S
silentstar
Guest
I think it might depend - I believe from reading history that in the past children were put to work at young ages and often sent out to work or be trained elsewhere, such as in a profession. In some ways maybe it was common b/c families lived together/near each other and if one family was overwhelmed, others may have pitched in and basically raised the child (if there was family support). There are places where it’s the tradition to send kids away to boarding school at very young ages although I think parents who do that tend to be wealthy and have fewer kids. and I know that in some cases, family members have probably throughout history tried to step in when they were concerned about a child’s well-being if it was a relative’s child, and formally or informally gotten custody.
One thing we really don’t have now is the strong preference for male children that many people used to have for inheritance/status/family support reasons. This is true in the West anyway. Before this it may have happened that families who had ‘too many’ girls but didn’t want to harm them gave one or more up.
Children with disabilities have often been abandoned, unfortunately, and were lucky if adopted.
So there is precedent for married couples ‘giving away’ their own kids - how often that happened I have no idea. However, if you go into marriage saying you want to follow the rules and if you get pregnant, you will give the child up - I have a hard time seeing a priest agree with that. Pregnancy imposes physical tasks on the woman no matter how easy it is and adoption is a wonderful thing but to bring a child into the world knowing you will give him/her up b/c you don’t want to use birth control - I just don’t see why a couple would put themselves through that. I would imagine a priest asking, why is this rule - not to use birth control - so important that a couple would override their own desire not to have kids? b/c I think that’s a conflict that would need discussion.
I can’t give answers but can only raise questions.
Also a lot of people start a pregnancy thinking they will choose adoption and then choose to raise the child - if the couple is conflicted about that, it could be difficult.
This is a teaching I struggle with also and as I said, some people on CAF ask why non-religious people agonize about it but I was raised devout and it is an issue of following ideals, or not.
One thing we really don’t have now is the strong preference for male children that many people used to have for inheritance/status/family support reasons. This is true in the West anyway. Before this it may have happened that families who had ‘too many’ girls but didn’t want to harm them gave one or more up.
Children with disabilities have often been abandoned, unfortunately, and were lucky if adopted.
So there is precedent for married couples ‘giving away’ their own kids - how often that happened I have no idea. However, if you go into marriage saying you want to follow the rules and if you get pregnant, you will give the child up - I have a hard time seeing a priest agree with that. Pregnancy imposes physical tasks on the woman no matter how easy it is and adoption is a wonderful thing but to bring a child into the world knowing you will give him/her up b/c you don’t want to use birth control - I just don’t see why a couple would put themselves through that. I would imagine a priest asking, why is this rule - not to use birth control - so important that a couple would override their own desire not to have kids? b/c I think that’s a conflict that would need discussion.
I can’t give answers but can only raise questions.
Also a lot of people start a pregnancy thinking they will choose adoption and then choose to raise the child - if the couple is conflicted about that, it could be difficult.
This is a teaching I struggle with also and as I said, some people on CAF ask why non-religious people agonize about it but I was raised devout and it is an issue of following ideals, or not.
