Catholic church in India says have more children

[rlg94086]

Thanks!

That thread helped, I think. So, if the Church says that life begins at conception, but is uncommited as to ensoulment, although ensoulment at conception - “has long been the more common and probable theory.”, where does that leave us with whether conception is purely biological or not?

It leaves me with following Church teaching that life begins at conception and abortion is never licit. I really don’t need anything more than that.

Are you searching for a rationale to support abortion? Why?

 

[PaulinVA]

It leaves me with following Church teaching that life begins at conception and abortion is never licit. I really don’t need anything more than that.

Are you searching for a rationale to support abortion? Why?

No, of course not. Brenden was linking conception with “the will of God” and ensoulment is part of that.

I’m still waiting for an answer about whether conception is purely biological, in the sense that we control whether we have relations and the biology controls whether there is conception.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m still waiting for an answer about whether conception is purely biological, in the sense that we control whether we have relations and the biology controls whether there is conception.

As opposed to what? It’s an odd question.

Other than the Virgin Birth and illicit procedures like IVF, conception does require that we have “relations,” and we certainly have control, well most of us, over whether or not we have relations.

As far as whether “biology controls whether there is conception,” I’m not clear what you are asking. From a biological standpoint, the conditions determine whether conception will occur. From a theological perspective, God is involved in His creation.

 

[PaulinVA]

As opposed to what? It’s an odd question.

Other than the Virgin Birth and illicit procedures like IVF, conception does require that we have “relations,” and we certainly have control, well most of us, over whether or not we have relations.

As far as whether “biology controls whether there is conception,” I’m not clear what you are asking. From a biological standpoint, the conditions determine whether conception will occur. From a theological perspective, God is involved in His creation.

I was responding to a poster downthread that said that God wills every human being into existence, that it’s just not the meeting of the sperm and the egg. I’m trying to understand what that means.

God created the biological processes involved. Does he intervene in that process on a regular basis(allowing or preventing conception), or does He create a soul when His biological process causes conception?

 

[rlg94086]

Question: If God is responsible for every soul that is born…is God responsible for every soul that dies, too?
Does He decide about both bringing us onto this earth and then taking us away when He decides it’s time?

If so…and if God can’t commit error or will an act contrary to our well being…

Does that mean that it is God’s choice and part of his big plan, even if we don’t always understand it, to not only “take” someone via cancer or a fatal accident or killed in war…but also sometimes, maybe by abortion?

(NOTE: I’m not saying here that I’m pro-abortion…just asking when is it’s God’s doing and when isn’t it?)

That’s not how God works. He allows evil to happen. He is not responsible for evil.

 

[rlg94086]

I was responding to a poster downthread that said that God wills every human being into existence, that it’s just not the meeting of the sperm and the egg. I’m trying to understand what that means.

God created the biological processes involved. Does he intervene in that process on a regular basis(allowing or preventing conception), or does He create a soul when His biological process causes conception?

You are treating God as if He is a finite being with finite actions within finite time. He doesn’t “wait” to ensoul a conceived being. He is intimately involved based on His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence within creation.

While all of this is interesting, it’s pretty far off the topic. It’s probably better suited for the Moral Theology forum.

 

[PaulinVA]

You are treating God as if He is a finite being with finite actions within finite time. He doesn’t “wait” to ensoul a conceived being. He is intimately involved based on His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence within creation.

While all of this is interesting, it’s pretty far off the topic. It’s probably better suited for the Moral Theology forum.

I think that it is at least tangentially on topic, but you are right.

So, can a country like India become “overpopulated” to the point that one should limit the number of children one creates?

 

[Brendan]

Question: If God is responsible for every soul that is born…is God responsible for every soul that dies, too?
Does He decide about both bringing us onto this earth and then taking us away when He decides it’s time?

He decides to create us, that is a postive act of the Will, meaning that God has to be an active participant.

God can only do good, therefore, anything that God actively participates in is a good act.

That is distingusihed from God allowing something to happen. There is no positive act of creation, for example, in a murder.

Thus murder, in fact all sin, are really the deprivation of God being a part of the act. In much the same way that darkness is really the absence of light, not an entity of itself.

A human being, which is a union of body and soul, must be created, God must be an active participant.

But God cannot ever be an active participant in anything that is sinful. Humans, using free will, can cause destruction that God does not desire, but cannot create an immortal soul using our own power.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that natural death is not an evil act of itself. The purpose for which we are created is not for temporal life, but for eternal life.

So there are certainly occasions where natural death is done with God as an active participant. The Flood, Sodom and Gemorrah, and yes even the Cruxifiction itself are all good examples.

 

[JimG]

I think that it is at least tangentially on topic, but you are right.

So, can a country like India become “overpopulated” to the point that one should limit the number of children one creates?

The solution is not to limit children but to grow the economy. Children are a renewable resource–the ultimate resource.

 

[Viki63]

I have lost the source of the quote, but a priest gave thanks to God for “saving us from the misery of non-existence.”
I find that this resonates with me; having existence, I cannot imagine anything worse than ceasing to exist, or never having existed in the first place,

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’ve spent time in Kerala before. It’s not the bastion of poverty that people imagine up when they think of India. They have good health care, excellent education. It really is a beautiful part of the country.

The articles posted are in some ways intended to be inflammatory. I doubt anyone in Kerala is calling the Church’s proposed program “cash for babies,” for example, like they do in the second link. Of course, the journalists could have framed framed it more positively by calling the article “Catholic Church in India Will Support Large Families” but where’s the controversy in that.

It’s not irresponsible to encourage families to have more children if those children will be cared for and loved by the parents. That the Church is offering help to parents (and that’s what they are doing - offering to help, not “paying” for children) who would like larger families is commendable, not blameworthy.

There are some very simple methods of NFP that have proved very useful in India and other developing countries, including the Standard Days Method and the TwoDay Method. Both are very easy to teach, learn, and use. Those parents that need to limit their family size are also being supported.

Would you mind to explain what I do not know: the “Standard Days Method and the TwoDay Method”

Thanks

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

My claim is that there exist on Earth not single person more than God desires.

God created every single person who exists today and God only does good.
any times times)
Do you consider yourself to be so wise as to tell God that He created too many people and thus made a mistake?

So God wanted rape, adultey, poligamy, artificial insemination, leftover embryos, incest,orgies, from where children sometimes (many times!) come? So Gõd desired all of this?

 

[nodito]

Would you mind to explain what I do not know: the “Standard Days Method and the TwoDay Method”

Thanks

Both are simple NFP methods developed and tested by Georgetown University’s Institute for Reproductive Health. The Standard Days Method is sometimes called the “bead method” and can be used by women with regular menstrual cycles. The TwoDay Method is a simplified mucus-based method. Both are highly effective when used correctly. You can read more about them here: irh.org/

 

[Brendan]

So God wanted rape, adultey, poligamy, artificial insemination, leftover embryos, incest,orgies, from where children sometimes (many times!) come? So Gõd desired all of this?

No, what God, in certain instances, is for a gift to come from that sin.

God is infinitely good. We fail Him again and again, but He is sufficiently wise and powerful to bring good from human sin.

Remember that God desires nothing but good for us. If a child results from rape or incest, it is because (and only because) that God sees the greatest good in creating a child.

It can help the person heal, teach additional virtue etc…

It might be to help spread His Word to others. I am thinking of several ‘conceived in rape’ speakers who rally against abortion.

Do any of us really thing that we are so wise and all knowing that we can point to any a child and say ‘When God created you, He made a mistake. The world would be better off if you did not exist’?

Would that be a Christian thing to say? Would it be a sign of virtue to claim to know better than God?

 

[PaulinVA]

Do any of us really think that we are so wise and all knowing that we can point to any child and say ‘When God created you, He made a mistake. The world would be better off if you did not exist’?

Would that be a Christian thing to say? Would it be a sign of virtue to claim to know better than God?

Brenden, this is the crux of my problem. A man raped a woman and the biology caused the man and the raped woman to become co creators with God of a new human life. The woman was not a willing participant and the man probably didn’t intend to make her pregnant.

One can certainly say that the circumstances of creation were horrific and were a mistake. The child, however, is a child of God.

 

[Brendan]

Brenden, this is the crux of my problem. A man raped a woman and the biology caused the man and the raped woman to become co creators with God of a new human life. The woman was not a willing participant and the man probably didn’t intend to make her pregnant.

One can certainly say that the circumstances of creation were horrific and were a mistake. The child, however, is a child of God.

But God, being omnipotent, cannot be forced to be a co-creator God must freely choose to create a new life and act to do so.

And such an act would, by definition, be a good thing.

 

[PaulinVA]

But God, being omnipotent, cannot be forced to be a co-creator God must freely choose to create a new life and act to do so.

And such an act would, by definition, be a good thing.

I am not saying that it’s a bad thing.

What I hear you saying, though, is that God freely chooses to create life. That means that He “controls” the biological process, right?

I find that hard to believe. That means that God is directly responsible for children born from rape, violence, first teen encounters, etc. I think that it is more likely that God supports the biology that He created. He has already created the rules that the biology follows - He cooperates with those rules in being a co creator with us.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Both are simple NFP methods developed and tested by Georgetown University’s Institute for Reproductive Health. The Standard Days Method is sometimes called the “bead method” and can be used by women with regular menstrual cycles. The TwoDay Method is a simplified mucus-based method. Both are highly effective when used correctly. You can read more about them here: irh.org/

thnks

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

No, what God, in certain instances, is for a gift to come from that sin.

God is infinitely good. We fail Him again and again, but He is sufficiently wise and powerful to bring good from human sin.

Remember that God desires nothing but good for us. If a child results from rape or incest, it is because (and only because) that God sees the greatest good in creating a child.

It can help the person heal, teach additional virtue etc…

It might be to help spread His Word to others. I am thinking of several ‘conceived in rape’ speakers who rally against abortion.

Do any of us really thing that we are so wise and all knowing that we can point to any a child and say ‘When God created you, He made a mistake. The world would be better off if you did not exist’?

Would that be a Christian thing to say? Would it be a sign of virtue to claim to know better than God?

That is Bad theology.
God does not want sin.
Out of sin, He may create Good, but God doesnt want sin.

 

[jerry_joseph]

Roman catholic church gives its teachings on pro life matters not only in India , but also everywhere in the world. Teachings of church is same everywhere in the world. Those who are not in full communion with church cannot understand the real essence of its teachings.It aims to protect life and give respect to life at all stages.