JUST reasons, and children

[lifeisbeautiful]

What’s wrong with my reasoning? Some women weren’t meant to be SAHM’s. For some women, being forced into it would leave them feeling very bitter, moody, and unhappy.

Absolutely, I think it’s important to be happy. It is important to our health and makes us better, more productive people in ALL aspects of our lives. If having 6 kids and giving up a career to stay home full time is going to be detrimental to a person, then yes, I absolutely think that’s a just reason to avoid.

Not every woman is the same, and not every woman would do well being mother hubbard. What is so wrong with that??

True happiness is not found by doing what we want, but by seeking to do what God wants of us, and by getting closer to God.

I know you didn’t like the post from 1c, but they were right in that the default is to receive children, and that it may result in many children, or may result in a few, but that we only avoid if we truly have prayerfully discerned we have serious/just/grave reasons to do so, not because we have always wanted 2-3 kids and are climbing the corporate ladder, or are being a SAH parent of 3, or simply don’t want to deal with more than 3 kids. Fertility is a gift, and we will have to face God and explain what we did with that gift at the end of our lives.

 

[Castello]

Scripture talks about we Christians having a “peace that passes all understanding”. Seems that most Christians have trouble understanding the peace that comes from accepting children lovingly, having kids early in marriage, having kids before we have enough money, being open to children when we are tired of having kids, embracing all of the teachings of the Church on marriage and not fretting that too many will wreck our happy life.

 

[RedSoxWife]

What’s wrong with my reasoning? Some women weren’t meant to be SAHM’s. For some women, being forced into it would leave them feeling very bitter, moody, and unhappy.

Absolutely, I think it’s important to be happy. It is important to our health and makes us better, more productive people in ALL aspects of our lives. If having 6 kids and giving up a career to stay home full time is going to be detrimental to a person, then yes, I absolutely think that’s a just reason to avoid.

Not every woman is the same, and not every woman would do well being mother hubbard. What is so wrong with that??

We’re called to embrace our vocations. And our vocation, our calling from God, is literally who we are called to serve in this life. Usually, our vocations aren’t easy, because the path to holiness isn’t supposed to be easy. If it were it wouldn’t be a “narrow gate.” For many, although certainly not all, the path that they are called to is marriage. And for many of those women, the vocation of marriage will involve children (for some it involves a job, for some it doesn’t). There are many reasons to avoid, but we’re also called to be generous.

Very few of us grow closer to God through happy, easy times. It’s often through suffering, exhaustion and struggle that God gives us the grace necessary to move closer to him.

So I guess it all depends on your definition of “detrimental.” If by detrimental you mean, life may not be easy, we may not sleep all night, and we may not have a four car garage… then yeah… I guess being open to life can be “detrimental.” But if you plan to serve God, who has called all of us to serve on the particular path that he has in mind, then this life probably isn’t going to be as full of “pleasure” as we might like to imagine. Sometimes the things that the world sees as “detrimental” are the things that shape us for holiness in the next life. And holiness in the next life is what we all should strive for. The only tragedy in this life is not to become a saint.

But I have a feeling that’s not what you wanted to hear on this thread. Right?

 

[BingoBoy]

I disagree with all the above for the exact reasons I’ve already mentioned multiple times. People seem to continue to be narrow minded with the one size fits all mentality.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see a women realistically continuing to have a prestigious career, such as say, being a surgeon, if she’s going to have a ton of kids.

I don’t see why no one sees past their own ideas and considers that maybe God gave a woman the gifts/talents/smarts necessary to be great at something other than just being a full time mom, and that maybe God WANTS the woman to do those other things to help the community in other ways besides being pregnant for 10 years straight.

But of course, everyone here is just going to label a woman who had 2 kids but works hard and has helped many in her community with her God given gifts, as being selfish.

I guess that’s just the way it is, and that’s the mentality around here.

PS - The mother of Jesus only had 1 child

 

[RedSoxWife]

I disagree with all the above for the exact reasons I’ve already mentioned multiple times. People seem to continue to be narrow minded with the one size fits all mentality.

No one’s been arguing that a woman only can be one thing. But yeah, our vocations are supposed to be the first thing after God in our lives. They’re the thing that leads us to God.

I love how everyone that says anything that disagrees with the view that you had at the onset of this thread is being “selfish.” Saying we’re called the be generous (which is what the Church teaches) is “selfish?”

For what it’s worth, I don’t see a women realistically continuing to have a prestigious career, such as say, being a surgeon, if she’s going to have a ton of kids.

The surgeon that saved my life two weeks ago is an NFP doctor with a thriving practice and a four year old, two year old and newborn. She seems like an awesome mom and an awesome doctor. I haven’t heard anyone here say that that’s impossible. I mean, other than you saying that we’re all saying that.

One of my husband’s law professors has six kids, and most of them are still at home. And I’d say she’s quite successful. It seems to be your own notion that a woman will necessarily be stifled if she has children.

I don’t see why no one sees past their own ideas and considers that maybe God gave a woman the gifts/talents/smarts necessary to be great at something other than just being a full time mom, and that maybe God WANTS the woman to do those other things to help the community in other ways besides being pregnant for 10 years straight.

We’re not seeing past our ideas? No one has said that a woman can’t have a career. But you keep saying that over and over again as if saying it will somehow mean that the rest of us on here are saying it.

But of course, everyone here is just going to label a woman who had 2 kids but works hard and has helped many in her community with her God given gifts, as being selfish.

I guess that’s just the way it is, and that’s the mentality around here.

Um… No… There are selfish reasons for avoiding. There are unselfish reasons. Those reasons our between each couple and God. Sure, I’ve heard reasons that I wouldn’t want to have to defend on judgement day, but that’s between the couple and God. Usually when I see a small family, or a family without children, I don’t think much of anything because I have so many friends who’ve suffered from infertility. Again, you’re putting words in the mouths of everyone on this thread that haven’t been said.

Are you not siting specific quotes because it would make it harder to make generalizations about statements that haven’t actually been made?

PS - The mother of Jesus only had 1 child

Unfortunately, we weren’t all immaculately conceived without original sin. Maybe if we were it wouldn’t be quite so difficult to grow in holiness.

Did you start this thread simply to justify what you already believed to be true?

 

[Jennifer_J]

The Church outlines broad reasons that couples can justly space or even avoid children, including medical, eugenic, economic, and social reasons. These just reasons need not be life and death or financial ruin but should be, well, JUST. It is a discernment process between the couple and God (and a holy priest, if they are having trouble with the discernment process). Prayerful consideration, each and every month. No one here has said that a couple needs to have as many children as physically possible, just that couples need to be open to life and that having more than 1.8 children is not going to ruin a couple’s life.

Here’s some reading on the matter. You might also want to consult the Catechism on the topic as well as the other sources listed in these articles.

simchafisher.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/why-doesnt-the-church-just-make-a-list/
ewtn.com/library/marriage/cclbc.txt
ewtn.com/expert/answers/nfp_serious_motives.htm

 

[Jennifer_J]

PS - The mother of Jesus only had 1 child

Mary didn’t have an only child to have a career, did she? Pretty sure that’s a big old no.

 

[kristacecilia]

I disagree with all the above for the exact reasons I’ve already mentioned multiple times. People seem to continue to be narrow minded with the one size fits all mentality.

I just don’t see how we are the ones being narrow minded. So far all we have said is that every couple is obliged to

1. follow the teachings of the Church regarding just/serious use of NFP and continual discernment of its use.
2. Be generous with their fertility and material possessions.
3. Be open to life, according to the vows they took on their wedding day.

We have said repeatedly that this will translate into a broad variety of family sizes, work/career choices, etc. Every family is unique.

But we are being narrow minded?

You are the one saying that if a woman wants or needs to pursue her career that she can only have one or two kids. We keep saying, no, she can do both if that is what she and her husband have mutually decided is best for their family.

 

[Corki]

Mary didn’t have an only child to have a career, did she? Pretty sure that’s a big old no.

And Mary didn’t have sex either. There is always a Josephite marriage if the OP wants to consider that route.

 

[Debora123]

I love how everyone that says anything that disagrees with the view that you had at the onset of this thread is being “selfish.” Saying we’re called the be generous (which is what the Church teaches) is “selfish?”

You misunderstand completely. Go back and read again. I didn’t call anyone here selfish. I was merely pointing out that you all consider a women who only had 2 kids as being selfish.

What I was saying was, a woman can work hard and do a lot of wonderful things for her community with her God given talents… but if she only has 2 kids, people such as yourself would deem her “selfish.”

 

[BingoBoy]

I love how everyone that says anything that disagrees with the view that you had at the onset of this thread is being “selfish.” Saying we’re called the be generous (which is what the Church teaches) is “selfish?”

:banghead:

You misunderstand completely and are thus putting words in my mouth. This is very frustrating when people can’t even grasp the message I’m trying to get across.

I wasn’t calling anyone here selfish. Go back and reread my statement.

I was pointing out that people such as yourselves consider women selfish if they only have 2 kids. A woman can be a hard worker and do great things for the community with her God given gifts… but if she only has 2 kids, she wold be deemed “selfish” by you people.

 

[BingoBoy]

And Mary didn’t have sex either. There is always a Josephite marriage if the OP wants to consider that route.

So if a couple would prefer to only have 2 children they need to be celibate after the 2 are born?? That’s news to me.

 

[kristacecilia]

:banghead:

You misunderstand completely and are thus putting words in my mouth. This is very frustrating when people can’t even grasp the message I’m trying to get across.

I wasn’t calling anyone here selfish. Go back and reread my statement.

I was pointing out that people such as yourselves consider women selfish if they only have 2 kids. A woman can be a hard worker and do great things for the community with her God given gifts… but if she only has 2 kids, she wold be deemed “selfish” by you people.

“you people” Mmmhmmm.

I seriously doubt anyone posting on this thread would be so bold as to make assumptions and judgments about the reasons a woman has any number of children, from 1 to 100. We all know there are plenty of just/serious reasons for a woman to only have two children and a career.

The only thing that matters is that the woman and her husband have mutually decided through prayer and discernment that they have a just/serious reason to postpone any future pregnancies, and that they are in full communion with the Church and her teachings on the matter.

 

[BingoBoy]

Mary didn’t have an only child to have a career, did she? Pretty sure that’s a big old no.

You’re missing my point. My point was that a woman doesn’t need to have a big family to be great or do great things for the world. Our Lady certainly didn’t. There’s more a woman can bring to the world besides being the mother of 6, and that’s been my point throughout this whole thread.

While no one is flat out disagreeing with me on this, they are very blatantly insinuating as much.

 

[Jennifer_J]

:banghead:

You misunderstand completely and are thus putting words in my mouth. This is very frustrating when people can’t even grasp the message I’m trying to get across.

I wasn’t calling anyone here selfish. Go back and reread my statement.

I was pointing out that people such as yourselves consider women selfish if they only have 2 kids. A woman can be a hard worker and do great things for the community with her God given gifts… but if she only has 2 kids, she wold be deemed “selfish” by you people.

Nobody here has said that a family with 2 children is selfish. We ARE saying, as long as the couple is following the teachings of the Church and are discerning their family size routinely with generosity in mind, then that’s their family size. YOU are the one putting words in people’s mouths.

 

[Jennifer_J]

You’re missing my point. My point was that a woman doesn’t need to have a big family to be great or do great things for the world. Our Lady certainly didn’t. There’s more a woman can bring to the world besides being the mother of 6, and that’s been my point throughout this whole thread.

While no one is flat out disagreeing with me on this, they are very blatantly insinuating as much.

The problem is you are missing the fact the Mary is the Mother to us all. She has the biggest family ever and didn’t have a career. She fulfilled her vocation.

 

[Corki]

So if a couple would prefer to only have 2 children they need to be celibate after the 2 are born?? That’s news to me.

That’s not what I said. If someone such as yourself, however, wants to use the Blessed Virgin Mary as a role-model for small family size, he/she should look at the whole picture.

 

[kristacecilia]

You’re missing my point. My point was that a woman doesn’t need to have a big family to be great or do great things for the world. Our Lady certainly didn’t. There’s more a woman can bring to the world besides being the mother of 6, and that’s been my point throughout this whole thread.

While no one is flat out disagreeing with me on this, they are very blatantly insinuating as much.

Does it matter if we flat out disagree with you or not?

No one said that anyone had to do any one thing to do great things for the world. We just said that some women WILL do great things for the world by being a SAHM of 6 or 10 or 20 or 2. Or a working mom of 6 or 10 or 20 or 2.

The only thing that matters is that they are following the Church’s teaching regarding married sexuality and periodic abstinence.

 

[MamaJewel]

One of my cousins always said she wanted a large family. But after she got married and had a child her husband started to drink. She had two more kids and he got worse and no counseling seemed to help. She really felt the desire to stop having kids after the three because of the situation with her husband. They ended up with 7 kids and then her husband left her, practically destitute and saying he could not afford child support. So that would have been a good situation to stop. But then again she was “under his thumb” so to speak and he wouldn’t practice NFP because he wanted it when he wanted it. I would think if I was in the situation where my husband drank and was always angry I would stop at 2 or 3 simply for my own sanity and not to bring children into a dysfunctional family. She is doing a little better now but is still in financial hardship.

That is an extreme situation. But there are women who just can’t handle big families. I have 3 kids and while it would have been nice to have more, 3 was just about all I could handle. They gave me a really hard time in their teen years and I could not imagine handling more than the three. I admit part of it was my fault because I was not a good disciplinarian and they would drive me crazy. I think there may be a lot of women like this out there. We just don’t limit our families because we want more material things. We lived (and still do) in a tiny house, went only on camping vacations, and didn’t lavish ourselves or our kids with expensive things. We paid for college cash, no loans so our kids would not be strapped with paying back loans when they were just starting out as adults. Now that they are older I sometimes think how nice it would be to have had more, but then I always go back to thinking about those teen years and am very happy with my three.

I believe your personal example of practicing NFP is excellent, Joan. You didn’t limit out of selfishness, rather out of loving concern, your ability to be a good parent, and providing a healthy environment that your children could thrive in according to your family’s means. I believe this is exactly what the Church calls a husband and wife to do. When we marry, we are open to life. It is a given that we are loving, faithful spouses who serve Christ by serving our partner and any children God give us. In any given family, only that particular husband and wife can prayerfully discern what is best for their family unit.

It makes me sad to read that there are Christians out there who judge others about their number of children. That’s just plain horrific.

As far as your cousin, she meant well, but the Church would say her experience is not what NFP is about. I pray that the Church is able to reach out to her, help her personally heal and help her family through this trial. God gave His Church those precious children for a reason. Hopefully, we can do the right thing and nurture them back to safety and emotional health and spiritual well-being through prayers and support. Please let your cousin know we are praying for her.

 

[MamaJewel]

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?

My thoughts: St Gianna Molla. She was a wife, doctor and mom of four who died shortly after the birth of baby #4 following a very complicated pregnancy. That’s far from one size fits all imho. People shouldn’t judge imho.