S
severus68
Guest
That’s cruel and wrong and I hope you put those people in their place. However, this is not the same thing. There is no issue here of a child ever being conceived.
Catholics that say they'd never have any biological children for this reason
- Status
S
severus68
Guest
If they only use NFP and just abstinence, I do not see the Church seeing this as wrong.
I think adopting orphans is a beautiful, Christian thing, whether they have biological children or not.
S
severus68
Guest
I know of early deaths, personally, so it can’t be that rare.
S
severus68
Guest
It is not for us to make such a judgement.
Suffering is inevitable but we do not have to seek it. If we can’t avoid suffering, then we accept it but nowhere in Church doctrine does it say we cannot avoid suffering. Do we tell a cancer sufferer not to take his morphine?
S
severus68
Guest
Great post and a more charitable response then I would have given.
A
Allegra
Guest
Statistically speaking, it is rare for a Downs child to pass away as a direct result of their disorder. Most deaths have to do with heart deformities, and many of these are correctable by surgery at this time. There is a slightly higher rate of death by accident, but I doubt that is figured in to most people’s equation. By far, the greatest danger to the life of a child with Downs Syndrome is the abortionist.
A
Allegra
Guest
Are we judging the person or the idea here? I can think of at least twenty situations right off the top of my head where we are morally precluded from avoiding suffering. People suffer when they can’t pay their rent. Are they allowed to knock over a jewelry store? No. People suffer when their spouse cheats on them. Are they allowed to shoot the homewrecker? No. People suffer when they need a bone marrow transplant. Are they allowed to drag a person, kicking and screaming, into the hospital to donate marrow against their will? No. And of course, there are any number of situations where the Church encourages us to embrace suffering that is the will of God. When determining whether or not to avoid suffering, there are several factors that have to be taken into consideration.
What will be gained by a terminal cancer patient refusing morphine. Probably fairly little, except perhaps a little more painful time on earth. However, if the same cancer patient has four small children and a 30% chance of beating the cancer if they get chemo and radiation, there is alot to be gained by embracing suffering. One can’t make a blanket statement regarding suffering, either way.
L
Layp3rs0n
Guest
Maybe I am wrong here, I just want something clarified. I thought if a family decides not to have more children AT ALL then even NFP goes out the window ans only abstinence was allowed. I thought we could not use NFP as “long term birth control” but just SPACING children when there is just need. Please correct me if I am wrong. I was just unaware a husband and wife were allowed to stop having kids indefinitely without abstinence. In fact I thought a marriage was only valid if both spouses agreed to have children regardless of any risk. I ask because my GF and I might consider marriage.
M
Memaw
Guest
This is not the same thing as taking meds. Church Doctrine does say that the Marriage act has to be open to life. We cannot play God in these situations anymore than for any other reason. Birth Control is always wrong no matter what the situation. Life can have some very hard roads. But walking with Christ and His Blessed Mother always makes them possible. Knowing your child will suffer and die is one of the hardest roads. Baptizing the baby and knowing that child has life and will eventually have Eternal Life is what one should focus on. What greater gift can a parent give a child than Life, Love and Eternal Life. We may only have our child or children in some cases for a short time but we can spend an Eternity with them if we trust God. Suffering and death will always be a part of our Earthly life. But Love is so much stronger than either. Gods Love first and then ours, with God’s help, in caring for those we love. They should talk to a good priest and seek help. God Bless, Memaw
A
april32010
Guest
:yup: 
M
Memaw
Guest
The first time I met my husband’s aunt many years ago, she was telling me that she has 12 children but she had to go to the cemetery to visit them. And I was shocked at that and I said, “OH my, why is that?” She told me they all died withing days after birth and at that time no one knew why. None lived longer than about 2 weeks. I expressed my sympathy and almost cried hearing that. She went on to say that one thing for sure she knows ALL her children are in Heaven and will be there waiting for her to join them forever. She said, how many mothers cans say that!. She has passed away many years ago and has enjoyed all her children since then and will forever. I admired her so much for her strong faith in God. I am thankful for the many people in my life that have taught me so much. Especially my own Mother. God Bless, Memaw
E
ExpectedIrony
Guest
We don’t know for a face if this couple is using birth control. They could not be having sex, or be using NFP. Some people aren’t strong enough mentally to have a child suffer like that. They’re not having a child naturally because they don’t want it to suffer, yes, you can’t avoid suffering in this life, but to suffer like that…why would you gamble with your child’s chances? Also, they do want children…what about the little girl they adopted? Where would she be? They’re still her parents, they’re raising her, giving her a loving home. Is that bad? They took a child that probably was suffering and made her life a little better. Maybe God is calling them to adopt children. That baby wouldn’t be in that home if it wasn’t God’s plan. Just because the OP’s sister didn’t naturally have her child, doesn’t mean she’s not a mother. A mother carries you in her heart, not her womb.
A
Allegra
Guest
There isn’t a hard core answer to this question. If a couple marries with the intention of never having children, then that might be grounds for an anullment. On the other hand, if a situtation comes up during the course of the marriage that makes it unwise for the couple to have another child, (ie. poverty, illness, danger to the health of the mother) then we are allowed to use NFP to avoid pregnancy, even if there is no end to that issue in sight. The problem with this situation is that the way it was posed, it seems that the couple initially entered into the marriage with the firm mindset of not being open to life. We don’t know if that means NFP or birth control, but either way, I suspect it might be considered an impediment to a sacramental marraige.
M
Memaw
Guest
Sounds very nice and some of it may well be, but that doesn’t change the Sacramental meaning of marriage and being open to the possibility of new life. It’s not our choice to decide if we should have children or not as long as we are Sacramentally married and trust God. None of us know what our capabilities are and God said with HIM we can do things we couldn’t on our own.
They need to trust God fully and that is not an easy thing to do at times but we should all strive to do that always. Every married couple never knows if a child will be born handicapped. We all take that chance. We take a big chance every time we get into a car. But that doesn’t stop us from driving. As for the little girl they have already adopted, children naturally love another child, and especially one that is in need of more love. Ask most families that have a handicapped child. Your opinions don’t hold up under the teachings of the Church. It’s what I think Mo. Angelica calls misguided compassion. God Bless, Memaw
A
Allegra
Guest
Anytime you have a child, you are gambling that they might suffer. They might suffer illness or depression. They might turn away from God completely and suffer eternal damnation. The idea of letting fear dictate whether or not you will obey God is not compatible with what we say we believe.
As far as I can see, a child with Tay-Sachs is pretty much blessed with a direct flight to sainthood. I know we aren’t supposed to presume that sort of thing, but logically speaking, and assuming a Baptism is performed, I don’t see any loopholes by which a such a child can meet any fate BUT eternity with God. The parents can seek comfort that there will be a saint in heaven praying for them and for their siblings on earth, intercessing their way out of calamnities that they never even knew were looming over their head.
On the other hand, denying that child their short life on earth is also denying them Eternal Life in heaven. Being closed to all life is also denying the lives of other children who may be born healthy and grow to live blessed lives as well.
Is this what we believe or isn’t it? God has an eternal plan for every human soul he creates. Certainly that includes the innocents who die in infancy. If we truely believe what we say we believe, then I don’t think the OP’s, sister’s mindset is compatible with Catholicism because it’s based in fear rather than faith.
PS- Adoption and procreation are not mutually exclusive and so the benefits of adoption are not relevant to the discussion.
A
Allegra
Guest
Not to be petty, but you did, in fact, judge this couple. You judged that they were in the right. You also judged other couples in the same situation in an earlier post. Specifically, you called them “selfish”. The word “judge” in this sense doesn’t mean “disagree with what they do.” It means, “determine whether a course of action is moral or wise.” I do understand what you mean, but I hate to see a loaded word like that thrown around incorrectly, particularly since it implies that weighing the morality of an action is akin to attempting to determine the value or the fate of another person’s soul.
S
Sneaux
Guest
Lol. I don’t really think they’re wrong, or think they’re bad people for doing it. You’ve obviously seen that some people on here think they’re wrong, I get that, it’s not the classic “Trust in God no matter what” Few people here are flexible in their beliefs. It seems to be if you’re not going to get married and have at least 5 kids biologically yours and your spouses, you’re not really classified as well as those who do. I’m not saying people here are bad, but if your sister adopted 6 children, and never had her own, these people would still have the same view, it’s not as holy as having 6 children biologically yours, no matter what the risk. If there was a 75% or even 90% chance of that child having Tay-Sachs, I bet people would still be saying the same thing, because as they’ve said before “Every pregnancy has risks.” I can understand why someone wouldn’t want to see their child going through that though, I can’t imagine how heartbreaking that would be, and I do believe, that the people who have children like that, are very blessed by God to have the strength to get through it. I also feel that your niece is very blessed to have parents who love her so much, congrats on their adoption. God bless them all.
C
CorieDreams
Guest
I want to reiterate that I do knot have anything to weigh in about wether or not this is a churhc approved option
But I want to weigh in here
I suffer from depression, and crippling anxiety. I want to be a mom someday, but I know now, at this moment, I could NOT be even a fraction of a decent mother to a child. I am very fully aware of that fact. I do NOT have the mental faculties to have that responsibility over a child who needs me.
If I knew I had a significant (much higher than average) chance of having a child with a crippleing disability, I would very likely abstain further, not because the child wouldn’t be loved or treasured, but because in compleete, HEART FELT HONESTY, I do not think I could care for a child like that. I have many in my family who have varying degrees of special needs, and I have less than zero patience, tolerance, or emotional stability to even be in the same room with them, let alone help tend to them. The few times I have had to help resulted in crippling panic and depression.
Mental illness, emotional issues, they aren’t going to go away with the magical wonder of raising a special needs child. Contrary to popular beliefe, not every person is equipped to handle that. I think there’s often this mentality of having to defend those with special needs by saying over and over that they’re always a blessing to their family. WEll…I’m sorry, but I’ve seen some of the opposite. I’ve seen families torn apart and children plopped into institutions forever because their parents just couldn’t cope.
That is not me trying to lobby for abortiong those children, or saying they shoudln’t have been born. That’s me lobbying for people who face instances like this with prayer and deep, true love to be able to understand their limitations honestly. I’m sorry but…someone with deep issues isn’t magicaly going to turn into a healthy, able bodied individual once they have a child with special needs. Just like some people honestly should not have children, some people just wouldn’t be able to handle having a special needs child.
I think there needs to be more support out there for parents who have special needs kids. I wanna throw up every time I see someone champion how sweet and kind and gentle these angels are, and insisting that they brighten the life of every family who has one. I don’t believe that. I just don’t. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.
A
Allegra
Guest
The problem is, you are looking through outside eyes. You see the extra difficulties that parents of disabled children face and think, “Eww! I could never handle that!” You don’t see the love that is in those parents’ hearts. You can’t judge the value of someone else’s life. I’ve taught hundreds of disabled children for years and while there parents may complain of very stressful and painful situations they have to deal with, I’ve never heard a single one state that they regret their child’s existance.
In as much as a couple can not determine their child will never be disabled or ill, a person who is unable to care for a disabled child is probably not called to be a parent at all. Even if you adopt a seemingly healthy infant, there is no way to be sure that they won’t have a regressive form of autism, or become deathly ill and go blind as a result, or suffer from a behavioral disorder, or suffer from a head injury in a car accident.
R
Rence
Guest
No, that’s not true. It’s true that NFP should be used on a month to month basis and that most people’s situations can and do change. But just one example off the top of my head for using NFP indefinitely is the risk of health to the mother due to illness or injury.
No, that’s not true. One has to be open to life in order to get married in the Church, but life happens and if something happens that would make it an undue burden on one or both of the spouses to have a child, they can use NFP to avoid. There no such thing as “regardless of any risk”. That’s vague, and not only that, the Church doesn’t require “regardless of any risk” so we shouldn’t demand that of each other.
- Status