Homilies and Contraception

[Usige]

Again, those who need to hear it walk out.
You going to chase them down and force it on them?
The faithful Catholics are there every single week.

You make a false assumption here. Basically that either people agree or they will walk out. That is not the case.

Lets say there are 100 people in the pew. Of those there are 15 who are so incensed they get up and leave half way through Mass. Another 10 already knew and agreed. What about the other 75? What if 10 of those 75 were on the fence about it and the mention of it’s sinfulness was enough to prick their conscious, repent and do what was right? How about if it was only 3? Mayhap it was only 1. How about the potential convert that has never heard why it is sinful? Should they not hear the truth if it risks others to walk out?

Now you might say “what good to bring one home when 15 leave?”. Christ tells us time and time again that God rejoices when one lost sheep returns… He also tells us that many will hear and reject him. He never once says that one should keep quiet so that people can sun themselves in feigned ignorance.

Think back to last Sunday’s gospel about the Parable of the Sower. Christ says many will hear his words and it will not bear fruit. Only the seeds that fall on good ground will bear fruit. Those who would walk out are like the seeds that fall on the path or those that are sown among the thorns. The path is those that do not understand and the thorns are those that let anxiety and worldly concerns choke the words of life out.

How does one come to prepare good ground where the Word can bear fruit? It is not by refusing to sowing because you know the ground is hard, rocky or covered with thorns. Rather one must till the soil, remove the rocks and cut down and burn the thorns. While doing that though you must still sow the seed. If it takes 20 years to clear the field (say a generation?), but you don’t sow you will starve. Likewise some of the seed that is sown at the edge of the thorns might still grow.

If people leave are they any worse than to receive while in a state of sin? Those that would walk out from hearing the truth already had a foot, body and two arms out the door. If they reject the truth then placating them isn’t helping them grow in holiness. I am not saying that they should be pushed out the door, but it is an offense against justice to withhold words that might bring some to holiness because others might leave to continue to live in shadows and darkness.

 

[10gr8kids]

You make a false assumption here. Basically that either people agree or they will walk out. That is not the case.

Lets say there are 100 people in the pew. Of those there are 15 who are so incensed they get up and leave half way through Mass. Another 10 already knew and agreed. What about the other 75? What if 10 of those 75 were on the fence about it and the mention of it’s sinfulness was enough to prick their conscious, repent and do what was right? How about if it was only 3? Mayhap it was only 1. How about the potential convert that has never heard why it is sinful? Should they not hear the truth if it risks others to walk out?

Now you might say “what good to bring one home when 15 leave?”. Christ tells us time and time again that God rejoices when one lost sheep returns… He also tells us that many will hear and reject him. He never once says that one should keep quiet so that people can sun themselves in feigned ignorance.

Think back to last Sunday’s gospel about the Parable of the Sower. Christ says many will hear his words and it will not bear fruit. Only the seeds that fall on good ground will bear fruit. Those who would walk out are like the seeds that fall on the path or those that are sown among the thorns. The path is those that do not understand and the thorns are those that let anxiety and worldly concerns choke the words of life out.

How does one come to prepare good ground where the Word can bear fruit? It is not by refusing to sowing because you know the ground is hard, rocky or covered with thorns. Rather one must till the soil, remove the rocks and cut down and burn the thorns. While doing that though you must still sow the seed. If it takes 20 years to clear the field (say a generation?), but you don’t sow you will starve. Likewise some of the seed that is sown at the edge of the thorns might still grow.

If people leave are they any worse than to receive while in a state of sin? Those that would walk out from hearing the truth already had a foot, body and two arms out the door. If they reject the truth then placating them isn’t helping them grow in holiness. I am not saying that they should be pushed out the door, but it is an offense against justice to withhold words that might bring some to holiness because others might leave to continue to live in shadows and darkness.

Right, and it doesn’t have to be a fire and brimstone kind of message. Whenever my priest mentions it in the homily, he simply states how artificial birth control is against church and natural law. How in marriage we are called to be open to life. It has never made for an uncomfortable conversation with my children either.

 

[Usige]

Right, and it doesn’t have to be a fire and brimstone kind of message. Whenever my priest mentions it in the homily, he simply states how artificial birth control is against church and natural law. How in marriage we are called to be open to life. It has never made for an uncomfortable conversation with my children either.

That’s basically how my Pastor had approached it too. It is generally one of a couple things that are mentioned with regard to the integrity of the marital act. In otherwords it has always been spoken about as part of a larger topic. He also mentiones the devastating impact that pornography has on marriage and peoples’ souls and how contraceptives are part of a larger illness that puts us instead of the other as the main concern in a relationship. He still catches flak, but I think we have had more people walk out over accepting immigrants than a double handful of sentences about contraceptives.

 

[Allegra]

I think that priests are reluctant to speak about contraception in homilies because it is such a complex and personal issue that it really is best to discuss it in an environment where there is time for the Church teachings can be properly explained and questions can be asked and answered. Otherwise, one runs the risk of causing more false or incomplete teachings to be spread around. Those in favor of contraception already try to paint Church teachings as backward and even hateful, so this is something that as a teacher, you’d want to explain very clearly and fully. I don’t think it would be productive to attempt to do this in a homily, unless it was as an introduction to a seminar, presentation, or class on the subject.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think that priests are reluctant to speak about contraception in homilies because it is such a complex and personal issue that it really is best to discuss it in an environment where there is time for the Church teachings can be properly explained and questions can be asked and answered. Otherwise, one runs the risk of causing more false or incomplete teachings to be spread around. Those in favor of contraception already try to paint Church teachings as backward and even hateful, so this is something that as a teacher, you’d want to explain very clearly and fully. I don’t think it would be productive to attempt to do this in a homily, unless it was as an introduction to a seminar, presentation, or class on the subject.

And what environment is that?

 

[Wesrock]

My priest does.

The question might be why doesn’t your pastor talk in homilies about it-- and the person to ask that question to is your pastor.

Let me add, the homily should reflect the readings of the day. The homily is not typically the right place to discuss contraception. Catechesis comes in many forms. The homily is one small part of that. The primary teachers of young people are their parents, particularly on the subject of sexuality. Many people expect the church to fill a role that is not theirs to fill. Teaching regarding contraception starts with the formation of children.

Certainly that should be the general norm, but there may be scriptural opportunities when the readings concern Jesus’ teachings on marriage or the creation of Adam and Eve.

And I don’t think people are so much concerned with teaching only the kids, but also reminding adults of the Church’s teachings. Adults who don’t have their parents to catechize them anymore.

 

[Allegra]

And what environment is that?

I’ve often thought we could all benefit from catechism classes for those who have already been confirmed but could use some brush up on the Church’s teachings…or complete disillusionment.

“Next week’s topic: Sex. Coffee and donuts provided. Bring a friend.”

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve often thought we could all benefit from catechism classes for those who have already been confirmed but could use some brush up on the Church’s teachings…or complete disillusionment.

“Next week’s topic: Sex. Coffee and donuts provided. Bring a friend.”

One of our local parishes has a big lecture series that does basically that.

They do a dozen lectures in a row on a Thursday (?) night, using a variety of speakers, including (I believe) a Catholic Answers guy.

 

[Allegra]

One of our local parishes has a big lecture series that does basically that.

They do a dozen lectures in a row on a Thursday (?) night, using a variety of speakers, including (I believe) a Catholic Answers guy.

Good. I hope it spreads!

 

[pensmama87]

One of our local parishes has a big lecture series that does basically that.

They do a dozen lectures in a row on a Thursday (?) night, using a variety of speakers, including (I believe) a Catholic Answers guy.

That’s really cool.

 

[ItTakesAllKinds]

I would have thought Baby Boomers were well out of their child-bearing, or even fertile, years.

They are. But many of them had their lives ruined by the mentality that they were not able to plan their families and have a reasonable number of children. Many are bitter that they were bound to the rules of the Catholic Church and wound up having families much larger then they could reasonably care for.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

They are. But many of them had their lives ruined by the mentality that they were not able to plan their families and have a reasonable number of children. Many are bitter that they were bound to the rules of the Catholic Church and wound up having families much larger then they could reasonably care for.

That is rarely the case

 

[Xantippe]

That is rarely the case

It might be true of Baby Boomer’s view of their families of origin.

For possible examples, see the families of major Democratic politicians like the Kennedys.

Nancy Pelosi, was born in 1940 (which makes her what they call “Silent Generation”), married in 1963, had five children, and is now one of biggest backers of legal abortion in the US.

 

[Xantippe]

This was way pre-Boomer, but Margaret Sanger was definitely largely motivated by her experiences as a child in a large family.

 

[bitterhope]

The Kennedy’s and Pelosi are politicians motivated by greed for votes. That is how politics work. Margaret Sanger was more motivated by racism, classism and eugenics than anything else. This constant criticism of large families has really gotten old.

 

[ItTakesAllKinds]

I grew up in a large family that was none of those things. Both of my parents came from large families during the Depression. I have seen first-hand what having more kids than you are able to handle can result in. It wasn’t good for the average family. Please don’t presume political party or any other motivation for those who lived through these times and the hardship caused. They tried their best to be good, faithful Catholics in the face of adversity of having a large family. Often they were to poor to feed their children or provide the basic necessities. Abstinence (for married couples) was also frowned upon by pastoral guiders. They were dammed if they did, and damned is they didn’t.

 

[bitterhope]

I grew up in a large family that was none of those things. Both of my parents came from large families during the Depression. I have seen first-hand what having more kids than you are able to handle can result in. It wasn’t good for the average family. Please don’t presume political party or any other motivation for those who lived through these times and the hardship caused. They tried their best to be good, faithful Catholics in the face of adversity of having a large family. Often they were to poor to feed their children or provide the basic necessities. Abstinence (for married couples) was also frowned upon by pastoral guiders. They were dammed if they did, and damned is they didn’t.

Im from a large family too. 18 children. My parents were born in 1936 and 1938. They came from very large families as well. I was raised in Southern Appalachia. All of us are happy we were born into the family we had, and all of us have a large family of wanted to but couldn’t (infertility).

I assure you, the number of kids has no bearing on the coping skills of the parents. Money or lack there of does not determine whether a parent is a good parent or not.

There are many people from 3 or less kid families that feel they were not properly cared for yet people still think 1-3 kids is fine to have. It really needs to stop.

 

[ItTakesAllKinds]

Im from a large family too. 18 children. My parents were born in 1936 and 1938. They came from very large families as well. I was raised in Southern Appalachia. All of us are happy we were born into the family we had, and all of us have a large family of wanted to but couldn’t (infertility).

I assure you, the number of kids has no bearing on the coping abilities of the parents. Money or lack there of does not determine whether a parent is a good parent or not.

There are many people from 3 or less kid families that feel they were not properly cared for yet people still think 1-3 kids is fine to have. It really needs to stop.

The number of kids certainly does have a bearing on the coping abilities the parents. When the parents have physical illnesses the ability to care for large families is naturally diminished. I’m glad your experience was as good as it was. That is what we should hope for everyone, but we need to be charitable towards those people who have a different set of circumstances beyond their control. We aren’t all the same.

 

[bitterhope]

The number of kids certainly does have a bearing on the coping abilities the parents. When the parents have physical illnesses the ability to care for large families is naturally diminished. I’m glad your experience was as good as it was. That is what we should hope for everyone, but we need to be charitable towards those people who have a different set of circumstances beyond their control. We aren’t all the same.

Often people who have physical illnesses appreciate the fact that they have a large family to help each other out. My grandmother raised all 8 of her younger siblings (during the 1910’s-1920’s) after both their parents died. She was always happy to not be alone and to have other people around to help out. My mother in law was orphaned at a young age as well. She raised both her sisters and they all wished they had more people to lean on. Losing my dad to cancer when I was young, I am glad I had my siblings to hold in to. Now that mom has dementia, it’s a blessing that we can all be a support and help to each other. My poor husband has none of that and it is exceedingly difficult for him to go through the ailing and elderly parents alone, his sister is suffering in her own way. It’s just the two of them but they were so far apart in age they never really bonded.

Look, the size of a family has nothing at all to do with how they cope with the life they have been handed. It is very easy to look at family size and think if only this or that had happened then it would be easier and therefore better, but honestly that’s not the way life works. People do the same thing with any number of things (you know, the grass is always greener and all). I remind my husband all the time that he may not have it any easier if there had been more siblings. I may not be any worse off if I had less. It gets really old, though, when people say that if only someone would stop having children or had fewer to begin with, life would be so much better. Can you even imagine the outcry if a mother of one or two was told that if they possibly had a few more kids their problems would disappear? It’s not at all tue. The problems may be different but life is hard regardless.

 

[Walking_Home]

The number of kids certainly does have a bearing on the coping abilities the parents. When the parents have physical illnesses the ability to care for large families is naturally diminished. I’m glad your experience was as good as it was. That is what we should hope for everyone, but we need to be charitable towards those people who have a different set of circumstances beyond their control. We aren’t all the same.

---

Ditto