T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t see why large families would result in poor outcomes. For example, St. Ignatius Loyola was the thirteenth of thirteen children.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
It’s true that large families need not result in poor outcomes. I had four siblings and wish I had more. A new brother or sister is better than a new toy.
In any case, my comments about the widespread acceptance of contraception were linked to the sexual revolution, which artificial contraception enabled. Out of wedlock births and fatherless families are nearly guarantors of poverty. Amazing that after artificial contraception was widely accepted, out of wedlock birth rates skyrocketed. Now they range from 41% to over 70% in some communities, indicative of broken households locked in poverty.
I referenced the book “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” by Mary Eberstadt for a discussion of the results of the sexual revolution. And it was a revolution. Every single Protestant denomination had exactly the same teaching on contraception as the Catholic Church up until 1930. The Catholic Church has taught this doctrine for 2,000 years, and all the denominations springing from the Reformation taught the exact same doctrine for over 400 years since the beginning of the Reformation.
In fact, the Reformers not only opposed contraception, they encouraged large families. Since their ministers could marry, it was expected that a married Protestant minister would be blessed with a large family. All that has changed in a few generations. And it has not been for the better.
B
bjryman
Guest
My mother was 13th child of 13 Polish Catholic family and my wife was oldest of 8 kids. Of course there can be good outcomes in these families. However, in the aggregate, my young adult children have a much greater challenge to provide a robust support for children they bring into the world. My dad, handled all of us with a High School education. My mom’s family living in Saginaw Michigan, within city limits had a cow, chickens, garden etc to survive.
The challenge in today’s world is that base lifestyle requirements (education, training, living & travel expenses) are exponentially higher today than in past generations. Preparing for retirement is also becoming ever more challenging with the average US family having $40,000 saved. The bottom line is that it takes a certain amount of physical and monetary resources to not just survive, but to thrive.
Most importantly, each of us as parents have the God given responsibility to properly prepare our family for both their future on earth and the hereafter
J
JimG
Guest
I don’t disagree with anything you say here. I also think that a 70% out of wedlock pregnancy rate is bad for kids, bad for mothers, bad for society. It was the revolution in artificial contraception which actually enabled this as well as many more deleterious effects noted in “Adam and Even After the Pill,.” including abortion, divorce, adultery and sexual dysfunction.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I know one thing. If a family says they cannot afford another child, if you could look into the future and tell them their next child will grow up to be a multimillionaire, that family that could not afford another child would stop contracepting in a heartbeat.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I am the youngest of eight. We grew up poor. For years I bought into society’s contraceptive lie. I was to blind to see the irony that the only reason that I am walking around today, was because my parents didn’t listen to those more “knowledgable” than them, who told them that they should be contracepting after four kids.
We have cable tv. We have a new car. We have a good retirement plan. We live in a nice neighborhood. I regret not being more open to life. I regret just saying the Church is wrong, without ever bothering to listen to Her reasoning.
We have cable tv. We have a new car. We have a good retirement plan. We live in a nice neighborhood. I regret not being more open to life. I regret just saying the Church is wrong, without ever bothering to listen to Her reasoning.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If contraception is “theologically impossible,” then how is it possible that the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control which had 72 members including 16 theologians, 16 bishops and 7 cardinals could have issued a report in 1966 advising Pope Paul VI to allow artificial birth control? The minority and dissenting report on the other hand had only 4 theologians, 1 cardinal and 2 bishops. So how could the Catholic Church have so many bad theologians and theologically unsophisticated bishops who didn’t know that contraception is “theologically impossible”?
J
JimG
Guest
What is theologically impossible is changing the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception, which has been consistent for 2000 years. And the Protestant teaching against it was constant for 400 years up until 1930.
The pope has the protection of the Holy Spirit in guarding the deposit of Faith. Theological commissions do not. And they were confused by the new forms of contraception being made available at the time–i.e. the pill. The Church stayed firm with the help of the Holy Spirit. And if you read the book, you might agree that dissenters made a big mistake in fostering artificial contraception.
P
Petaro
Guest
I think that you are a sincere and brave person living in a post-Christian country where, once your faith matures, you will only face derision and persecution. Thus you are right to be miffed at the derision starting early on this forum.
It is refreshing that you have given such thought to some of the important issues you have delineated and I see you hold firm to the major Catholic doctrines mentioned in your post.
Divorce versus annulment is hard to fully delineate logically without seeing the sacramental nature of marriage inextricably conjoined with its contractual nature. Annulment is a canon law issue of contract and is thus treated by the Church tribunals investigating claims. Divorce is impossible once a valid sacramental licit marriage is voluntarily entered into by a man and a woman.
I suggest that you continue your reading, concentrating on the writings of the Fathers of the Catholic Church and develop a deeper prayer life, especially to the Virgin Mary to whom much is given by her Son.
It is young people such as yourself that is the heart of the rebirth of European Christendom and I applaud you. May the Holy Spirit guide your search for truth.
D
Duane1966
Guest
So if children are born into poor families, one in which their parents struggle to make ends meet, but the children and parents are happy, is the outcome poor?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Not for the children and parents.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Perhaps they were thinking along the lines of development of teaching? At one time burning at the stake was acceptable, but now it is not.
D
David_Goliath
Guest
There is a lot of this on this forum. “Scenario A was protected by the Holy Spirit but Scenario B was not”.
Was the Papal Bull “The Jewish Race” protected by the Holy Spirit? (Pius V, 16th century)
*
“The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice – in all towns, districts, and places – must depart these regions.”*
What about the Papal Bull Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum (Paul IV, 1555) that forced Jews to wear distinctive clothing? And, there are many many other Papal Bull against Jews throughout the long history of the Catholic Church. Were they all protected by the holy spirit?
What is and is not protected by the Holy Spirit? I know, only the deposit of faith. But, if there is some blemish, do you just say "that wasn’t projected by the Holy Spirit?
The Spanish Inquisition, even if it was run “by the state and not the Church”, sought out Jews who converted to Christianity but secretly practiced Judaism. OK. I get that. But did it ever occur that maybe they converted to make their lives better, perhaps they didn’t like being second class citizens. Why didn’t society at that time just accept religious pluralism like we do now in the USA?
What about the canonization of Simon of Trent, a Christian boy allegedly ritually murdered by Jews? Yeah, the canonization means only his soul is in heaven—that is protected by the Holy Spirit—but the story around his death is not? Another example of “this was protected by the holy spirit but that was not”.
Why all of the sudden in 1965 did Nostra Aeate make nice with the Jewish people? Was Nostra Aetate protected by the holy spirit? How was THAT “theologically possible”?
It seems like whatever you (or others) agree with is protected by the holy spirit and whatever you do not is not.
Now…someone will say “those Papal Bulls were not ex-cathedra” and my head will fall off.
:shrug:
B
bjryman
Guest
Your comment is irrelavant to the decision a parent needs to make today about THEIR ability to nuture both spiritually and secularly (I use that term only for brevity) the life they decide to bring into the world. There is no decision quite as impactive and permanent as the one a couple makes regarding bringing children into the world.
To discard that tremendous responsibility, throw caution to the wind, and not prepare properly, to me is a mortal sin against God’s direction to us all to take care of the little ones. “Taking Care” does not just mean birthing. How we, in society, can teach that proper prepartion (education, experience, fiscal responsibility…whatever) is critical to supporting familial life, and then ignore the impact of the number of children coming into the family is beyond me. The latter sets the stage for all the former responsibility and accountablility.
One other comment…I know several couples that should NEVER have brought children into the world. They are self centered and selfish in some cases, literally ignoring the nutruing of their kids. In other cases they are borderline abusive to the kids. One can see all this clearly and the impact on the kids. When Paul stated that we all have a special calling, he did not state the the calling to marriage in 100% of the cases should result in childbearing. There are those married couples who can provide wonderful service to the Church in a variety of ways, but who should not have children
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
This is incorrect. There are priests who have been made Cardinals and there have been deacons in the past.
Also, I think that your understanding of Church teaching on artificial contraception, and divorce and remarriage is in error. Many of us could use more reading on these teachings.
V
Vico
Guest
Natural family planning is not perfectly fine unless conditions exist that justify it. USCCB states:When couples use contraception, either physical or chemical, they suppress their fertility, asserting that they alone have ultimate control over this power to create a new human life. With NFP, spouses respect God’s design for life and love. They may choose to refrain from sexual union during the woman’s fertile time, doing nothing to destroy the love-giving or life-giving meaning that is present. This is the difference between choosing to falsify the full marital language of the body and choosing at certain times not to speak that language.
The Church’s support for NFP is not based on its being “natural” as opposed to artificial. Rather, NFP respects the God-given power to love a new human life into being even when we are not actively seeking to exercise that power. However, because NFP does not change the human body in any way, or upset its balance with potentially harmful drugs or devices, people of other faiths or of no religious affiliation have also come to accept and use it from a desire to work in harmony with their bodies. They have also found that it leads couples to show greater attentiveness to and respect for each other. …
… in 1968, Pope Paul VI warned that the use of contraception would allow one spouse to treat the other more like an object than a person, and that in time governments would be tempted to impose laws limiting family size. Pope John Paul II called attention to the close association between contraception and abortion, noting that “the negative values inherent in the ‘contraceptive mentality’ . . . are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation [to abortion] when an unwanted life is conceived” (Evangelium Vitae, no. 13).
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/married-love-and-the-gift-of-life.cfm
The Catholic Church does recognize dissolution of a marriage (and divorce is a dissolution of marriage), in the case of unconsummated valid marriage, and in natural marriage (not of two Christians) in what is called the Pauline Privilege and Petrine Priviledge.
For the rest, it is only if when there is proof of invalid consent or an impediment that was not dispensed that a marriage is declared invalid. When a declaration of nullity is issued is shows that matrimony did not occur for the couple.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I don’t think so because this declaration of nullity can be overthrown by the Roman Rota.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
And there are other papal statements in the past which non-Catholics have found offensive. Church leaders today are trying to right these wrongs, but as you indicate, this may run against the idea that past teachings were protected by infallibility. One possible way out mentioned by theologians such as Hans Kung (who is not considered to be an orthodox catholic theologian, but is a friend of Pope Benedict) is to revise the teaching on infallibility. Under this revision, the Church is seen as composed of humans doing the best they can under the circumstances, but allowing the possibility of future revisions.There is a lot of this on this forum. “Scenario A was protected by the Holy Spirit but Scenario B was not”.
Was the Papal Bull “The Jewish Race” protected by the Holy Spirit? (Pius V, 16th century)
*
“The Jewish people fell from the heights because of their faithlessness and condemned their Redeemer to a shameful death. Their godlessness has assumed such forms that, for the salvation of our own people, it becomes necessary to prevent their disease. Besides usury, through which Jews everywhere have sucked dry the property of impoverished Christians, they are accomplices of thieves and robbers; and the most damaging aspect of the matter is that they allure the unsuspecting through magical incantations, superstition, and witchcraft to the Synagogue of Satan and boast of being able to predict the future. We have carefully investigated how this revolting sect abuses the name of Christ and how harmful they are to those whose life is threatened by their deceit. On account of these and other serious matters, and because of the gravity of their crimes which increase day to day more and more, We order that, within 90 days, all Jews in our entire earthly realm of justice – in all towns, districts, and places – must depart these regions.”*
What about the Papal Bull Bull Cum Nimis Absurdum (Paul IV, 1555) that forced Jews to wear distinctive clothing? And, there are many many other Papal Bull against Jews throughout the long history of the Catholic Church. Were they all protected by the holy spirit?
What is and is not protected by the Holy Spirit? I know, only the deposit of faith. But, if there is some blemish, do you just say "that wasn’t projected by the Holy Spirit?
The Spanish Inquisition, even if it was run “by the state and not the Church”, sought out Jews who converted to Christianity but secretly practiced Judaism. OK. I get that. But did it ever occur that maybe they converted to make their lives better, perhaps they didn’t like being second class citizens. Why didn’t society at that time just accept religious pluralism like we do now in the USA?
What about the canonization of Simon of Trent, a Christian boy allegedly ritually murdered by Jews? Yeah, the canonization means only his soul is in heaven—that is protected by the Holy Spirit—but the story around his death is not? Another example of “this was protected by the holy spirit but that was not”.
Why all of the sudden in 1965 did Nostra Aeate make nice with the Jewish people? Was Nostra Aetate protected by the holy spirit? How was THAT “theologically possible”?
It seems like whatever you (or others) agree with is protected by the holy spirit and whatever you do not is not.
Now…someone will say “those Papal Bulls were not ex-cathedra” and my head will fall off.
D
Duane1966
Guest
Many people use the financial argument. And yet if you ask anyone who says they cannot afford another, if their next child was going to grow up to be a multimillionaire, would they try to have another, they would say yes. How can this be, given that just a second ago they could not afford one? Inherent to this line of thinking is that a child who would grow up to be rich has more of a right to life than one who would end up poor. The whole financial aspect of having children is a red herring. Bl. FUulton Sheen gives a great talk on this very issue.
Do you equate being poor with not being able to take care of children? Do you look at the children of poor people, or the last child in a financially strapped big family and think, “man, your parents did not prepare for you, you really should not be walking this earth?”
When I posted this before you did not reply, so I will repost it, with more detail.
A family has ten children, and they live paycheck to paycheck? Based on what you have stated so far, I have no doubt that this is an undesirable outcome in your opinion. They have clearly thrown “caution to the wind.”
Furthermore, the parents don’t care that they live paycheck to paycheck. Financial security is somewhat down on their list of priorities. In fact whenever they get a little bit of money they give it away to charity. The children are happy. (I know of such a family) Is this still an undesirable outcome in your opinion?
When all is said and done, the children never amount to anything in societies eyes, but they and their parents end up being saints. Is this outcome still undesirable?
If a family has prepared properly, and can take care of a child, subsequently have a child, but do not love the child (I know of such a family), is the child better off in this family, or one in which the parents threw caution to the wind and were unprepared, but will love the child every minute of the child’s life?
Seems to be equating a family having a high number of births with an inability to take care of them. If the children are loved, they will turn out fine. The reverse is also true, if a child is not loved, there will be problems, whether the child grows up rich or poor.
Do you think the children wish they had never been born? Do you try to love these parents as you love yourself? Did God think that those couples that should NEVER have brought children into this world actually should have? Are children a gift from God? If they are a gift, is it a mortal sin to refuse it if God wants to give the gift now, but I don’t want it at this time?
V
Vico
Guest
That has occurred. However, there is never absolute certainty about matrimony because one of the persons may be lying, so it is a best effort to determine. My comment is based on Patrick S. Morris, PhD, JCD, PhD. on the Diocese of Raleigh tribunal site: What is a declaration of nullity? An individual who petitions (both the baptized and the non-baptized have the right to petition) a tribunal (or church court as the place where the rights of individuals are upheld and defended) for a declaration of nullity states, in effect, that either one or both of the marital partners were incapable of entering a valid covenant or either one or both (although capable) did not enter a valid marital covenant at the time mutual consent was exchanged.
dioceseofraleigh.org/offices/tribunal/what-is-a-declaration-of-nullity#sthash.GWdJ9iiu.dpuf
- Status