W
wanner47
Guest
I take that to mean, “I can’t answer it without my entire premise falling apart, so I won’t.”You can’t always get what you want.
All righty then.
- Status
All righty then.
W
wanner47
Guest
Oh my! It’s blatant ignorance of moral theology and philosophy!Oh my! It is magisterial double speak!
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
Right. So I don’t see how this conversation can turn into a “gotcha!!” for either Catholics or Orthodox. The fathers did not have any way of articulating a just family size or a moral way to limit children. You simply had the number of children that God sent and that was that. It wasn’t up to any man to make those kinds of decisions.
M
Mickey
Guest
Fair enough. It does not have much to do with the thread.
I have never seen a Catholic layperson, theologian, or clergyman able to provide a record of infallible statements or documents. Most agree that since Pius IX defined infallibility in 1870, there have only been two—infallibility itself…and the Immaculate Conception (albeit retroactively). Other than that, I have seen long and involved debates amongst Catholics themselves as to what justifies an infallible statement. Of course, the Orthodox do not accept papal Infallibility–but that is another thread.
M
Mickey
Guest
Sticks and stones.
M
Mickey
Guest
If that makes you feel better.
W
wanner47
Guest
If the truth hurts…If that makes you feel better.
M
Mickey
Guest
What…your truth?
R
Rence
Guest
I worry about how it affects others too, and how it may affect me in the future.
Frankly, the vast majority of Catholics can’t afford to obey the Church on this particular matter.There are some interesting philosophical issues that are associated with the subject. For example, why do the vast majority of Catholics disobey the Church on this particular matter. Are humans naturally hardwired to reject this particular matter? And why this issue versus everything else??? Sorry…probably off topic.
We as a race have evolved not just as a people, but our communities, and our lifestyle. Back in the day, when we were an agricultural people, the more kids one had, the more food made it to the table. An oxymoron? Not really, because If one only had a few mouths to feed, they still lacked the resources to get that food to the table. It takes more than two parents and one or two kids to work the fields every season, bring in the harvest, prepare and store the harvest, put the ground to rest, and get ready for the spring start up. So even if one had 12 mouths to feed, instead of 3, they were able to get that food to the table to feed everyone easier than the smaller family. A smaller family meant family ruin at that time. Being able to heat the home was dependent on hands available to cut wood and bring it inside. Being able to drink and get bath water depended on hands available to lug it in. Someone had to help process animals and crops. There were no electrical outlets, water faucets, washing machines, dryers, Kroger’s for food, Target for clothes, etc.
In addition, during those times, there was pressure to have more children because many of them died of disease and accidents. The life expectancy of children was low. You had to make up for those kids lost by having many children – which goes back to family ruin due to small families who couldn’t pull together to bring resources to the home. No hands = no food.
Today, more mouths to feed doesn’t mean more hands in the field. It means the parents have to work harder to come up with money to support those children AFTER rent/mortgage, heat, electricity, things that break are expensive to fix. Then you add on food, clothing, tuition and odds and ends that our anscestors didn’t have to worry about because extra hands brought those resources home. People who are called to have large families are doing so and doing it well. But like it or not, an additional pregnancy can break and already stressed marriage and can break people. We don’t have the help we need to keep houses clean and sanitary, we don’t have the help we need to watch several children and keep them safe. The older ones practically raised the younger ones…not easy for those older ones to do today if they’re studying for exams.
Today, the Church is still gives the most money to charity. However, not all Catholics are recipients of those handouts. If the Church wants today’s people to continue having large families, they will have to make resources available to help families. Our needs are different today than they were in the olden times and aren’t limited to food and diapers for toddlers. It means following those children through life and helping. It means making resources available for strung-out parents having trouble coping wit the few they have.
Things are just different now. Not everyone is the same. Not everyone is going to have 6, 10, 12 kids… that’s just the way it is. Bible and CCC thumping isn’t going to change that. Because the Bible and CCC thumpers are not the ones who have to raise those children. Individual and lone families have to.
R
Rence
Guest
Natural family planning is knowing and tracking the signs of fertility, in order to accomplish or avoid a pregnancy. You use cervical fluid, temperature, and cervical position, together, in combination or one of the signs, to track your fertility. It’s basically the same principles used by fertility doctors to accomplish a pregnancy, except in reverse so that you’re avoiding sex on the days when you’re most fertile. When used correctly the sucess is higher than artificial birth control methods. But you have to 1) learn the signs of fertility, 2) learn how to track them and 3) avoid sex on days you probably want it most. If you cheat, you may get pregnant, and that’s life. But then if you cheat, maybe you don’t have to not have that kid so badly after allI don’t know if anyone else has mentioned this, but…
Most of us who are not Catholic have no idea what NFP stands for.
Regardless of creed, I think it’s a great offense against women that this isn’t taught to ALL women. Women should know their signs of fertility, which enables them to p(name removed by moderator)oint problems as they arise. And let’s face it kids, the older you get the higher your risk for stroke, heart attack and blood clots. Eventually, we (like me, and I’m only 40) will not be candidates for hormone therapy, and will have to cope with either celibacy, unplanned pregnancies, or will be forced to learn NFP the hard way
R
Rence
Guest
I understand what you’re saying, but I disagree. But we’ll never know until we get there
R
Rence
Guest
You know what? It’s not that I’d like to disagree with the above, becayse in fact, I would love to agree with it, but if there are only two infallible statements that govern Catholics, then is it false that according to Church teaching: the Pope, or Magisterium, cannot err in teachings of faith and morals, and when they make teachings on faith and morals, such teachings are infallible? I’d really love to know. Because it would make the stumbling blocks merely suggestions instead of mandates. And that would solve many problems for meFair enough. It does not have much to do with the thread.
I have never seen a Catholic layperson, theologian, or clergyman able to provide a record of infallible statements or documents. Most agree that since Pius IX defined infallibility in 1870, there have only been two—infallibility itself…and the Immaculate Conception (albeit retroactively). Other than that, I have seen long and involved debates amongst Catholics themselves as to what justifies an infallible statement. Of course, the Orthodox do not accept papal Infallibility–but that is another thread.
So then, according to your Latin Catholic sources, is there a distinction between “infallible statements” and "infallible teachings? At least that’s what I was taught.
However, I really can’t help but admit that this little exchange with you has made Orthodoxy seem a lot more palatable than Catholicsm. Orthodoxy seems a bit more sensitive to the spirtitual needs of people, rather than strict legalism with strict legalistic variables and an “I don’t care if you like it or not” attitude…Not that this thread has revealed an epiphany, because this is not the first time I appreciate the rules of Orthodoxy over the rules of Latin Catholicism. I can think of a few more areas in fact.
W
wanner47
Guest
I respectfully disagree. It seems to me that a Catholic could then use this argument to justify abortion.
Actually, large families can live quite well if they live frugally, no handouts necessary. In fact, due to hand-me-downs, sometimes it’s more economical to provide for a large family than it is for a smaller family. I buy almost all of my clothing as well as my kids’ clothing secondhand, for example, and am still able to hand it down to subsequent children.
You’ll find that if everyone works together, these things can be managed quite well.
I agree that, as Christians, we should be charitable with one another and help one another, regardless of our circumstances.
That’s true, but it’s still wrong to do evil (contraception) so that good may result (child spacing).
My husband and I were married in the Lutheran Church and planned to only have two, MAYBE three, children at the most… and then not until we both had college degrees and a house, etc. However, we discovered the Catholic Church and NFP, and felt called to parenthood earlier than most would consider to be prudent. (You can read more about our journey here.) We’ve since conceived children whenever we felt God was calling us to do so.
I have to admit I was worried in the last few months about how we would provide for another child - I work full-time out of necessity and daycare is expensive! But as my husband and I discerned God’s will, we felt He was calling us to be open to another child. We decided to trust Him with our finances in that regard. The same week I conceived our sixth child, I received a large raise at work.
It is wise to be prudent, but we are also called to be generous – and to trust in God even if we are unable to see His plan. I’m glad that God and the Church has gifted Catholics with a morally acceptable way to space children that doesn’t violate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act, and I know I can trust Him implicitly regardless of our family size.
W
wanner47
Guest
The thing is that the Church proposes, not imposes. If you look at the reasons for the “rules,” they’re quite logical and consistent.However, I really can’t help but admit that this little exchange with you has made Orthodoxy seem a lot more palatable than Catholicsm. Orthodoxy seems a bit more sensitive to the spirtitual needs of people, rather than strict legalism with strict legalistic variables and an “I don’t care if you like it or not” attitude…Not that this thread has revealed an epiphany, because this is not the first time I appreciate the rules of Orthodoxy over the rules of Latin Catholicism. I can think of a few more areas in fact.
The other thing is that it’s not supposed to be easy to be a Christian. There’s a reason Jesus said “Take up your cross and follow me,” not “Follow me and I’ll strew your path with rose petals.” We are supposed to live in the world but not of the world, and that can be very difficult. However, our reward will be great.
I have a great respect for Orthodoxy and I pray that the East and West will unite some day. But there are several moral issues that make it clear to me that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ established.
R
Rence
Guest
That’s untrue. Being open to life is not the same thing is not the same thing as using birth control or NFP to avoid pregnancy because one can’t afford to get pregnant. Not the same thing at all. You can’t use an argument such as that to justify abortion. If one is bound to get an abortion, they will do so. Someone staunchly against abortion will not have one over not being able to afford another child.
Respectfully, I disagree
It depends on the financial status of the family, and the means available to them. When I lived in Chicago, the taxes on our family home were literally (not exaggerating) $6000/year. Our gas in the winter $1000+, our electricity $500, our water $75. I moved south and our taxes are $1100, we don’t have a gast bill, our electric never went over $450, our water never over $40. Those are big variances depending on the region in which one lives. It’s easy for you to say you can do it, but what about someone else who can’t? It is fair to judge their ability by your standards? Sorry, but not everyone is the same.Some of us don’t have a problem trusting Him implicitly. The problem is that we have to trust the Church to know what’s best for us, all the while leaving us to solve our own problems, propagated by rules rules and more rules. And yes, there is a difference, for some of us (and actually, most of us) between trusting Him and trusting mere humans who make up the governing body of our Church.
R
Rence
Guest
The Church does nothing of the sort. You can’t “propose” and say “it is forbidden” at the same time. The “rules” are logical and consistent with the leaders of the Church and quite obviously, the few that obey them. They’re not logical and consistent to the majority, or the majority would be doing exactly what is “proposed”.
No one said it had to be easy
In fact, life is not easy as it is without rules and regulations being imposed on families I believe he established them both. They both have the same origins. One just took a turn, and frankly sometimes it’s hard for some to see which one took the turn, and which one stayed the same. There is documentation supporting both sides on that.
M
Mickey
Guest
God bless you! The Lord will always provide. My wife and I are still open to children–if it is God’s will. She is in her early 40’s and I am older than that–but God’s will be done.
Congratulations!
M
Mickey
Guest
And of course we would say that the Latins split away from the Church about 1000 years ago.
W
wanner47
Guest
But it seems to me a Catholic could say, “I’m pregnant, but I can’t afford to follow the Church’s rules regarding abortion” and justify it that way.
I agree with you, which is why I’m glad that NFP is available to those who need to space their children for financial reasons, regardless of location or circumstances. My larger point was that it’s not necessarily true that larger families are more expensive. You’re going to have the bills cited above whether or not you have 2 children or 6 children, and there are several ways to cut costs in non-essential areas to help pay for the essential ones.Respectfully, I disagree
I don’t have that perception of the Church at all.
She has never left me to “solve my own problems.” I have always received guidance and sometimes material help whenever I needed it.There shouldn’t be. If you trust Jesus, then you trust those to whom He gave the authority to teach correctly regarding issues of faith and morals.
W
wanner47
Guest
- Status