical scenario was actually a reality and his reason was sufficient so long as he and his wife believed they had a serious reason. Perhaps you did not read the posts where this was discussed. I actually summarized not so very long ago…right around the spot where you quoted Moore11’s post that you said you agreed with…
W
whm
Guest
There is a predicament that can occur if there is not a “serious enough reason” to avoid pregnancy and the spouses do not agree on abstaining from relations. If one spouse requests relations, the other cannot deny the other spouse without “grave” reason.
If both spouses wish to abstain it may not be the most virtuous decision (although it could be), but I don’t know that it would be mortally sinful or sinful at all (at least not universally so). Perhaps that is where some people are coming from. They don’t see the choice to (temporarily) abstain as being the most virtuous.
M
Moore11
Guest
LOL! Nope “we” have not established that at all.
The OP had stated that this was a permanent decision based on non “serious” reasons and fear.
The OP indicated that they would use NFP throughout the entirety of their fertile years to specifically limit it to two kids without ever intending to reexamine the motives which the OP admits are selfish.
So nope… “we” had not “established” what you say and I find it odd that you would think that we had. You may debate it you may disagree. But nothing has been established just because some of us had stopped posting on the thread for a while. That is not a de facto “win” for you.
To be perfectly honest nothing is going to be “established” on this thread anyway.
A
ahs
Guest
Oh, sorry. The OP established such when he said exactly what the reason was. At that very moment it was established that as long as the OP and his wife discerned this was a reason to avoid, it became a just reason so long as they discern it to be so. I said “we” so as to preclude anyone from thinking that anyone except the couple has any say in the matter.
Or do you believe you or I have any authority to say the OP did not have a just reason afterall? In other words, you are saying that, despite the OP saying he does in fact have a reason to avoid, and he and his wife find it serious enough to abstain from sex, that you do not agree that a “just reason” has been established, no? So, what would you say is the approved list of “just reasons” from which the OP could pull from to avoid a selfish act?
I was not aware that we were debating an issue to “win” something. I was under the impression that we were discussing Church teaching.
A
ahs
Guest
You do not believe it wil be established that a couple can decide for themselves whether they have a just reason? The Church actually says exactly that.
(Courtesy of severus68)
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
"234. The judgment concerning the interval of time between births, and that regarding the number of children, belongs to the spouses alone. This is one of their inalienable rights, to be exercised before God with due consideration of their obligations towards themselves, their children already born, the family and society[528]. "
So if such cannot be establihed in your mind, then doe sthat mean you reject what the Church teaches? Necessarily, this is exactly what it means, no?
T
thewanderer
Guest
ahs, I believe the point that moore11 is trying to make is that just because a couple wants to avoid (and who doesn’t want to avoid without actually having some reason) doesn’t automatically mean they aren’t being selfish. To me it sounds like you are making a similar overgeneralization to the one I pointed out earlier. It sounds as though you are claiming that it is impossible for a couple to abstain for selfish reasons. If I am understanding you correctly, you are claiming that “selfish reason to avoid” is in itself an oxymoron. If this is not what you are claiming can you please clarify?
A
ahs
Guest
Ah…right. Yes, I agree that such does not automatically mean a couple is not being selfish. My posts do sound like an overgeneralization, I realize that. That’s because I’m stepping out of th hypothetical and getting back to reality…practical real life. It is not so much because I want to say a couple is not selfish, per se, but more to say that only that couple actually knows whether they are being selfish. None of us, nor anyone else besides that couple, can say, “yep…if you only have 2 children and stop right there, then you are being selfish.” No one has any ground whatsoever to say they " find it selfish that people blessed by fertility sit around and pontificate whether they should be burdened by a third child or not, while not having any serious reason not to…" because 1) being blessed by fertility does not equate to an ability to handle a 3rd child (nor mandate the conceiving of another child) and 2) no one knows what a “serious reason” is for another couple…we only know what a “serious reason” is for ourselves.
Recall that the OP did in fact state what the reason to avoid is. That reason he gave fits into what Pius XII explained as one of the examples of reasons that couples may have. So, even if we were put into a position to discern for someone else whether a reason is “just”, who are we to say “no” when the Pope already used that reason as a good example?
Now we do have the issue where the OP suggested that this would be a permanent decision…and a couple people did provide guidance that such decisions should be fluid…discussed regularly. I have seen nothing from the OP to suggest that he still is of the mind that the decision to avoid will be permanent…and just going by experience and reality from the100’s of NFP couples I know…I highly doubt such is the case. Hypothetically, such may be a rash and selfish decision…but realistically, let’s let that couple discern for themselves on their own schedule what they can and cannot handle…as the Church says should be the case.
That is why I ask :
“How is it selfish that fertile people discuss/decide whether or not they want another child? Whose definition of “serious reason” does a couple get to use?”
A
ahs
Guest
To clarify in the shorter form:
Yes, people should be warned about the selfishness that can exist in a marraige when it comes to children. Yes, people need to be educated about the meaning of marriage and the true blessing that children are. Yes, people need to know that preventing the conception of chldren by abstinaing from sex could be selfish if they don’t have a just reason to avoid.
No, we should not assume that anyone has a firvolous or invalid reason to avoid…ever…unless that couple is ourself and our spouse. And when asked for (name removed by moderator)ut from another couple, we should stick to Church teaching, lead people to that teaching, let them form their conscience properly, and let them make decisions for themselves about the licitness of their own reasons. We can not ever say that we feel someone else is being selfish in only having “x” number of children…for such is not our place except in our own family.
Yes, people should be warned about the selfishness that can exist in a marraige when it comes to children. Yes, people need to be educated about the meaning of marriage and the true blessing that children are. Yes, people need to know that preventing the conception of chldren by abstinaing from sex could be selfish if they don’t have a just reason to avoid.
No, we should not assume that anyone has a firvolous or invalid reason to avoid…ever…unless that couple is ourself and our spouse. And when asked for (name removed by moderator)ut from another couple, we should stick to Church teaching, lead people to that teaching, let them form their conscience properly, and let them make decisions for themselves about the licitness of their own reasons. We can not ever say that we feel someone else is being selfish in only having “x” number of children…for such is not our place except in our own family.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Although I do think it is important to add that it can be appropriate, especially if asked for advice to suggest that they examine their motives carefully and prayerfully. It is not always easy to tell when we are being motivated by selfishness and it is good to take time out every once in a while to prayerfully discern God’s will, and not just about children, but about everything we do.
V
ValPal
Guest
This is backwards. The Church does not, and has not, taught that abstaining is selfish. Couples can abstain all they want, and there is not a single thing selfish about it.
This issue is the use of the infertile period to have sexual relations with the intent to avoid having children. This attempts to separate the unitive from the procreative. Abstaining can do no such thing, since there is no act to separate.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Ummm that’s actually not at all correct. There is nothing inherently wrong with abstaining, what can be wrong is the intent. It can be selfish to wish to avoid having children. It doesn’t matter what method you use, the intent can at times be selfish. So, if NFP is ever used wrongly it is not at all the method which is problematic it is instead a selfish intent.
I’m not going to get into all the details on this thread, both because it would be off-topic to talk about whether or not NFP is valid here and there is another thread open where we already started discussing this. If you actually wish to discuss this I suggest you return to the other thread and reply to my questions there.
V
ValPal
Guest
It’s very correct, and you actually explain why:
It’s the “intent” that is the problem, not the “abstaining.” Abstaining is not objectively sinful.
When it comes to NFP, it is the action that is the issue, not the non-action. If it goes beyond intent, it is the action that matters. A couple cannot separate the unitive from the procreative if they are not having sex; it is obviously impossible. However, the intent of not wanting to have children combined with the having sex only during the infertile period is an actual action that attempts to separate the two.
This is why I strongly object to people stating there is nothing wrong with NFP because it is just abstaining. It’s attempting to focus solely on the area which is not the problem, and ignoring the part that can be problematic. NFP is not “abstaining;” the Church does not teach that.
A
ahs
Guest
Yes, people need to know that preventing the conception of chldren by abstinaing from sex could be selfish if they don’t have a just reason to avoid.
I’m not sure how the use if the infertile period could be an issue. There’s never been a teaching that couples can’t use the infertile period to express marital love. And as long as the act is copmpleted in the natural manner, there is no way you can say they attempt to separate the unitive and procreative aspects. The couple does not make themselves infertile. They simply intent to use the infertile time to express love. This then goes back to intent and the argument becomes no different than when couples abstain during thefertile period. We are allowed to have sex with our spouse whenever we, as a couple, agree to have sex…no?
"The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. **To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. **In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person. (JPII, FC 32)
It cannot be denied that in each case [NBR/NFP and contraception] the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case [NBR] that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. (Paul VI, HV 16)
Thanks for cathcing that. It’s not backwards, but it should read, “Yes, people need to know that avoiding conception of chldren could be selfish if they don’t have a just reason to avoid.”
I’m not sure how the use if the infertile period could be an issue. There’s never been a teaching that couples can’t use the infertile period to express marital love. And as long as the act is copmpleted in the natural manner, there is no way you can say they attempt to separate the unitive and procreative aspects. The couple does not make themselves infertile. They simply intent to use the infertile time to express love. This then goes back to intent and the argument becomes no different than when couples abstain during thefertile period. We are allowed to have sex with our spouse whenever we, as a couple, agree to have sex…no?
"The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. **To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. **In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person. (JPII, FC 32)
It cannot be denied that in each case [NBR/NFP and contraception] the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case [NBR] that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. (Paul VI, HV 16)
- Status