Is it just me...

[Xantippe]

Fertility issues are extremely common, and it’s silly to assume that because a couple had a small family it was planned that way, especially in past generations that would consider a family that could only have two children as a sad cross to bear. A 19th century couple would be incredibly confused and disheartened by our modern conception of family. Back then, marriage was first and foremost about having children. Fertility issues also are passed in a person’s genes, as I have seen in branches of my own family tree, so a small extended family tree is not evidence in itself of family planning by abstinence.

The vast majority of couples would not be able to reproduce like the Duggars, even if they wanted to. About a third of the married couples I know had difficulty conceiving even one, requiring them to get medical help, and these were young people. Another third have had pregnancy complications that made it impossible to have further children. My own mother was ordered not to try and have further children after her third. Stubborn woman she is, she ignored them and had more.

I’m not sure that a family of two children would necessarily be experienced as a sad cross. At least, I’m pretty sure not by everybody everywhere in the past. Maybe a farm family would feel short-handed. Plus, there’d be differences in how different genders would be received.

I’ll give a few literary examples of how people in the past felt about family size, in The Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye and his wife have five daughters–and Tevye describes having five daughters as one of his hardships, right along with poverty. Two daughters would presumably be easier to support and marry off than five. On the other hand, five sons might not be as much of a hardship as five daughters. Where the hardship in having two children would come in would perhaps be in the substantial risk that one or both would die in childhood. (Looking outside of literature, John Paul II’s family had a tragic–and to contemporary people almost unthinkable–rate of mortality among both children and adults. St. Therese of Lisieux’s parents also lost about half their children in childhood, as I recall.)

If you look at Jane Austen, there are a number of families with two children, and it’s never mentioned as a sad thing. There are two different families of 10 children, I believe, one in Northanger Abbey and one in Mansfield Park. In Northanger Abbey, the mother’s constant preoccupation mentioned as a reason that the heroine’s education was neglected and she was left to her own devices. “Mrs. Morland was a very good woman, and wished to see her children everything they ought to be; but her time was so much occupied in lying-in and teaching the little ones, that her elder daughters were inevitably left to shift for themselves.” Also, in Northanger Abbey, the large family is why the heroine’s father (a prosperous Anglican country priest) is unable to offer a large settlement of assets to help his son get married. This breaks up the son’s engagement. Despite their being a well-off family, the sheer number of children to set up in life is an obstacle to the children’s being able to marry, as each will get at best a small sliver of the family capital.

In Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park, that heroine is also from a family of 10 children. It’s a disabled marine officer’s family, and they live a very minimal, squalid existence and are forced to rely on handouts and other assistance from richer relatives. Fortunately, they are able to send their boys to sea starting at around 10 (!), but the mother of the family views her daughters (who can’t be so easily disposed of) as an encumbrance, and she’s exhausted by her life, even with two servants. (So they’re not at the bottom of society–they’re at the very bottom of the top.)

The vibe I get from these historical literary examples is that while raising a large family might have been feasible, much as in our day, the real crunch came when it was time to launch children into the world, set them up in professions, and marry them off.

Going back to our farm example, while it’s true that a bigger family might be more helpful in agriculture, once everybody is grown up and needs to start a family of their own, there are issues. I’ll give my own family as an example. My dad owns around 300 acres of land and an appropriate number of cattle for that property in our particular climate (it’s the lush Pacific NW). When the three of us kids were children, we were able to be helpful. (Even a five year old waving a stick is some use when you’re trying to herd cattle.) However, had that 300 acres been the family’s only income and asset and had all of us needed to live on it, splitting it three ways would leave each of us with 100 acres (ignoring all the issues with fence lines, barns, houses, etc). That’s bad, but repeat it in the next generation (assuming only three kids each) and we’re down to 33 acres per grandchild and then 11 in the next generation. It gets even more catastrophic if you assume families of 10. 300>30>3. By the 4th generation, each descendant only has the equivalent of a suburban lot.

One traditional way of “solving” the farm problem I just described is to give the whole thing to the first born son. Now, given infant and child mortality and the need for more help and the pesky existence of daughters, you would want more than the one son to be safe. But once all the surviving children reach adulthood, we have the property division problem again. The oldest son is set with the family property, but the younger children need to be set up somehow. The more younger adult children there are, the harder that problem is going to be.

So, I think we may be exaggerating people in the past’s enthusiasm for large families.

 

[jmjZelie]

Hence the call from popes for Catholic parents to be generous in childbearing and the joy with which the Church welcomes large families.

Xantippe, your reasons listed for historically not wanting large families are all rooted in selfishness. Selfishness is a perennial problem in the Church, especially when people look toward material wellbeing as their measure of success and forget that we are aiming for eternity. We shouldn’t be surprised to find ample examples of such selfishness and disregard for immortal souls as being the real treasures in literature or history.

“Pesky existence of daughters”?
As a mother of four daughters and one son, and as a daughter myself, that really cuts.

 

[Art321]

Hello everyone,

This thread truly caught my attention and I want to state what I got out of it as I have been thinking much about the Law. Of course, in our Catholic Faith what we think as the Law is obviously the Doctrines of the Church. As the original poster said that there are those that have become very zealous or as our Holy Father mentioned it “fundamental”, whose only concern is with the Law and condemning the sinner.

While in today’s world, most Catholics continue to ignore the Law in regards to the teachings of contraception, abortion, support for gay marriage, etc and most zealous Catholics are using language that appears very much to condemn the other side that don’t follow the Law.

From what I have gotten, I have learned that we have different crosses to bear in which some will seem unbearable to others, others too light… But from the teachings of our Holy Father as well as other Holy Priests and Laymen, we must always seek to go out into the world and meet sinners where they are. We must show love for our neighbor as well as bring them back into the Church with that moment of encounter with Divine Grace as Bishop Robert Barron has said. From there, we come to show them the Law as to why it is important, yet we must always proclaim it with love. Truth in love is the phrase I like to use. In short, we must always have a balance when it comes to proclaiming issues with our Holy Faith, Love and Truth.

Did I get that right?? Or am I being a total idiot and missed the whole point of this thread??

 

[Xantippe]

Hence the call from popes for Catholic parents to be generous in childbearing and the joy with which the Church welcomes large families.

Xantippe, your reasons listed for historically not wanting large families are all rooted in selfishness. Selfishness is a perennial problem in the Church, especially when people look toward material wellbeing as their measure of success and forget that we are aiming for eternity. We shouldn’t be surprised to find ample examples of such selfishness and disregard for immortal souls as being the real treasures in literature or history.

“Pesky existence of daughters”?
As a mother of four daughters and one son, and as a daughter myself, that really cuts.

I’m a girl, too, I think daughters are amazing, and I am a big booster of the value of women’s work, but it is a historical fact that in many times and places, daughters have been regarded as an expensive nuisance. This is seen most vividly to the present day in the treatment of baby girls in places like China and India (although I believe that people are starting to be more positive about girls in South Korea.) There’s actually a traditional Indian proverb that says that raising a daughter is like watering the flowers in somebody else’s garden.

jesusanthonybaez.com/blog/raising-a-daughter-is-like-watering-your-neighbors-garden

I think you’re being a little too hard on people of the past and concerns about large families. Consider how harsh the consequences for economic failure were in the past and how harsh they continue to be in poorer countries of the world.

Also, I think “selfishness” is the wrong word to call being concerned about the economic well-being of one’s children and children’s children. I’d call it prudence. I also think that it’s an oddity of contemporary Catholic life (as opposed to Catholic life 100 or 200 years ago) that we are so often asked to view basic foresight as somehow illegitimate.

 

[Xantippe]

Hello everyone,

This thread truly caught my attention and I want to state what I got out of it as I have been thinking much about the Law. Of course, in our Catholic Faith what we think as the Law is obviously the Doctrines of the Church. As the original poster said that there are those that have become very zealous or as our Holy Father mentioned it “fundamental”, whose only concern is with the Law and condemning the sinner.

While in today’s world, most Catholics continue to ignore the Law in regards to the teachings of contraception, abortion, support for gay marriage, etc and most zealous Catholics are using language that appears very much to condemn the other side that don’t follow the Law.

From what I have gotten, I have learned that we have different crosses to bear in which some will seem unbearable to others, others too light… But from the teachings of our Holy Father as well as other Holy Priests and Laymen, we must always seek to go out into the world and meet sinners where they are. We must show love for our neighbor as well as bring them back into the Church with that moment of encounter with Divine Grace as Bishop Robert Barron has said. From there, we come to show them the Law as to why it is important, yet we must always proclaim it with love. Truth in love is the phrase I like to use. In short, we must always have a balance when it comes to proclaiming issues with our Holy Faith, Love and Truth.

Did I get that right?? Or am I being a total idiot and missed the whole point of this thread??

It’s actually not true (at least in the US) that most Catholics have abortions. Most don’t, just like most Americans don’t.

It is true that a lot of people support legal abortion–but mainly for other people. Many people support legal abortion who would probably never have one themselves (barring very unusual circumstances).

 

[jmjZelie]

I’m a girl, too, I think daughters are amazing, and I am a big booster of the value of women’s work, but it is a historical fact that in many times and places, daughters have been regarded as an expensive nuisance. This is seen most vividly to the present day in the treatment of baby girls in places like China and India (although I believe that people are starting to be more positive about girls in South Korea.) There’s actually a traditional Indian proverb that says that raising a daughter is like watering the flowers in somebody else’s garden.

jesusanthonybaez.com/blog/raising-a-daughter-is-like-watering-your-neighbors-garden

I think you’re being a little too hard on people of the past and concerns about large families. Consider how harsh the consequences for economic failure were in the past and how harsh they continue to be in poorer countries of the world.

Also, I think “selfishness” is the wrong word to call being concerned about the economic well-being of one’s children and children’s children. I’d call it prudence. I also think that it’s an oddity of contemporary Catholic life (as opposed to Catholic life 100 or 200 years ago) that we are so often asked to view basic foresight as somehow illegitimate.

I am being too hard on people?
When I object to girls being referred to as pesky nuisances? When I object to cases being made for not having a large family, supported by literature and historical speculation?

I was defending the perspective that having a large family is a blessing. You were talking about splitting acreage. I was talking about hoping my kids get to heaven.

It appears that we are going to continue to talk past each other. If you want to advocate for the prudence of a smaller family, that is fine. But please, do not keep pointing out the horrid attitudes about girls in places like India and China and make it seem the their loathing of daughters is relevant to having a Catholic family. That is disingenuous.

 

[Art321]

It’s actually not true (at least in the US) that most Catholics have abortions. Most don’t, just like most Americans don’t.

It is true that a lot of people support legal abortion–but mainly for other people. Many people support legal abortion who would probably never have one themselves (barring very unusual circumstances).

Yes, of course. I meant to say in support of. Still, going back to my original post, was I right? Wrong? Totally off??

 

[LongingSoul]

Hello everyone,

This thread truly caught my attention and I want to state what I got out of it as I have been thinking much about the Law. Of course, in our Catholic Faith what we think as the Law is obviously the Doctrines of the Church. As the original poster said that there are those that have become very zealous or as our Holy Father mentioned it “fundamental”, whose only concern is with the Law and condemning the sinner.

While in today’s world, most Catholics continue to ignore the Law in regards to the teachings of contraception, abortion, support for gay marriage, etc and most zealous Catholics are using language that appears very much to condemn the other side that don’t follow the Law.

From what I have gotten, I have learned that we have different crosses to bear in which some will seem unbearable to others, others too light… But from the teachings of our Holy Father as well as other Holy Priests and Laymen, we must always seek to go out into the world and meet sinners where they are. We must show love for our neighbor as well as bring them back into the Church with that moment of encounter with Divine Grace as Bishop Robert Barron has said. From there, we come to show them the Law as to why it is important, yet we must always proclaim it with love. Truth in love is the phrase I like to use. In short, we must always have a balance when it comes to proclaiming issues with our Holy Faith, Love and Truth.

Did I get that right?? Or am I being a total idiot and missed the whole point of this thread??

Further to that, there is the problem of the negativity generated by those who remonstrate against fellow Law followers, with their own severe interpretation of the Law that reflects the errors of the puritans. I personally have never increased in holiness at being subjected to that approach and I believe that since Vatican II, the Church herself has been trying to rid herself of that approach. Pope StJXIII…

And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.

 

[Xantippe]

I am being too hard on people?
When I object to girls being referred to as pesky nuisances? When I object to cases being made for not having a large family, supported by literature and historical speculation?

I was defending the perspective that having a large family is a blessing. You were talking about splitting acreage. I was talking about hoping my kids get to heaven.

It appears that we are going to continue to talk past each other. If you want to advocate for the prudence of a smaller family, that is fine. But please, do not keep pointing out the horrid attitudes about girls in places like India and China and make it seem the their loathing of daughters is relevant to having a Catholic family. That is disingenuous.

The Indian and Chinese attitude is the far extreme version of stuff that has an equivalent in Western culture (but fortunately much milder). Forget I mentioned it if it’s not helpful to you–but it does really have milder analogs in Western culture.

gallup.com/poll/148187/americans-prefer-boys-girls-1941.aspx

“If Americans could have only one child, they would prefer that it be a boy rather than a girl, by a 40% to 28% margin, with the rest having no preference or no opinion on the matter.”

“The attitudes of American men drive the overall preference for a boy; in the current poll, conducted June 9-12, men favor a boy over a girl by a 49% to 22% margin.”

(That was back in 2011.)

Bear in mind that however unspiritual this all sounds, there are connections between worldly things like money and education and success in marriage (a spiritual good). The more educated are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce, while the less educated are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce.

There are some excellent charts here:

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

Interestingly, people who make $125k or more are the least likely to divorce (the highest-earning group surveyed)–in fact, their divorce rate is half that of the general population.

If we want our children to marry successfully and have successful intact families, we should think about this stuff–at least a little.

 

[Art321]

Further to that, there is the problem of the negativity generated by those who remonstrate against fellow Law followers, with their own severe interpretation of the Law that reflects the errors of the puritans. I personally have never increased in holiness at being subjected to that approach and I believe that since Vatican II, the Church herself has been trying to rid herself of that approach. Pope StJXIII…

And often errors vanish as quickly as they arise, like fog before the sun. The Church has always opposed these errors. Frequently she has condemned them with the greatest severity. Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.

Yes, mercy should always be always be used to welcome back those that have fallen away and well as those that have never been with the Church. I suppose that is what I meant with when I said we must meet people where they are and welcome them. Yet, I suppose many don’t wish to come back first until they resolve their issues with Catholic teaching. When that happens, the best that can be done is simply proclaim the Truth in a loving and compassionate manner.

Can you give me some examples of what you mean by “their own severe interpretation of the Law”?

 

[Xantippe]

Anybody who thinks that however many kids you have, however sick or worn out you are, however broke you are, however uninsured you are, however old you are, however disabled your kid is, if you’re fertile, you’re just not being Catholic enough unless you are either pregnant or breastfeeding. (And I believe the breastfeeding exemption runs out eventually.)

That’s probably the most frequent legalism encountered on CAF, although there are others that come to mind. For instance, a lot of people object to no use of the pill and hysterectomies for medical treatment (even though that’s actually allowed according to Catholic teaching). That particular one causes immense unnecessary physical suffering.

Yes, mercy should always be always be used to welcome back those that have fallen away and well as those that have never been with the Church. I suppose that is what I meant with when I said we must meet people where they are and welcome them. Yet, I suppose many don’t wish to come back first until they resolve their issues with Catholic teaching. When that happens, the best that can be done is simply proclaim the Truth in a loving and compassionate manner.

Can you give me some examples of what you mean by “their own severe interpretation of the Law”?

 

[on_the_hill]

That particular one causes immense unnecessary physical suffering.

I think that’s why it’s best to keep in mind that an Internet forum is not Real Life, and we have to keep the two separate.

 

[bitterhope]

I’m a girl, too, I think daughters are amazing, and I am a big booster of the value of women’s work, but it is a historical fact that in many times and places, daughters have been regarded as an expensive nuisance. This is seen most vividly to the present day in the treatment of baby girls in places like China and India (although I believe that people are starting to be more positive about girls in South Korea.) There’s actually a traditional Indian proverb that says that raising a daughter is like watering the flowers in somebody else’s garden.

jesusanthonybaez.com/blog/raising-a-daughter-is-like-watering-your-neighbors-garden

I think you’re being a little too hard on people of the past and concerns about large families. Consider how harsh the consequences for economic failure were in the past and how harsh they continue to be in poorer countries of the world.

Also, I think “selfishness” is the wrong word to call being concerned about the economic well-being of one’s children and children’s children. I’d call it prudence. I also think that it’s an oddity of contemporary Catholic life (as opposed to Catholic life 100 or 200 years ago) that we are so often asked to view basic foresight as somehow illegitimate.

But see, in many poorer areas of the world people people still are looking to have a big family, not prevent one. They see children as blessings, not crosses. They would see the things written here as selfish. Children are the source of their joy! Most women pray for large families and ask for blessings to have the ability to have a large family. They do not want the push for family planning that is sweeping their countries, and most do not see the difference between NFP and ABC. They figure if you don’t want children you should not be having sex. To many traditional societies, that is the logical way to see things.

Most people in the US have a European heritage. Just as you are pointing out, fertility rates in European countries have been lower for quite a while and have become so low that some countries are paying people to have babies. Maybe this shared ancestry/history as well as genetics play a role in the preference for smaller families. Maybe the fact that Europe led the way in developing contraceptive methods and devices even while they were still illegal in the US plays a role in this. Maybe it’s simply that people growing up in smaller families don’t understand the nature of large families so they can’t figure out how they work. Who knows for sure! It really doesn’t matter what is said in literature. Those are stories. I know that most modern novels bear no resemblance to any way of life I’ve experienced. Those stories also wouldn’t focus on the emotions surrounding family size UNLESS that was the plot of the story.

We tend to look at history through the eyes of our present existence. The world was different and the culture was different. Growing up in the family you did in the area you did will see things as proof of truth that you are right, while a person presented with the same facts but grew up in another family in another area may very well see something completely different. In actuality, the full truth is probably something else or a combination of things. For the most part we will never know .

This will go round and round for eternity. Many here are very defensive of being allowed to use NFP for any or all reasons and that is fine. Many others are very defensive of only using when absolutely necessary which is also fine. For some, NFP comes pretty easy, some it is difficult but worth it, and for some it is impossible. These discussions change none of that. Small families feel judged, big families feel judged. No one is going to change that. It is what it is. Until people start viewing children through the same eyes that God views them we won’t come to an agreement. So why not just stop?

It’s kind of disappointing when even on a thread that was not specifically about family size or NFP it still ends up spiraling into that. There is so much more to life and to people than how many kids they have or how they plan their families. Many good people have been deeply hurt by CAF. I am just a sinner and not nearly as good as they are. So, I’m walking away from all this before I end up hurt too.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

The Indian and Chinese attitude is the far extreme version of stuff that has an equivalent in Western culture (but fortunately much milder). Forget I mentioned it if it’s not helpful to you–but it does really have milder analogs in Western culture.

gallup.com/poll/148187/americans-prefer-boys-girls-1941.aspx

“If Americans could have only one child, they would prefer that it be a boy rather than a girl, by a 40% to 28% margin, with the rest having no preference or no opinion on the matter.”

“The attitudes of American men drive the overall preference for a boy; in the current poll, conducted June 9-12, men favor a boy over a girl by a 49% to 22% margin.”

(That was back in 2011.)

Bear in mind that however unspiritual this all sounds, there are connections between worldly things like money and education and success in marriage (a spiritual good). The more educated are more likely to marry and less likely to divorce, while the less educated are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce.

There are some excellent charts here:

theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-divorce-proof-marriage/381401/

Interestingly, people who make $125k or more are the least likely to divorce (the highest-earning group surveyed)–in fact, their divorce rate is half that of the general population.

If we want our children to marry successfully and have successful intact families, we should think about this stuff–at least a little.

If we are taking this route of comparing studies, how about this one:

“People who grow up with lots of siblings are more likely to marry – and to stay married – than are only children or those who grew up with one or two siblings, a new study has found.”
articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/13/science/la-sci-siblings-families-divorce-20130813

Honestly, I think the most important thing is for parents to raise their children in the faith, and to be examples of faith for their children. Who cares if a study shows that having 200+ people at your wedding is supposedly a sign that your chances of divorcing are smaller? Big wedding, little wedding, richer or poorer, gender of kid, I don’t think any of these have as much impact (and even if they did, it still wouldn’t be as important from a supernatural standpoint) as parents living the faith and educating their children in the faith.

Being examples of faith for their kids does include parents seeking God’s will for their family, not their own, in every single aspect.

 

[jmjZelie]

Anybody who thinks that however many kids you have, however sick or worn out you are, however broke you are, however uninsured you are, however old you are, however disabled your kid is, if you’re fertile, you’re just not being Catholic enough unless you are either pregnant or breastfeeding. (And I believe the breastfeeding exemption runs out eventually.)

That’s probably the most frequent legalism encountered on CAF, although there are others that come to mind. For instance, a lot of people object to no use of the pill and hysterectomies for medical treatment (even though that’s actually allowed according to Catholic teaching). That particular one causes immense unnecessary physical suffering.

Just so you know, I was not advocating for any of this, despite the fact that I disagree with your previous assertions about the priority that should be afforded to material concerns and also about the response to societal discrimination toward large families.

I do not advocate ANY imposition upon the private sex lives of married Catholic couples, other than to restate the perennial teachings of the Church.

 

[Art321]

Anybody who thinks that however many kids you have, however sick or worn out you are, however broke you are, however uninsured you are, however old you are, however disabled your kid is, if you’re fertile, you’re just not being Catholic enough unless you are either pregnant or breastfeeding. (And I believe the breastfeeding exemption runs out eventually.)

That’s probably the most frequent legalism encountered on CAF, although there are others that come to mind. For instance, a lot of people object to no use of the pill and hysterectomies for medical treatment (even though that’s actually allowed according to Catholic teaching). That particular one causes immense unnecessary physical suffering.

Honesty, a lot of this seems that this is not based on the issues of our Catholic Faith but rather issues that seem to be rather simply private issues. I don’t see how being how old you are, if you are broke, disabled your child is, or how many children you have has to do with your eternal soul.

If you are broke, do the best to find a job to feed your family and God will provide the rest. If your child is disabled, simply love your child with all that you can give and seek medical attention if need be, I’m currently uninsured but that has nothing do with faith. We grow old! Sadly it is a way of life and I only recommend that you take care of yourself heath wise!!

In terms of children, as long as you are open to life and don’t use contraception, I don’t see the problem if you have one kid, two, or maybe none. People actually have a hard time having kids!! One of my aunts suffered in this area for years until medical treatment helped her.

If you do use contraception for medical purposes besides of what they were originally intended for, though I can’t imagine a medical problem for that (I lack in this knowledge area since I’m a guy), I don’t see a problem. Any thing else??

 

[Walking_Home]

Anybody who thinks that however many kids you have, however sick or worn out you are, however broke you are, however uninsured you are, however old you are, however disabled your kid is, if you’re fertile, you’re just not being Catholic enough unless you are either pregnant or breastfeeding. (And I believe the breastfeeding exemption runs out eventually.)

That’s probably the most frequent legalism encountered on CAF, although there are others that come to mind. For instance, a lot of people object to no use of the pill and hysterectomies for medical treatment (even though that’s actually allowed according to Catholic teaching). That particular one causes immense unnecessary physical suffering.

Art321:

Yes, mercy should always be always be used to welcome back those that have fallen away and well as those that have never been with the Church. I suppose that is what I meant with when I said we must meet people where they are and welcome them. Yet, I suppose many don’t wish to come back first until they resolve their issues with Catholic teaching. When that happens, the best that can be done is simply proclaim the Truth in a loving and compassionate manner.

Can you give me some examples of what you mean by “their own severe interpretation of the Law”?

---

 

[Xantippe]

I think that’s why it’s best to keep in mind that an Internet forum is not Real Life, and we have to keep the two separate.

True, but there’s so much misinformation about the pill/hysterectomy issue.

It’s probably the leading misunderstanding among faithful Catholics.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh, I know you’re not.

That list is actually the fruit of several years of observation of CAF NFP discussions.

Just so you know, I was not advocating for any of this, despite the fact that I disagree with your previous assertions about the priority that should be afforded to material concerns and also about the response to societal discrimination toward large families.

I do not advocate ANY imposition upon the private sex lives of married Catholic couples, other than to restate the perennial teachings of the Church.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, mercy should always be always be used to welcome back those that have fallen away and well as those that have never been with the Church. I suppose that is what I meant with when I said we must meet people where they are and welcome them. Yet, I suppose many don’t wish to come back first until they resolve their issues with Catholic teaching. When that happens, the best that can be done is simply proclaim the Truth in a loving and compassionate manner.

Can you give me some examples of what you mean by “their own severe interpretation of the Law”?

In reference to the types of things that motivated this thread… as well as equating the number of children one has with their holiness, there is the interpretation of NFP as a contraceptive unless it is only resorted in life and death situations. There was also a recent suggestion that the Catholic Church was against conjugal relations during the menstrual period. There’s often the interpretation of the marital debt as being obligatory in virtually all circumstances short of being on the deathbed.

Then you move into the the ceremony and ritual interpretations regarding the Ordinary form of the Mass and the unholiness of receiving in the hand or wearing opened toed shoes to Mass.