Fewer children? Then fewer nuns

[KostyaJMJ]

According to those who encourage NFP, it’s not virtually impossible at all.

And I am not saying anything about “moral” or “immoral” means of having large or small familes. I am saying that the number of children one has doesn’t define how “good” or “bad” a Catholic one is, and I’ve cited the CCC and Humanae Vitae to support what I am saying. If people are sinning to do so, then they are sinning to do so, but that’s a separate issue entirely. Since we are on a Catholic forum, I am assuming that people are using NFP unless they state otherwise.

Actually, those who encourage NFP do include a caveat about small families. They say that unless a couple a truly just and serious reason they will not be willing to make NFP work for them.

The majority of catholics who limit themselves to one or two children do so for trivial reasons. The majority of these catholics find NFP ineffective and troublesome and so turn to immoral means. It may not be true for any individual couple, but it is true for catholics taken as a group. If it isn’t true, why do so many catholics feel that it is necessary to turn to immoral means to limit their family?

It is perhaps possible to have a small family and use NFP but the practical application shows that it is not at all easy or common.

 

[Rence]

Actually, those who encourage NFP do include a caveat about small families. They say that unless a couple a truly just and serious reason they will not be willing to make NFP work for them.

The majority of catholics who limit themselves to one or two children do so for trivial reasons. The majority of these catholics find NFP ineffective and troublesome and so turn to immoral means. It may not be true for any individual couple, but it is true for catholics taken as a group. If it isn’t true, why do so many catholics feel that it is necessary to turn to immoral means to limit their family?

It is perhaps possible to have a small family and use NFP but the practical application shows that it is not at all easy or common.

I totally understand what you’re saying. But that doesn’t change the Church teachings regarding responsible parenthood. The point is, it’s no more a “sin” to have one child than to have ten. It’s up to the individual families to descern how many children they can have and care for, and when they are done having children. There is no set number of children a family is required to have according to Church teaching. How families get small or large families is up to them, and their refusal to follow Church teaching by using ABCs doesn’t change Church teachings.

 

[manualman]

It is perhaps possible to have a small family and use NFP but the practical application shows that it is not at all easy or common.

Believe it or not, I agree with your conclusion, though I suspect I got there via a different route. Some NFP users do indeed have ‘oops’ babies and have larger families. But ask around among NFP couples and you find a funny thing: there’s a LOT more “oh what the heck” babies out there than there are ‘oops’ ones! And it’s not a coincidence. It’s built into the system God designed for human sexuality.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Believe it or not, I agree with your conclusion, though I suspect I got there via a different route. Some NFP users do indeed have ‘oops’ babies and have larger families. But ask around among NFP couples and you find a funny thing: there’s a LOT more “oh what the heck” babies out there than there are ‘oops’ ones! And it’s not a coincidence. It’s built into the system God designed for human sexuality.

No, I think I can agree with you.

Or to put it another way.

If small families were the ideal to strive for, then God would have provided a simple, moral means of limiting to a small family size

There is no simple, moral means of limiting to a small family size

Therefore, small families are not the ideal

That is not to say there are exceptions, but like you said something is wrong when the exception becomes the norm…

 

[Rence]

No, I think I can agree with you.

Or to put it another way.

If small families were the ideal to strive for, then God would have provided a simple, moral means of limiting to a small family size

There is no simple, moral means of limiting to a small family size

Therefore, small families are not the ideal

That is not to say there are exceptions, but like you said something is wrong when the exception becomes the norm…

Both small and large families have their benefits and disadvantages. I understand you think small families are not the ideal. But obviously the majority do. I do – especially in today’s world.

When the majority were having large families, they did so because more kids meant more hands in the farm fields, which brought more food to the table, and more chores were done. The older ones basically became parents to the younger ones and raised them.

Today, we don’t have a need to have a baker’s dozen to care for crops, bring in the harvest and do all the chores. Today, having more children means working harder to make ends meet. Food is expensive, and it’s not brought in by those old enough to bring it in. Electricity, gas, water is expensive. Clothes are expensive. Even if you shop at Goodwill, if you don’t have enough money to clothe your kids, you don’t have enough money to clothe more.

Some are blessed with big families and they manage quite well, others struggle with just the one or two they have. For those that can’t make ends meet now with only one or two, breaking your back to make ends meet just to add numbers to your family is not the ideal. The ideal would be to restrain yourself from having more children and care for the ones you have, and not have another unless you can provide for that addition. Having more children when you can’t turns a blessing into a burden.

Those who can have and handle more kids are the ones who are having them. it’s not necessary to place burdens on people that even the Church doesn’t place.

 

[manualman]

Those who can have and handle more kids are the ones who are having them. it’s not necessary to place burdens on people that even the Church doesn’t place.

It’s not a burden to ask people to consider things they may not have carefully considered. Your examples are spot on correct summaries of financial “serious reasons.” So yes, if you struggle to afford staple foods and Goodwill clothes, there simply is no “burden” being placed on anyone. But MILLIONS of American catholics out there today are in perfect health, drive 3-4 year old cars, have bulging closets, bulging waistlines, 2,000+SF suburban homes, high 4 figure annual entertainment budgets and tell themselves they “can’t afford” more kids.

Again, I’m not the decider for anybody else. But for many of us, the excuse began ringing hollow a couple years after what we THOUGHT to be our last child was born. Hopefully many other readers won’t consider a little self examination as too large a burden either. I heard it elsewhere first, but it’s true of my own experience: “I’ve met countless older people who wished they would have been open to having more kids. I’ve never met one who wished they had had less.”

 

[Alix1912]

There isn’t any problem with the number of children anyone has. The problem is that it is virtually impossible for a young, healthy couple to achieve a small family by moral means. The majority of catholics have discovered this and the majority of catholics have decided that using other means is acceptable.

Wow, so now you have perfect knowledge of what goes on in the Majority of Catholics bedrooms. Seriously I get really mad with people who assume that just becauseesomeone isn’t popping out a kid every 2 years they must be using ABC and they must be sinning.

According to those who encourage NFP, it’s not virtually impossible at all.

And I am not saying anything about “moral” or “immoral” means of having large or small familes. I am saying that the number of children one has doesn’t define how “good” or “bad” a Catholic one is, and I’ve cited the CCC and Humanae Vitae to support what I am saying. If people are sinning to do so, then they are sinning to do so, but that’s a separate issue entirely. Since we are on a Catholic forum, I am assuming that people are using NFP unless they state otherwise.

Thank you for some common sense in this matter.

It’s not a burden to ask people to consider things they may not have carefully considered. Your examples are spot on correct summaries of financial “serious reasons.” So yes, if you struggle to afford staple foods and Goodwill clothes, there simply is no “burden” being placed on anyone. But MILLIONS of American catholics out there today are in perfect health, drive 3-4 year old cars, have bulging closets, bulging waistlines, 2,000+SF suburban homes, high 4 figure annual entertainment budgets and tell themselves they “can’t afford” more kids.

Again, I’m not the decider for anybody else. But for many of us, the excuse began ringing hollow a couple years after what we THOUGHT to be our last child was born. Hopefully many other readers won’t consider a little self examination as too large a burden either. I heard it elsewhere first, but it’s true of my own experience: “I’ve met countless older people who wished they would have been open to having more kids. I’ve never met one who wished they had had less.”

It is a burden to have people insert themselves into your life and comment on your motivations whe they haave no knowledge of the reasoning behind it and no business to. Would you be offended if a fellow Catholic walked up to you and said…“Hey I notice that you seem to make a lot of money, you have a big house, go out to eat a lot and drivve a nice car, really you should be donating more to the Church, and if you don’t you must be using you excess cash for sinful purposes”. Of couse you would be offended and probably on this forum complaining about it.

That is what you sound like. If you aren’t popping out a kid every 2 years or less, you are obviously using ABC and are a sinner, and a bad Catholic. I’m sorry but pardon me if I feel parenting and motherhood is about more than being a baby factory. There are lots of reasons to decide to have a small family, and it is no one’s business besides the family themselves and their spiritual advisory as to why those decisions have been made. If you do not want people making snide comments and passing untrue judgements about big families then kindly show the same respect to those who discern to have less children.

 

[Kit15]

Also a reason does not have to be financial in order to be “just”. It’s a pretty long story for another post (and I don’t think many out there would believe it anyway unless you knew us personally) but our reasons for waiting as long as we did were more emotional and medical.

 

[manualman]

…That is what you sound like. If you aren’t popping out a kid every 2 years or less, you are obviously using ABC and are a sinner, and a bad Catholic. I’m sorry but pardon me if I feel parenting and motherhood is about more than being a baby factory. There are lots of reasons to decide to have a small family, and it is no one’s business besides the family themselves and their spiritual advisory as to why those decisions have been made. If you do not want people making snide comments and passing untrue judgements about big families then kindly show the same respect to those who discern to have less children.

At the PERSONAL level, you are nearly correct: it’s nobody else’s business (besides GOD, whom you seem to have omitted in the post, at least). But your sentiment betrays a uniquely American error of excessive individualism in which we pretend that the aggregate sum of individual choices doesn’t have COMMUNITY level consequences. Wrong. It does. Our culture is openly hostile to larger families and the reason for it is nothing short of diabolical. If you are taking my culture-wide general comments personally, please consider whether the problem might be on your end. I’ve taken significant effort to point out that generalities have lots of exceptions, and I’m hardly the Duggars myself (nor do I believe they are necessarily the ideal).

Btw, you undercut your own request for people not to make “snide comments” when you characterize mom’s who have more kids than you as “baby factorys.” Just which of us has made a ruder personal level comment here?

 

[manualman]

Also a reason does not have to be financial in order to be “just”.

Goodness, yes. In my family we’ve found just reason at times for things like baby care exhaustion, post partum issues, temporary job insecurity stress, a medical condition that increases miscarriage risk with each pregnancy (ICP), and probably more that don’t come to mind this moment. And that’s just MY narrow life experience.

The point is that we’ve never seen ourselves as the masters of our family size, but rather the recipient of the gift of God’s children. I’m convinced that it can never be healthy to develop a FINAL decision that one will never again be open to more of the ultimate in gifts. You need to continuously re-evaluate the seriousness of the reason as life goes on with all its unexpected wonders.

 

[Alix1912]

At the PERSONAL level, you are nearly correct: it’s nobody else’s business (besides GOD, whom you seem to have omitted in the post, at least). But your sentiment betrays a uniquely American error of excessive individualism in which we pretend that the aggregate sum of individual choices doesn’t have COMMUNITY level consequences. Wrong. It does. Our culture is openly hostile to larger families and the reason for it is nothing short of diabolical. If you are taking my culture-wide general comments personally, please consider whether the problem might be on your end. I’ve taken significant effort to point out that generalities have lots of exceptions, and I’m hardly the Duggars myself (nor do I believe they are necessarily the ideal).

Btw, you undercut your own request for people not to make “snide comments” when you characterize mom’s who have more kids than you as “baby factorys.” Just which of us has made a ruder personal level comment here?

I have no issue with people who have large families. Our pastor has 7 kids. They are a wonderful, happy family. I have issues with people using family size to judge how good a Christian or Catholic someone is. If a family discerns that having lots of kids is their calling…awesome more power to them. If they discernthat a family or one- three kids is the right size more power to them. I really have no issue with the Duggars, it’s their call as long as they can care for all their children. I guess I have not encountered hostility towards any size family really, except on this forum towards those who choose to have smaller families. We are immediatly assumed to be on ABC, and sinning or using NFP for what other deem the wrong reasons. It is the sin of presumption to presume you know what is best for another family without being involved in their decision process, and comes off oftern sounding like the only role women have in the Catholic Church is either to breed or be a nun.

 

[manualman]

Alix, I’m sorry you got that impression, and I’ll certainly admit that there are those who sometimes make such accusations. But please review my posts and show me where I did anything of the sort (you were initially responding to a quote of mine). I nowhere accuse any individuals of using contraception. I do believe that contraceptive use has the direct effect of changing people’s attitude about family size, but I agree with you that it would be uncharitable to assume any such thing in regards to any specific small family.

Let’s meet in the middle: I’ll be even more careful to try to avoid insinuating individual sins and you never use the word “baby factory” to describe a mom again. Deal?

 

[jonfawkes]

getreligion.org/2011/03/fewer-children-then-fewer-nuns/

There are other factors as well -

There are also more opportunities for women in modern society. Used to be married or religious vocation were the options.

There is the taboo subject that religious vocation is a place for people with homosexual desire that didn’t want to lead a sinful life. “Out” homosexuality isn’t as much as a taboo in secular society as it was traditionally, so fewer seek refuge in religious vocation.

 

[CMarkD]

Hear me out. the whole issue of which came first needs to be examined. While i appreciate modern society’s downward trend in having children. We must first Go to scripture. God gave us a request in genesis 1 verse 28. Go be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and teem over it.

Our Church however extols celibacy as a way to piety despite the obvious contradiction. Our Faith even lifts the opinions of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 above God’s observation in Genesis 2 verse 18 It is not good for man to be alone. So blaming the world may be a little harsh given our Church’s failure to obey God’s will. Nuns do not in my opinion perform tasks that prevent serving children and a spouse. I am saying they should be free to take a spouse on earth.

Yes we want more people serving God. I however would prefer if we were all free to serve Him in marriage by begetting children as well as serving on the altar. traditions that call for disobedience to God are non starters in my belief. Mark 7 speaks of Pharisaic traditions that Jesus condemned because they gave license to those that wished to avoid helping their parents and keeping the Fourth commandment.

One may say that the Church in reducing the offspring of religious parents should include itself in the solution to the lack of vocations. For my part i will never be aginst religious vocations though i will point to the obvious lack of obedience once God’s will for procreation is ignored. Procreative faculties are gifts. The parable of the talents and the parable of the pound point to the conclusion that to refuse to use this gift is in essence the act of ingratitude, cowardice and sloth.