Contraception and vocations

[HomeschoolDad]

Same for my daughter. Three years of trying. Thankfully she’s working with a doctor from Saint Pope Paul VI now, but even they only give a 75% chance of pregnancy.

To look at my gorgeous daughter and her handsome husband and see how fit and strong they are, you would think, “Of course they can have children, so they must be sinning by contracepting.”

As above, I would say no such thing. But neither can I say “it’s all good, I have to assume that everyone here is of one mind with the Church, I have to assume that everyone here forms their conscience in accord with all of the moral teachings of the Church, and I have to assume nobody here is refraining from having children that they can and should be having”.

It cuts both ways. Someone could look at me and say “he’s divorced, he’s been single for many years, I’ve seen this guy here before, he has no obvious relationship with a woman, is he living chastely? Could he be gay? How does he live celibately?”. I wouldn’t be offended. Their wondering about this isn’t totally unfounded. (For the record, I do live chastely and I’m not gay.) On the contrary, I would be pleased to know that they care for the state of my soul. I need all the prayers I can get. But maybe that’s just me.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There is no requirement that a Catholic couple have as many children as possible.

No, but we are called to welcome new life, and each and every marital act must be open to that possibility, however remote it might be. NFP is not fool-proof. A woman of childbearing age who has not been sterilized can get pregnant at any time. Much more likely at some times than others, but it happens. If for some reason a couple simply, absolutely, cannot take a chance on an unwanted pregnancy, the “hard saying” is that they should abstain from relations.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I grew up in the non-Baptist evangelical world. Tithing was simply expected.

You get $1 in a birthday card from grandma? You put a dime in the collection on Sunday. Do do anything else was robbing God.

If you are poor, you still tithed. The tithe comes off the top, not off of what is leftover after you pay the bills. For those with simply no money at all, you donated more time. You cleaned the building, you mow the grass, you did anything to make sure that you were faithful in stewardship.

When you are not poor you were expected to give above the tithe by giving offerings.

So, various denominations presented the teachings on stewardship in different ways.

For many Cradle Catholics, they don’t realize the vast difference in teachings even within a denomination. (The thing that drove me TO the Church, but, that is another story).

Protestants give more than Catholics when it comes to the collection plate. This phenomena is discussed in Catholic circles quite often, parish staff/priests talk about it, however, you do not find a number of internet articles about it. There are books and I’ve read a bunch of them. If I were suggesting one, it would be this:

https://www.amazon.com/Catholics-Dont-Give-What-About/dp/1592762611

My armchair psychology is that Catholics hear that “the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world!” (https://catholicherald.co.uk/issues/february-17th-2017/a-worldwide-force-for-good/ and many other articles out there) and that makes them think that they don’t need to open up the pocketbook because someone else is already doing more.

Interestingly, if you talk to Catholic parish staff/financial council people, they will tell you that today’s parishioner is far more likely to donate toward a cause/fundraiser than they are to donate their own time or talents or to just regularly donate in the Sunday basket. If there is a disaster, Catholics give. No doubt.

There are a million myths (speaking for parishes in the US), we did some surveys of parishioners and found it was commonly believed that the Diocese supports the parishes.

Diocese of Wichita is doing something right.

I read this article again last week:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UWLiJFhN2Q1_SaGFsmEPVOrbL9PzU9Gz/view

They have many great resources

Stewardship Parish

Parish Resources Embracing the Stewardship Way of Life fully in every parish Parish Stewardship Formation resources Stewardship A Disciples Response – A Pastoral Letter on Stewardship.pdf Relationship between Stewardship +… Read More

catholicdioceseofwichita.org

 

[babochka]

babochka:

There is no requirement that a Catholic couple have as many children as possible.

No, but we are called to welcome new life, and each and every marital act must be open to that possibility, however remote it might be. NFP is not fool-proof. A woman of childbearing age who has not been sterilized can get pregnant at any time. Much more likely at some times than others, but it happens. If for some reason a couple simply, absolutely, cannot take a chance on an unwanted pregnancy, the “hard saying” is that they should abstain from relations.

Thank you for the quick lesson on biology and Church teaching. I am no stranger to either. Did I mention that I’m a mother of 6 and I had a “surprise” baby at 45?

I also have a Protestant friend who had a baby after her husband’s vasectomy. Talk about a contraceptive mentality! So, they welcomed another baby.

But I was responding to this statement:

I do know that most people could have more children than they do.

So? What does this have to do with Church teaching?

It cuts both ways. Someone could look at me and say “he’s divorced, he’s been single for many years, I’ve seen this guy here before, he has no obvious relationship with a woman, is he living chastely?

Somebody could wonder, but the answers are none of their business.

Ah, well, I am off to Divine Liturgy. I will pray for vocations and for everybody in this thread, especially those who struggle with infertility.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There is no requirement that a Catholic couple have as many children as possible.

I was merely clarifying the scenario. That is useful to do when something is being debated or defended. It wasn’t my intent to “mansplain” (not that you suggested this, you didn’t).

I do know that most people could have more children than they do.

You know, I am going to backtrack slightly on one thing, and one thing only. I said “most people”. That may not be correct. It may not be materially over 50 percent — that would be “most”. It would have been better expressed as “many people”. “Many” can be “most”, or it can be something less than “most”. Again, I am just clarifying the terms, I know the reader is aware of what “many” means. My common sense tells me it’s not just “a few”. I am not going to venture numbers here, nor approach this as an exercise in sorites (“how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap of sand?”).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It cuts both ways. Someone could look at me and say “he’s divorced, he’s been single for many years, I’ve seen this guy here before, he has no obvious relationship with a woman, is he living chastely?

This raises an issue that might be a bit of thread drift, but I’m going to mention it anyway. The Church has “re-named” so many things (at least in popular parlance) in the wake of Vatican II, and one I’ve always found a trifle annoying is referring to confession (or penance, if you will) as “reconciliation”.

The implication seems to be that by my sin, I have not only offended Almighty God, but I have injured or offended the community of the faithful, and that I must be “reconciled” to them as well as to God. Following this reasoning, are not the sins of others, in some way, “my business”, and are not my sins, then, “other people’s business”? By my sin, I have injured the entire Church. This is not to say that I have to tell other people my sin, but it does make sin a kind of “communal injury”.

It’s not a term I regularly use. I much prefer “confession” or “penance”. I view my sins as, first and foremost, something that have injured my relationship with God, which, if it is injured badly enough, will put my soul in danger of damnation. Then, if they are sins that affect other people, I have injured my relationship with them as well and must repair it if I can. I do not typically think of my private sins, however, as having harmed or injured anyone else. It’s not a bad term and it’s not a wrong term, again, it is just a term I don’t regularly use.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I do know that it is possible to use NFP sinfully, because I did it myself.

I question this. I would generally, but after reading your posts I think you’re understanding of the serious reasons required for use is too strident. There are priests and lay Catholics that get this wrong and mislead others. I know what I was told when I embraced the faith as an adult and since I respected the person sharing the information and didn’t know any better I believed some erroneous things.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I do know that it is possible to use NFP sinfully, because I did it myself.

I will leave the reasons, their gravity, their duration, and their motivation, in the confessional where they belong. Suffice it to say that I came to a conviction of conscience and it didn’t happen overnight.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I will leave the reasons, their gravity, their duration, and their motivation, in the confessional where they belong.

Of course!

But it doesn’t mean that what you believe was wrong is wrong according to church teaching.

 

[OraLabora]

I would say no such thing. I would say, when I see 95% of a congregation going up to receive communion, that “they can’t all be accepting the teachings of the Church and living in accord with them”. Maybe they are. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Everybody’s faith walk is different and is a different road to the same destination, with many obstacles en route. Monks will all tell you that their conversion, and full immersion into monastic life, takes a lifetime. Becoming a saint is a lifetime project.

There are surely many people walking up the aisle to communion, who are committing grave sins. But we cannot judge the state of their souls, for grave matter may be wrapped in invincible ignorance, or lack of full cooperation of the will, or an epic struggle to reach the goal, or a well-formed conscience that is unable to consent to this or that Church teaching. And likely a combination of all of the above.

And that applies to all of us. And not just for sexual/procreative matters. Whether we cheated on our taxes, failed in charity, lied, drove dangerously, where gluttonous, got drunk, complained openly to others about our spouses, gossiped, whatever. Each and every one of us. You, as well as I. No exceptions. The last guy who never sinned was nailed to a cross.

It behooves us then, to work on our own conversions and refrain from speculating about the state of the soul of each person ambling up to receive communion, and to allow them to forge their own path to full communion with Christ. Not with the Church. With Christ.

We all have issues. We all sin.

 

[CilladeRoma]

-drop.
Bravo!

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes it’s been halved.

Used to be a fertility rate of 6 children per woman, now it’s 3 per woman in the 70s. Still above replacement rate.

The fertility rate of the Philippines is still higher than the Muslim nations of Indonesia and Malaysia and higher than Thailand and Singapore.

 

[Sarcelle]

It behooves us then, to work on our own conversions and refrain from speculating about the state of the soul of each person ambling up to receive communion, and to allow them to forge their own path to full communion with Christ. Not with the Church. With Christ.

Indeed

Instead of speculating which percent of people in the communion line are in a state of mortal sin, we should prepare ourselves for receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This is a genuine miracle we receive in the Mass and certainly deserves more of ourselves than focusing on other people and their perceived sins.

Besides, what good will speculation do anyway?

 

[maryjk]

No, but we are called to welcome new life, and each and every marital act must be open to that possibility, however remote it might be. NFP is not fool-proof. A woman of childbearing age who has not been sterilized can get pregnant at any time. Much more likely at some times than others, but it happens. If for some reason a couple simply, absolutely, cannot take a chance on an unwanted pregnancy, the “hard saying” is that they should abstain from relations.

Actually if used correctly and conservatively it can be, if not totally foolproof, certainly pretty darn close.

I know because I did it.

I’m one of those that you would look at and think, wow, she could have had more children.

But no, I couldn’t have. I was blessed with one. And he was 9 weeks early. Even after being on bed rest for two weeks.

I always figure that people need to keep their minds on their own sin. No one needs to be looking at someone of whom they have no authority over, and think, “they are sinning.”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Of course!

But it doesn’t mean that what you believe was wrong is wrong according to church teaching.

Again, in the confessional where it belongs.

I will volunteer that before I was to get married, I mentioned to the priest in confession that we were going to practice NFP at the very beginning of our marriage. I don’t recall why I brought it up, but I was not confessing it as a sin. He questioned this and said “it’s not common to begin a marriage that way”. He didn’t refuse me absolution, but he did invite me to consider our contemplated course of action.

He was well within his rights and obligations. Of course, we did not change our minds and follow his advice. Maybe we should have.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There are surely many people walking up the aisle to communion, who are committing grave sins. But we cannot judge the state of their souls, for grave matter may be wrapped in invincible ignorance, or lack of full cooperation of the will, or an epic struggle to reach the goal, or a well-formed conscience that is unable to consent to this or that Church teaching.

If the conscience doesn’t square with Church teaching, it’s not well-formed.

I will grant one thing. I do acknowledge that it is possible — not correct, but possible — for a misguided conscience to be followed without guilt if the person has come to the conclusion, for reasons totally unrelated to self-interest, that it would be sinful to accept or follow a teaching of the Church, or even to leave the Church entirely.

I have in mind not contraception, but someone who becomes convinced that the Catholic Church is evil, the Whore of Babylon if you will, and must leave it to save their soul. In other words, someone who gets hold of a Jack Chick comic book and believes it. If that person becomes terrified for the salvation of their soul, it might be subjectively sinful for them not to follow their (errant) conscience.

I don’t advocate this, but I can understand why someone might fall into that error, perhaps never to return. I got hold of a similar tract in college (though written in a much more intellectual fashion than the Chick books) and had doubts for a year or two thinking that they might be right. But I continued, by sheer force of will, to continue with the Mass, the sacraments, and praying the rosary daily.

And that applies to all of us. And not just for sexual/procreative matters.

Maybe not, but Our Lady of Fatima did warn us about sins of the flesh, and I maintain that contraception is a sin of the flesh, possibly a sin of the world and/or the devil as well, but primarily a sin of the flesh. How could it not be?

I reminded a dissident priest (now in the process of laicization, and that is a story I cannot repeat here) of this portion of the message of Fatima, and he responded in a very loud and tortured voice, "I do not believe that Our Lady appeared to those children!".

From The Message of Our Lady of Fatima:

1. "More souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason. " Sr Lucia, the last living Fatima seer, said this refers primarily to sins against chastity, also called sins of impurity. The reason for this statement is not because sins against chastity are the most grievous sins, but the most common and, as Sr Lucia stated, "because of conscience, " since sins of impurity are less likely to be repented of than other sins.

 

[OraLabora]

If the conscience doesn’t square with Church teaching, it’s not well-formed.

I have a couple of areas where I disagree with Church teaching. I won’t get into them here. I consider sources other than just the Church. As a retired applied scientist, I also consider scientific/medical sources in forming my conscience, and there are a couple of areas that the Church is plainly wrong.

But I won’t get into them here. I don’t want to lead anyone astray, I prefer people make up their own minds.

 

[thistle]

I have a couple of areas where I disagree with Church teaching. I won’t get into them here. I consider sources other than just the Church. As a retired applied scientist, I also consider scientific/medical sources in forming my conscience, and there are a couple of areas that the Church is plainly wrong.

But I won’t get into them here. I don’t want to lead anyone astray, I prefer people make up their own minds.

When comes to doctrine the Church is never wrong. If anyone disagrees with a Church teaching it is that person who is wrong - ALWAYS!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I have a couple of areas where I disagree with Church teaching. I won’t get into them here. I consider sources other than just the Church. As a retired applied scientist, I also consider scientific/medical sources in forming my conscience, and there are a couple of areas that the Church is plainly wrong.

But I won’t get into them here. I don’t want to lead anyone astray, I prefer people make up their own minds.

I would just say this, and keep in mind that is coming from someone who is, admittedly, pretty “hardnosed” about suspending one’s own judgement to orthodox Catholic magisterial teaching:

You would be entirely within your rights to approach the Church (the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, perhaps), state your reasons for disagreeing with this teaching or that, offer your own knowledge and expertise, and ask that the matter be reconsidered based on this. I am not being sarcastic — I don’t do sarcasm. I am dead serious. Galileo did this. You might get a better hearing than he did.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That wasn’t doctrine that Galileo was messing with but a popular theological opinion.