JUST reasons, and children

[Rence]

Which is greater- bringing a new life into the world or avoiding bankruptcy? There have been several threads on this topic already, by the way.

My vote would be to avoid bankruptcy first so as to be able to afford supporting a new life …

 

[admonsta]

Um,

This thread is a bit frustrating because the posters seem to agree on many things, but are putting words into each others’ mouths to keep the argument going.

For starters, I think that everyone agrees that children are blessings.

I think everyone also agrees that if a couple has a serious reason to avoid children then they are within their rights to do so without defying God’s law.

The difficulty comes in knowing what is a serious reason - where is that line? Everyone would (I assume) agree that extreme mental stress is a valid reason, as is financial hardship.

I also think that the concept of avoiding is a bit unclear here. There is a difference between active avoidance (deliberately NOT conceiving), passive avoidance (being careful but still being open to life if it were to happen) and active trying to conceive. The discussion here should not assume that we are called to either avoid or try to achieve pregnancy, with nothing in the middle.

Don’t assume that to follow God’s laws, we must be always trying to conceive unless we have grave reason. We can still be somewhat careful, but accept the baby if God decides to give us another.

I am scared stiff about what is going to happen when I have my next baby in January. I know that there’s a fair chance I’ll have more after this (I’m 35 and this is my sixth). I always thought I’d have about three or four. I’m university educated and have the ability to make more money than my husband. However, I now do some work from home and we live on hubby’s wages. God has provided well for us and we are getting by very well. I am a very different person now to who I was before the kids, and even before I had lots of kids. I am able to do more with my time, I don’t sweat the small stuff so much.

BingoBoy, one thing that irritated me about your style of writing is that you make it sound like a woman gives up her life if she has lots of children. I am more active in the community now than I was before. I don’t work full-time, but that’s a choice we made, and it would have been the same if I had two kids or six. Also, in another five years, my kids will be at school and I will most likely go back to work. I can still be an effective mum to all my kids if I’m working at the same time.

Please don’t keep using the word “insinuated” when talking about what others wrote. If they didn’t write it, then it’s your interpretation. Coimment only on what WAS written.

I agree with the poster who said that our holiness is far more important than any physical achievements on Earth. Is God so limited that he would give a gift of healing to a mother and then make her choose between her family and her job? Is there not another person somewhere who could do the same work? If a woman was truly called to find the cure for cancer, then perhaps she should not get married, so that she can devote her time to her great calling (I don’t believe this, by the way, I don’t think it’s this absolute).

You give an either/or scenario - either the woman has a large family or she provides great service to the world. I maintain that God is far superior to such a situation. We are called first to obedience and humility. A woman who gives up the chance of greatness in her community because of obedience is attaining another form of greatness that we can’t see.

That’s not to say that a woman who is married should strive to have a huge family, or that she must be a SAHM. Just that she and her husband must be very sure of their motives for actively avoiding futher children.

As for a comprehensive list of reasons - I doubt you’ll ever find one. I haven’t found one yet, but our priest has told us that we can avoid indefinitely from now on because our reason is just, as long as we are open to any that may be conceived (no barriers). I was surprised because I didn’t think we had serious reason, but apparently we qualify, so the seriousness of the reason is not life-or-death. For the record this priest is EF and very traditional, so I trust his judgement.

 

[LittleDeb]

sigh

Apparently saying that not everyone is fit to have a large family and not every woman is called to be a mother to lots of kids, is insulting to some people.

Well, can’t please everyone. I stand by what I say. I think people are different and I think that not everyone is called to have a large family, and I think some people have other gifts that can be put to good use as well.

If that offends you or puts your life “through the shredder,” well… I guess I don’t really know what to say to you except sorry my opinion insults you so much.

Seriously, BingoBoy? Out of everything I wrote, that is what you took out of it? My point is that I don’t care if she is a heart surgeon or a chambermaid in a Motel 6. If she is called to a small family, then so be it! She doesn’t need to have the “ultimate job” to justify it.

What Kristacelia is saying hearkens back to a quote from Mark Twain, “I worried about an awful lot of things in life; a couple of which actually happened.” A lot of people need help in understanding what is a need and what is a want.

If a family is living one paycheck away from homelessness and bankruptcy, then sex is probably not supposed to be on the top of their ‘to-do’ list. Getting help to become stable is a top priority. If a mother is struggling with PPD, then helping her get healthy is yours and my responsibility. We are all called to generosity, after all.

Your original point is basically, “If a family can take an annual vacation, you all think they don’t have enough kids.” Am I understanding you correctly?

Please explain how you get to determine what constitutes an “annual vacation” for me, or for anyone else for that matter? Actually, I travel more than many of my wealthier friends. My parents have prioritized their lives so that travel was something we do. They pay when we go. They have also assisted us in paying off our massive hospital bills that made it possible to have our second child. Not everyone is blessed like that to have generous, devout parents who live in an old house, and drive old cars so they have more money to give away. Some of my friends have only been able to have one child in similar circumstances.

What I am asking you point blank, “Do you honestly think you hold the answer to what is just cause for any given couple?” You are doing exactly what you are accusing others here of doing. You are giving all these reasons these families should limit children, and these ladies are giving their take on why those reasons are often *not *just cause. You get to reject their (name removed by moderator)ut, even though they are walking that very path!

I just don’t get how you can call people narrow-minded when these are the very people who discern these reasons each and every day! You are addressing women with college degrees, PPD, severe health issues, valuable and fulfilling jobs, large families, small families, (though some people may have 3 and say that is a large family and others might have 6 and still feel they are “small.”)

I have 2 kids. By our “culture of death” I was advised to have none. My family is HUGE. I still keep praying that God is going to call us to more, unlikely as that may be.

 

[RedSoxWife]

Maybe she feels God is not calling her to have more children. Maybe she feels God is calling her to have a couple kids so that she can invest her time to do something else that’s great.

And besides, with this reasoning of “we can’t tell what we can handle in advance,” it would seem no one should ever stop/postpone having children. Which is not what the Church teaches - the Church says God gives us that responsibility and that we are allowed to stop having children if we feel it is best for the family.

We’re supposed to trust in God. Remember that whole thing about the flowers, and how much more important we are to God then they are and how surely he’ll take care of us?

As someone who’s lived well below the poverty level for 41 of the 42 months I’ve been a parent I can say that trusting in God can be amazing. It seems like whenever an unforeseen bill pops up, a check arrives at the same time for some thing we’d forgotten about.

It’s often hard to follow the Church’s teachings when we base all of our choices on “doing what feels right.”

Umm…Krista…glad you are not in a situation where getting pregnant would cause you to lose your job because you couldn’t do it. Or glad you don’t have it hanging over your head that if you became pregnant your family would end up financially destitute, lose the house, go bankrupt…because they cannot work while pregnant. Hey…and NO ONE knows when you get pregnant when you will end up on bedrest. My good friend started at 18 weeks!..just saying…think about your statement a little more.

If we’re going to base all of our choices on “what could happen” than should we really leave the house? I could walk out into the parking lot outside my apartment and get hit by a car. Basing our choices on fear usually doesn’t work out all that well either.

There is no Church teaching that says we have to have 8 kids.

Nope but we are at the very least called to be open to life. Even when we’re avoiding.

Declaring bankruptcy is not the worst thing that can happen in the world, no. But what exactly are you saying? Are you saying people should risk bankruptcy and keep having children they know they can’t afford? There is nothing wrong with avoiding pregnancy in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Now as for the Jesus/rich comment - you are taking things way into the extreme. No one here is saying people should avoid having kids so that they can be rich!

I’ve never heard of anyone declaring bankruptcy because they had one more child. Have you? As we’ve had more children we’ve spent much, much less than we spent in the past… There are many factors that go into bankruptcy, but if you manage your baby spending frugally you can really cut costs.

In all fairness, this post makes it sound like people should have kids because it’s more important to have them rather than be happy or comfortable in one’s life. It’s almost as if one is encouraged to burden oneself for the sake of not having comfort so that they can be saintly – by having more children. I don’t believe that’s a teaching of the Church. I do believe that one can be happy in their life and be close to God. We don’t need to purposely create burdens in our life that make us unhappy and stressed out. Not only that, the above concedes to the fact that raising larger families is burdensome and challenging. Why would anyone want to purposely burden themselves and make themselves unhappy?

No, it doesn’t make it sound like that. But we are supposed to throw ourselves whole-heartedly into the vocation that we’re called to and our vocations (again) are who we’re called to serve. I’m not talking about “purposely creating burdens,” I’m talking about not avoiding important parts of our vocations because we’re afraid, or don’t want to be uncomfortable.

And again, have you ever heard of a saint who was “comfortable.” Comfort doesn’t seem to make saints. There are certainly many saints who are joyous in their great love of God.
But they’re usually down in the trenches, doing God’s working serving whoever they’ve been called to serve and expressing His love to the world.

We don’t have to create burdens because life will offer plenty. But we shouldn’t avoid our vocations either.

And I’ll add: I do think financial reasons are a serious reason to avoid. I shared my own experience to show that we really can live quite well (particularly when compared with the developing world) on relatively little. If I’d been told how little we’d be making at this point I probably wouldn’t have wanted to have any children (we’re way below the poverty level). Yet I’d say we’re doing pretty well. We have everything we need.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… I have only 2 children. I am probably done having kids. God has called me to a small family. I really thought that I would be called to at least 4, if not 6,7, or 8. But those who are tearing my life through the shredder are not those with big families.

BingoBoy, you really don’t get how you are coming across.

… There is not a woman or man who knows me here on CAF who doubts the sincerity of my husband and my prayers of discernment. Yet, here you are comparing my situation (my husband’s and mine) to a person who finds career more important than family, because we “only have 2 children”…

Hi Little Deb!!! Good to hear from you! I haven’t been around CAF much lately and as frustrating as this thread has been, it’s really fun to read posts by so many of my old CAF friends on this thread.

 

[LittleDeb]

Well put, admonsta!!

 

[BingoBoy]

Seriously, BingoBoy? Out of everything I wrote, that is what you took out of it? My point is that I don’t care if she is a heart surgeon or a chambermaid in a Motel 6. If she is called to a small family, then so be it! She doesn’t need to have the “ultimate job” to justify it.

What Kristacelia is saying hearkens back to a quote from Mark Twain, “I worried about an awful lot of things in life; a couple of which actually happened.” A lot of people need help in understanding what is a need and what is a want.

If a family is living one paycheck away from homelessness and bankruptcy, then sex is probably not supposed to be on the top of their ‘to-do’ list. Getting help to become stable is a top priority. If a mother is struggling with PPD, then helping her get healthy is yours and my responsibility. We are all called to generosity, after all.

Your original point is basically, “If a family can take an annual vacation, you all think they don’t have enough kids.” Am I understanding you correctly?

Please explain how you get to determine what constitutes an “annual vacation” for me, or for anyone else for that matter? Actually, I travel more than many of my wealthier friends. My parents have prioritized their lives so that travel was something we do. They pay when we go. They have also assisted us in paying off our massive hospital bills that made it possible to have our second child. Not everyone is blessed like that to have generous, devout parents who live in an old house, and drive old cars so they have more money to give away. Some of my friends have only been able to have one child in similar circumstances.

What I am asking you point blank, “Do you honestly think you hold the answer to what is just cause for any given couple?” You are doing exactly what you are accusing others here of doing. You are giving all these reasons these families should limit children, and these ladies are giving their take on why those reasons are often *not *just cause. You get to reject their (name removed by moderator)ut, even though they are walking that very path!

I just don’t get how you can call people narrow-minded when these are the very people who discern these reasons each and every day! You are addressing women with college degrees, PPD, severe health issues, valuable and fulfilling jobs, large families, small families, (though some people may have 3 and say that is a large family and others might have 6 and still feel they are “small.”)

I have 2 kids. By our “culture of death” I was advised to have none. My family is HUGE. I still keep praying that God is going to call us to more, unlikely as that may be.

No, you are putting words in my mouth by claiming that I somehow think career is more important than family. I never said such thing, neither is that close to what I believe. I’ve explained it many times over but it seems like some people are having a very difficult time getting it. My whole point, in it’s most raw, condensed form, is in my response to your previous post.

Again, sorry if that somehow offends you.

 

[BingoBoy]

We’re supposed to trust in God. Remember that whole thing about the flowers, and how much more important we are to God then they are and how surely he’ll take care of us?

As someone who’s lived well below the poverty level for 41 of the 42 months I’ve been a parent I can say that trusting in God can be amazing. It seems like whenever an unforeseen bill pops up, a check arrives at the same time for some thing we’d forgotten about.

It’s often hard to follow the Church’s teachings when we base all of our choices on “doing what feels right.”

Ok… so by using your logic (that we must just trust God), then I suppose we should all prove that trust in God by never practicing NFP to avoid.

These posts get weirder and weirder by the hour…

 

[BingoBoy]

Originally Posted by BingoBoy

Well whoa where did this even come from?? No one here is supporting or even MENTIONING contraception.

 

[LittleDeb]

Hi Little Deb!!! Good to hear from you! I haven’t been around CAF much lately and as frustrating as this thread has been, it’s really fun to read posts by so many of my old CAF friends on this thread.

Nice to see you too, Gardens!!! Since it is the topic of the thread…what number on you on right now for kids? Your growing garden always brings me joy!

My health has not improved, but I am still fertile, so the door is open if God lifts this health burden. It has been so humbling doing things God’s way. This year I was bed-bound more often than not, but we have found a few helps to get through, some I could continue into pregnancy, but the more helpful medications, I cannot. We just keep listening to God. The hubby is so glad we have our two, that any others would probably shock him to death. But oh how I miss having a child who isn’t articulate enough to argue back! My oldest is just entering age of reason…

 

[BingoBoy]

Well RedSox,

I suppose it is time we agree to disagree. It seems to me like you will never understand my reasoning, and I will most certainly never understand YOUR reasoning.

I must say you have come off as quite flippant to me… sometimes you’ll get defensive and claim you don’t mean to ever say you’d judge anyone regarding the # of their children or family decisions, other times you may as well be saying “don’t ever avoid having kids and keep em coming at all costs whether you like it or not.”

I guess there’s nothing wrong with disagreement on this issue, considering we’re not married or anything.

 

[Debora123]

Wow… I didn’t read this whole thread but I skimmed it and it’s gotten a little ridiculous, IMHO… though no offense to those involved.

However many children a couple decides to have is their own business (along with God) and there is no way AT ALL that any outsider can judge what reason is just for that couple in particular. What may be a just reason for one couple, may not be for another… and there is absolutely, positively no way of someone else knowing which is which.

It’s a very private, personal thing, so why are people getting so worked up about it on a random thread??

It seems silly to me, no offense.

 

[LittleDeb]

I don’t normally post here much, as I am more of an observer.

I have noticed all the Duggar threads out there recently and a question came to mind.

What exactly constitutes as “just” reasons for avoiding pregnancy? Some people seem to think that if you can afford cable TV, a nice house, and an annual family vacation, you don’t have enough children (unless there’s a health issue).

Is this what the Church teaches, or is this just a very conservative point of view?

Thanks.

Thanks for the answer.

It frustrates me when I see posts by Catholics here insinuating that if you’re in good health, can afford cable television, and don’t have 6+ children, you’re selfish.

I’ve even seen people use numbers and talk badly about people who only have 2-3 kids.

And that got me to thinking…

All women are different, and while some women would be perfectly happy and fulfilled having 6 children and being a stay at home mom, others would be a lot happier and more productive if they kept their careers and had 3 children. Being a SAHM to a bunch of little ones may not be the best thing for everyone, and I consider that a just reason to stop at 2-3.

Some people seem to have a very “one size fits all” mentality, but the truth of the matter is, we all have different gifts/talents to bring to the table. Some can stay at home and raise 10 beautiful children, others can have 2 children but save lives in their career as heart surgeon. One is not better than the other, in my opinion.

Any thoughts?

BingoBoy, here are your first two posts in their entirety. Since I have directly addressed many of the points here and yet you still say that is not what you meant, I really am wondering about your motive for starting the thread.

Your thesis seems to be, “Being a SAHM to a bunch of little ones may not be the best thing for everyone, and I consider that a just reason to stop at 2-3.” (direct quote) Again, please correct me if I am wrong about where you stand. You did go on to clarify this position, but it came across as bashing those who have instead had large families.

Your wording of “I consider” is something you have to take up in your own marriage, in your own prayers. That was reiterated more than once. Your wording of, “a bunch of little ones may not be the best thing for everyone” needs a ticket from the vague police. You then go on to say that stopping at 2-3 seems just. Basically, you have personally defined “a bunch” as a number 4 and higher. ( I don’t even want to try to imagine who you define as “everyone.” The infertile don’t fit in.)

When members tried to point out the vagueness of your answer and how it doesn’t seem to take in the Church’s teaching on a properly formed conscience, you went from self described “frustrated” to fairly hostile, pretty quickly.

Please understand; many of us have been here for years. We have seen posters come and go. Some people like to stir up controversy and then run away. Your posting has many of the earmarks of such a case. And your thread has attracted others who might do the same.

The short answer is that many people decide to be “done” with very little time spent in prayer. How do I know that? Not because I have read their hearts, that is not my job. But they, just like you, come here, make fairly flippant remarks about family size and give odd reasons and hypothetical situations that are often far removed from reality.

In the end it often comes down to seeing statements like, “We decided that it was best for us to do X,” and it is most often not in union with the writings and teachings of our Holy Fathers. Please read “FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO” and get back to us. Our late Holy Father taught that the decision had to be in the best interest of the entire family.

Many of these couples haven’t even thought through, and even more seldom, prayed through, the idea that they are denying their children another sibling. Many people are absolutely shocked at the idea! It hadn’t even crossed their minds! Yet, Bl. John Paul found it important enough to talk about in more than one encyclical. What JPII encountered in the culture of death, and what continues today is a very, “me, me” attitude when it comes to family. I can’t tell you how many people have posted over the years, “my wife and I…” and ignore their current children entirely.

If following Bl. John Paul’s writings and Pope Benedict’s exposition and expansion of those writings makes me “conservative” (whatever that means when applied to faith) then, okay. I plead guilty as charged. Are some families called to “just 2 or 3?” Certainly! I am likely a member of such a family. But I argue that God has called that the exception. You *appear *to be arguing that it is instead, the new normal.

Peace to you. I wasn’t offended at your presentation of my life, just surprised that it could be considered a good thing, not to have a multitude of what scripture calls “true blessings.”

 

[RedSoxWife]

Ok… so by using your logic (that we must just trust God), then I suppose we should all prove that trust in God by never practicing NFP to avoid.

These posts get weirder and weirder by the hour…

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve said over and over again that obviously the Church teaches that NFP is fine. I’m thankful for it. By explaining what was going on with my cycles to my doctor last week she was able to say: “Sounds like your progesterone is low” and give me a prescription to fix it, which will hopefully mean that we don’t lose our next little blessing.

But you’d like us to agree that it’s okay for a couple to make the choice that they’re never going to have another child and go forward implementing that choice and that’s not going to happen. We’re called to discern over and over again to see if we have serious reasons. We’re supposed to let God be part of that decision. It’s supposed to be more than “I want…” That’s what I’m disagreeing with.

I’m sure plenty of people have serious reason to avoid. I’m sure we do (although we aren’t because we’ve discerned that we can handle it, and would actually be grateful to). It’s not that no one should avoid. It’s that it’s not a choice that we make once and that the individual family should be guided by a good spiritual director when they’re making difficult spiritual decisions.

Well whoa where did this even come from?? No one here is supporting or even MENTIONING contraception.

That actually hasn’t been at all clear, as others have pointed out. It was never defined how people were limiting family size.

The thing is, if you’re having sex, there’s a chance a baby is going to be the result. I’m sure a lot of people here have experienced those blessings that they were rather surprised by.

Well RedSox,

I suppose it is time we agree to disagree. It seems to me like you will never understand my reasoning, and I will most certainly never understand YOUR reasoning.

I must say you have come off as quite flippant to me… sometimes you’ll get defensive and claim you don’t mean to ever say you’d judge anyone regarding the # of their children or family decisions, other times you may as well be saying “don’t ever avoid having kids and keep em coming at all costs whether you like it or not.”

I guess there’s nothing wrong with disagreement on this issue, considering we’re not married or anything.

Oh BingoBoy, not agreeing with you doesn’t mean I don’t “understand” what you’re saying. I do. But I can’t agree with me. I’m sorry that you’ve inferred that my tone was “flippant” just like you’ve “inferred” quite a lot of what all of those who’ve responded to your posts have said. Maybe things would go a little more smoothly if you assumed less about our motives and tones and what we might have meant and go with what has actually been said. I mean, you’ve basically said that by saying: “Every person needs to listen to God’s call in their lives and follow it” means “A woman with a career is selfish!” and that’s a pretty long (and false) leap to make.

I’ve never said “don’t ever avoid.” I’ve said, trust in God. That doesn’t mean we can’t be proactive, only that we shouldn’t panic and let fear guide us. There were earlier posts that were basically reasons to avoid because of “what might happen.” A woman might be put on bed rest. So saying, trust in God, don’t be afraid, is in response to that sort of mentality.

I’m thankful I have a husband who agrees and who put aside his dream of being a Canon Lawyer and taking his theological career further, to support his family. See, the “follow you’re dream” swings both ways. I would have supported him pursuing his dream, but after a couple years of prayer he made the decision that he was being led in another direction. Men give up things too to help support their families (since this thread has harped so much on what women “give up.”). Sometimes we’re called to make sacrifices.

I’ve found myself surprised by how much better the path that my vocation has led me down has been (on many different levels, physical comfort and luxury not being included) than any path I had designed for myself. That’s why the quote: “Want to make God laugh? Tell Him your plans!” rings so true.

I’m sorry you think I’ve been flippant. I haven’t. I’ve answered you as fully as possible. I’d say pretty much every question I asked you was ignored as you instead turned your attention to something you imagined I had said. But for the time being I’ll continue to answer any question you have, on the off chance that you might understand, just a tiny bit, where the rest of us are coming from.

 

[happymommy]

Well RedSox,

I suppose it is time we agree to disagree. It seems to me like you will never understand my reasoning, and I will most certainly never understand YOUR reasoning.

I must say you have come off as quite flippant to me… sometimes you’ll get defensive and claim you don’t mean to ever say you’d judge anyone regarding the # of their children or family decisions, other times you may as well be saying “don’t ever avoid having kids and keep em coming at all costs whether you like it or not.”

I guess there’s nothing wrong with disagreement on this issue, considering we’re not married or anything.

Did you even read anything anyone on this thread wrote? From your replies I think not! You sir, are the one who has come across as flippant and IMHO very rude! Of course, I’ll just be grouped in with the “you people” group for thinking that of you!

 

[BingoBoy]

BingoBoy, here are your first two posts in their entirety. Since I have directly addressed many of the points here and yet you still say that is not what you meant, I really am wondering about your motive for starting the thread.

Your thesis seems to be, “Being a SAHM to a bunch of little ones may not be the best thing for everyone, and I consider that a just reason to stop at 2-3.” (direct quote) Again, please correct me if I am wrong about where you stand. You did go on to clarify this position, but it came across as bashing those who have instead had large families.

Your wording of “I consider” is something you have to take up in your own marriage, in your own prayers. That was reiterated more than once. Your wording of, “a bunch of little ones may not be the best thing for everyone” needs a ticket from the vague police. You then go on to say that stopping at 2-3 seems just. Basically, you have personally defined “a bunch” as a number 4 and higher. ( I don’t even want to try to imagine who you define as “everyone.” The infertile don’t fit in.)

When members tried to point out the vagueness of your answer and how it doesn’t seem to take in the Church’s teaching on a properly formed conscience, you went from self described “frustrated” to fairly hostile, pretty quickly.

Please understand; many of us have been here for years. We have seen posters come and go. Some people like to stir up controversy and then run away. Your posting has many of the earmarks of such a case. And your thread has attracted others who might do the same.

The short answer is that many people decide to be “done” with very little time spent in prayer. How do I know that? Not because I have read their hearts, that is not my job. But they, just like you, come here, make fairly flippant remarks about family size and give odd reasons and hypothetical situations that are often far removed from reality.

In the end it often comes down to seeing statements like, “We decided that it was best for us to do X,” and it is most often not in union with the writings and teachings of our Holy Fathers. Please read “FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO” and get back to us. Our late Holy Father taught that the decision had to be in the best interest of the entire family.

Many of these couples haven’t even thought through, and even more seldom, prayed through, the idea that they are denying their children another sibling. Many people are absolutely shocked at the idea! It hadn’t even crossed their minds! Yet, Bl. John Paul found it important enough to talk about in more than one encyclical. What JPII encountered in the culture of death, and what continues today is a very, “me, me” attitude when it comes to family. I can’t tell you how many people have posted over the years, “my wife and I…” and ignore their current children entirely.

If following Bl. John Paul’s writings and Pope Benedict’s exposition and expansion of those writings makes me “conservative” (whatever that means when applied to faith) then, okay. I plead guilty as charged. Are some families called to “just 2 or 3?” Certainly! I am likely a member of such a family. But I argue that God has called that the exception. You *appear *to be arguing that it is instead, the new normal.

Peace to you. I wasn’t offended at your presentation of my life, just surprised that it could be considered a good thing, not to have a multitude of what scripture calls “true blessings.”

Ultimately, I believe that it is up for the couple. If a friend of mine had 2 kids and told me she can’t handle more while still keeping her career, and that she feels called to be a working mother, I’d have no problem with that, and I’d consider that a just reason.

I wouldn’t say things like “well, obviously it sounds like you put career before family” or “I know such and such person who has a career and has 10 kids” or “I don’t agree with your reasoning.” (to quote what some people here have said.)

I’d leave it at that and leave the judging to God, but personally, I’d have the opinion that my friend had done nothing wrong. You can think I’m being [insert negative connotation here] and being a bad Catholic for not having a problem with it, but either way, it doesn’t matter. Because ultimately, it is not up for us to judge anyway.

My thread has become, to me, about people who DO seem to pass judgements or look down on those in a scenario where they choose to stop having children for anything short of an extremely grave reason. I find this to be inappropriate and uncalled for.

 

[BingoBoy]

Did you even read anything anyone on this thread wrote? From your replies I think not! You sir, are the one who has come across as flippant and IMHO very rude! Of course, I’ll just be grouped in with the “you people” group for thinking that of you!

What did I say that was flippant??

The only thing I’ve said and have believed throughout this whole thread is that not everyone is the same, and not everyone is called to have a large family!

You can think that’s rude and horrible all you want, I suppose.

 

[BingoBoy]

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve said over and over again that obviously the Church teaches that NFP is fine. I’m thankful for it. By explaining what was going on with my cycles to my doctor last week she was able to say: “Sounds like your progesterone is low” and give me a prescription to fix it, which will hopefully mean that we don’t lose our next little blessing.

But you’d like us to agree that it’s okay for a couple to make the choice that they’re never going to have another child and go forward implementing that choice and that’s not going to happen. We’re called to discern over and over again to see if we have serious reasons. We’re supposed to let God be part of that decision. It’s supposed to be more than “I want…” That’s what I’m disagreeing with.

I’m sure plenty of people have serious reason to avoid. I’m sure we do (although we aren’t because we’ve discerned that we can handle it, and would actually be grateful to). It’s not that no one should avoid. It’s that it’s not a choice that we make once and that the individual family should be guided by a good spiritual director when they’re making difficult spiritual decisions.

That actually hasn’t been at all clear, as others have pointed out. It was never defined how people were limiting family size.

The thing is, if you’re having sex, there’s a chance a baby is going to be the result. I’m sure a lot of people here have experienced those blessings that they were rather surprised by.

Oh BingoBoy, not agreeing with you doesn’t mean I don’t “understand” what you’re saying. I do. But I can’t agree with me. I’m sorry that you’ve inferred that my tone was “flippant” just like you’ve “inferred” quite a lot of what all of those who’ve responded to your posts have said. Maybe things would go a little more smoothly if you assumed less about our motives and tones and what we might have meant and go with what has actually been said. I mean, you’ve basically said that by saying: “Every person needs to listen to God’s call in their lives and follow it” means “A woman with a career is selfish!” and that’s a pretty long (and false) leap to make.

I’ve never said “don’t ever avoid.” I’ve said, trust in God. That doesn’t mean we can’t be proactive, only that we shouldn’t panic and let fear guide us. There were earlier posts that were basically reasons to avoid because of “what might happen.” A woman might be put on bed rest. So saying, trust in God, don’t be afraid, is in response to that sort of mentality.

I’m thankful I have a husband who agrees and who put aside his dream of being a Canon Lawyer and taking his theological career further, to support his family. See, the “follow you’re dream” swings both ways. I would have supported him pursuing his dream, but after a couple years of prayer he made the decision that he was being led in another direction. Men give up things too to help support their families (since this thread has harped so much on what women “give up.”). Sometimes we’re called to make sacrifices.

I’ve found myself surprised by how much better the path that my vocation has led me down has been (on many different levels, physical comfort and luxury not being included) than any path I had designed for myself. That’s why the quote: “Want to make God laugh? Tell Him your plans!” rings so true.

I’m sorry you think I’ve been flippant. I haven’t. I’ve answered you as fully as possible. I’d say pretty much every question I asked you was ignored as you instead turned your attention to something you imagined I had said. But for the time being I’ll continue to answer any question you have, on the off chance that you might understand, just a tiny bit, where the rest of us are coming from.

I’ll be honest, I didn’t really bother reading this whole thing this time. I skimmed through it and that was enough to know we have gotten absolutely no where and never will.

I will say that you still seem to insinuate certain beliefs that come across as judgmental to the person who stops having babies at #2 or 3 for anything short of a very grave reason (which is not necessary by the Church). Also, you give many personal examples, which takes away the point I’ve been trying to make all along - that everyone is different. Something works for you, great. It won’t work for everyone.

As for the fact that it was never discussed how the family planning would go, well, I’m sorry I assumed we were all referring to the licit way - NFP.

And I HAVE brought up the fact that if a child comes unplanned, then that child would be welcomed into the world and loved just like the others. This isn’t an abortion/contraception thread, and never has been.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Did you even read anything anyone on this thread wrote? From your replies I think not! You sir, are the one who has come across as flippant and IMHO very rude! Of course, I’ll just be grouped in with the “you people” group for thinking that of you!

Happy mommy–are you judging him for judging us because he thinks we’re judging other people even though the majority of us are not sayng what he thinks we are saying?

 

[gardenswithkids]

What did I say that was flippant??

The only thing I’ve said and have believed throughout this whole thread is that not everyone is the same, and not everyone is called to have a large family!

You can think that’s rude and horrible all you want, I suppose.

That’s not the only thing you have said. If it was and if you comprehended what the majority of us are writing here, you’d comprehend that we agree that not everyone is the same and not everyone is called to have a large family. There’s nothing offensive at all about that. It’s the other things you’ve written that are offensive.

Sincerely, Mother Hubbard