This is EXACTLY what I am trying to say.It’s come to the point where “poverty” is such an atrocity that the poor are considered unworthy of reproduction… But even in the church?
… Once upon a time, long ago, Americans actually had to “grow” food. They even “killed” their own food, without the help of government, CPS, or NFP.
It is off subject a little, but it was used to demonstrate an error in logic of someone who claims to be a supporter of the underprivileged and puts a high priority on how we treat the poor and what programs are available.sigh…this is exactly it. Why has the idea of alleviating poverty come to mean the ridding the population of poor children. I don’t think our Church teaches us to prevent others from embracing life, but rather teaches us to help those in need. I always took the teaching requiring me to educate, clothe and care for my children as a requirement that obliges me to fulfill those duties…not to avoid those duties by limiting my family size. I’ve refrained from eating many times to make sure my kids were able to eat. I’d much rather be hungry that to be without my kids. My kids are just beginning to realize how dire our financial circumstances were a few years ago. We took care of them as we were obligated to do. I thank those who supported us. We are now in the position to help others. Thank you for the reminder to help others.It’s come to the point where “poverty” is such an atrocity that the poor are considered unworthy of reproduction… But even in the church?
… Once upon a time, long ago, Americans actually had to “grow” food. They even “killed” their own food, without the help of government, CPS, or NFP.
When two fertile people have relations, a child may be the result. God gave men and women the gift of reason. It is a serious sin against prudence to deliberately procreate when you do not have a reasonable expectation of being able to provide the basics of food, shelter, education, spiritual/moral formation of a(nother) child. Reasonable expectation is different from Providentialism which occurs when a person challenges/tempts God to provide for these basic needs by some kind of miracle just because they choose to have intercourse. The couple have rights and the children have rights. Part of responsible parenting means taking the needs of the present and potential future children into mind when contemplating the procreative act. If a person is starving they have no business procreating, and, yes, the Church would teach this to be sinful. If the wife is having a hard time recovering from 3 pregnancies in 4 years, yes, it is gravely sinful to force intercourse when she absolutely doesn’t want it (marital rape can cause life and yes, the Church teaches this to be gravely sinful). God expects thoughtful and loving consideration of life’s circumstances when mutually deciding whether to unite in this wondrous manner.
This jump by you condemns the Church in the poorest places of earth. The place where God and Children are needed the most. The Pope himself, goes out into the streets, not passing out NFP brochures for the poor but ministering to them, sharing their joys and sorrows and helping them. In places where Francis is from, Latin America he married people and baptized children with a smile, with Godly hands. He did not teach about limiting procreation, but welcomed it, in people so poor that you have probably never seen nor smelled what it was like for them.
You are quite mistaken. I do not condemn the Church. Am I against life if I say that marital rape is a mortal sin? Am I against the very poorest of poor if I say it is a moral obligation not to procreate if you can’t feed your family? Again, no. The Church teaches that we are rational beings with the obligation of responsible parenting. Responsible parenting includes the moral obligation to be reasonably sure we can provide food, clothing, shelter, education, formation, etc. to any potential child that could be born from human intercourse. It is **not **shameful to be poor. It is quite shameful to give in to unbridled passions and instincts without regard for the welfare of potential children and family and spouse and society. Did you even read the USCCB document full of quotes from the Popes and Vatican II documents?
I brought in race because if you read the other posts by the poster, they were quite strongly worded and opinionated. And when the poster accuses others of hating the poor. Republicans etc. then I wonder how far the hypocrisy goes. The poster says in this thread that a couple is morally wrong for having more children. Basically saying the poor and disenfranchised cannot have the basic human right of reproduction. I was wondering if that extended into a belief that would encompass racism or if the hypocrisy would only extend so far.
- It is my understanding that a couple who is mentally unable to fulfil a marital obligation would not be married. Remember we are going on the diagnosis of the OP that they may be mentally retarded.
- Yes, people can have more kids than they can’t feed. If you believe the opposite you are condemning third world Catholics to a moral sin that the Church has never in her history done. Now, the need to “Educate” children probably means in the faith. Can a couple use poverty as a justification to not have children. Yes. But do they have to? No.
- What does the quiverfull movement have to do with anything? What Catholics are not about is telling a family it is morally wrong to create life. Well, faithful Catholics anyway.
- Yes. Which people are so fond of pointing out on these boards that it is between a husband and wife if NFP should be employed. That swings both ways. You cannot judge if the husband and wife have different criteria than you do about serious reasons.
Not only that but NFP is not a requirement. It never has been, even when it did not exist. Unless the Church has changed it’s entire theology on life issues because someone learned to read a thermometer.- Finally. one we can absolutely agree on. Number 5 is true and Catholic in every way. and really has nothing to do with a husband and wife procreating.
If we examine Margaret Sangers beliefs they were somewhat similar to what I am trying to say. I’m sorry to say it and it may make you uncomfortable, but when discussing poverty in the US or many other countries, race is an issue. It always has been even in the Roman Empire circa 0
There are some Republicans who feel free to have a pseudo-Darwinian, every-man-for-himself-and-let-the-devil-take-the-hindmost attitude, but that is not the norm among Republican Catholics I know. There are a few, but they are not the norm and they don’t talk like that in front of their pastors, regardless of their priest’s politics!
Revolutionizing our view of the poor will be God’s gift to us through Pope Francis.
I firmly believe this as a Traditionalist, Catholic, Republican, middle class American.
I think my experience with the poor differs from yours. And it is important to realize there are different poverties. And we run the risk of telling quite a few couples to not have children. Even spiritually poor or uneducated ones. We always should help the poor. Educate them and even give them tools like NFP to help their situation. What we cannot do is sit in their marriage bed and tell them what they should do. We cannot impose our own will in place of God’s.
It is a race issue in south and central America. Mexico, Africa, and historically with God’s Chosen people themselves. Poverty is most certainly about race. It always has been. Is it the sole basis? nope. Is it a factor more often than not. Yes. But in America this is taboo. We avoid it as much as possible. We never want to look at the history or reality of how race contributes to poverty.
I don’t recall saying They just do not know any better". I am not from the US but I am sure some Americans see issues as I do - Catholics too.
I think this is the issue: It is one thing to have a conversation with a discerning couple concerning the issue of whether a serious reason to avoid pregnancy exists or not. It is fine to advocate for couples to know their own fertility so that they can decide to refrain from marital relations in an intelligent and self-aware way, should they discern that the need to avoid a pregnancy has arisen. It can be a duty to step in when children are not being given the care they need, sacrificing parental perogatives when the children are objectively suffering neglect or abuse. The source of the abuse pr neglect does not need to be judged in order for the abuse or neglect to be stopped. All fine, so far.
Yes.If I am carpooling and I discover my ride is drunk at the party, you better believe I will judge that drunkeness is a bad state to drive in and would refuse to be driven by such a person. I am not judging their soul and whether they sinned but I am judging that drink and drive don’t mix. Likewise, if CPS is dealing with a family or needs to, then it is not illogical to wonder at continued procreation (Octomom, anyone?). When we say drunkenness is sinful, we are not saying that wine is bad but that wine imbibed in a certain context (to excess or during Communion fast) is bad. When we say the act of procreation is sinful in some circumstances, we are simply stating that intercourse is bad when done under certain circumstances. Procreating IS bad and sinful under different circumstances: fornication, adultery, marital rape, etc. To what degree people doing such actions are sinning is not our business.
Not only that but a couple’s decision for future children is between them and God. Though it would make me cringe if a couple who had CPS intervene with childcare decided to keep on creating, it is not my place or any of our places to decide that God wills them not to have children. Saying it is sinful to procreate is way out of the realm of what we are called to witness to.
I think it’s a pretty big norm amongst Republicans on this website, but I’ve always felt that this site is Republican first and Catholic second. The American Democrats are the ones who want to help the impoverished, such as struggling single mothers. If you want to be pro-life, you have to be pro-life beyond the womb. The GOP most certainly is not, in my opinion.
Who makes that decision? You? The state? Should we have forced sterilizations?
Who in the world thinks CPS should not intervene in the case of neglected children? No one is making that argument. I would call CPS myself way before I posted on these boards.