Compatibilities or incompatibilities between Quivervull movement and the teaching of catholic church

[fpt]

According to you, what are compatibilities or incompatibilities between Quivervull movement and the teaching of catholic church on marriage, couple role, wife role, husband role, family role…etc.

For me, this movement that is coming from protestant lay persons - evangelical thoughts - seems to be in my first point of view quite far away from catholic mentality. May be I am wrong. I want to discuss and to get more information.

For summary, my first analysis, that is enough weak in term of research, seem show that:
Responsible procreation is not the one of principles of marriage; perhaps this movement have a low acception (meaning): take care or educate, the problem is about the degree of education. How to define this responsability that is the consequence of marital act? How to take care or educate boys and girls? Girls and boys are they equal in dignity and in practice??? Big questions? N.F.P. is not welcome: may be that this philosophy is too much animal -sorry for the word - it look like more reproduction than procreation ??? To study in the details.
Wife role is focusing “only” on motherhood and family life with a strict meaning.
What about the wife life with her husband? What about to study at college and may to get a job outside the house family?

The clanism can be too much important!!!

Do you have academic studies - in theology, in philosophy, in sociology, in story of mentalities, in law - concerning those issues?

 

[MaryHelene]

For me, the difference lies the the value placed on having many children vs. the value placed on being open to life. The Church does not teach that large families are any better or holier than small ones, or that couples with more children are more blessed/holy than couples who are never able to conceive a child, or have fewer children. The Church only teaches that couples should remain open to life with every sexual act.

I think the quiver-full movement places a lot of emphasis on the absolute number of children born, almost as though it is a competition to see how can be the most prolific reproducers.

 

[fpt]

For me, the difference lies the the value placed on having many children vs. the value placed on being open to life. The Church does not teach that large families are any better or holier than small ones, or that couples with more children are more blessed/holy than couples who are never able to conceive a child, or have fewer children. The Church only teaches that couples should remain open to life with every sexual act.

I think the quiver-full movement places a lot of emphasis on the absolute number of children born, almost as though it is a competition to see how can be the most prolific reproducers.

Thank you for comments and the details. I understand like you.

 

[SonCatcher]

Within the context of what MaryHelene wrote:

With the World battling against marriage and procreation the way it is, I am beginning to think there is a certain value for us to prayerfully consider accepting more children as a defense and assertion of our Christian faith. This might be considered a solidarity with the Quiverfull movement while not adhering to the same extremism.

 

[robwar]

you have a good question. One of the leaders behind the movement is a fundamentalist named Bill Gothard. Since you are in France, you are probably not familiar with him but he runs an organization called Institute in Basic Principals and travels the country doing seminars on his views of how Christians should live. He has s very rigid view of the roles between men and women, He teaches a very authoritative role for men in the family and a very submissive role for women. Unmarried children are to stay home even if adult until married. Bill Gothard is unmarried himself. Women do not work outside the home at all and teaches that Christians should follow a number of the old testament Jewish laws regarding diet, clothing, circumsician at 8 days old, the time of month married couples can have relationships etc. he is controversial but he is one of the forces behind the quiverful movement. While the movement seems similar to Catholic in that there is no artificial means of birth control and support for having children, there are a lot of things that he teaches that are questionable especially about his view of authority and relationships between men and women and how a family should be run. I know the posts talked about the emphasis on large families but he teaching of roles between men and women and their children are very concerning and there are books and web sites out there now talking about the damage they have experienced following him.

 

[Corki]

For me, the difference lies the the value placed on having many children vs. the value placed on being open to life. The Church does not teach that large families are any better or holier than small ones, or that couples with more children are more blessed/holy than couples who are never able to conceive a child, or have fewer children. The Church only teaches that couples should remain open to life with every sexual act.

I think the quiver-full movement places a lot of emphasis on the absolute number of children born, almost as though it is a competition to see how can be the most prolific reproducers.

Actually, the Church has taught that large families are especially blessed.

But you do not represent just any families at all; you are and represent large families, those most blessed by God and specially loved and prized by the Church as its most precious treasures.

Pope Pius XII (Allocution to Large Families)

 

[fpt]

According to my french catholic culture in link with the teaching of catholic church in the marriage, wife and husband are equal in dignity. Each one have of course its own nature (wife is a female, it is the feminity and she is a potential mother and the husband is male, it is the masculinity and he is a potential father).

Conjugal act (sexual love and body union must be unitive and procreative - unity and potential procreation -, both of them). Sexual pleasure is for husband and wife. Each one should understand with charity the needs of the other: I call it the conjugal sexual charity. It seems to me that in this movement wife should serve her husband. It is wrong. Wife can have sexual needs like man. Sexuality, pleasure, orgasm, desire, joy in the marriage are for the couple, but yet for each one, and the consequence, the children , if God want, must be educated and not taken care (diffrence between take care and educate).

The paternal control seems to be very strong even after the majority of children. Where is the liberty? How to choice her husband and where?

They agree with the rules of the ancien testament on the sexual act: For them, is it okay to have sex in function of different physiologic circumstances of wife? Yes or no.
During wife’s periods (menstruation):
During pregnancy:
Days before the child birth:
The day of child birth (of course before the waters loss, labor and the delivery):
During breastfeeding:
During menopause:
After menopause:

In my opinion the catholics have to be vigilant even if this movement battles against abortion, contraception and radical feminism.

But are they not puritan, victorian, prudish, masculinist, sexist… etc. Be careful, that is my slogan.