Keep hitting the same hurdles on the Catholic Church

[Truth_Faith13]

Maybe I misubderstood your question… now you have me confused.

Oh…

Disclaimer I dont claim expert in this matter

But I believe if the ONLY risk is in pregnancy then chastity is called for?

But I dont have ovaries so I have not overly looked into every medical detail of them possibly cropping up

Sorry for the confusion.

My understanding is that the church allows hysterectemies for things like cancer (ie a medical need) similar to your stealing analogy however they dont allow hysterectemies for contraception to prevent a serious medical situation arising. I suppose on your analogy it would be equivalent to someone taking the clothes before the accident occured but knowing it was going to occur. The end result is the same ie prevention of a medical problem (cancer or death from a pregnancy related medical issue) however the initial intent is different. I get confused as to me because the end result is for a medical need, I cant see how the two are different

 

[Della]

Sorry for the confusion.

My understanding is that the church allows hysterectemies for things like cancer (ie a medical need) similar to your stealing analogy however they dont allow hysterectemies for contraception to prevent a serious medical situation arising. I suppose on your analogy it would be equivalent to someone taking the clothes before the accident occured but knowing it was going to occur. The end result is the same ie prevention of a medical problem (cancer or death from a pregnancy related medical issue) however the initial intent is different. I get confused as to me because the end result is for a medical need, I cant see how the two are different

It is impossible to prejudge every situation that may arise beforehand–that’s anticipating problems that may never happen and is, again unproductive and lacking trust in God’s care of us. There are a myriad of possibilities regarding what might happen. We can only deal with individual needs as they arise.

One could have the same reservations about anything thing in life–getting married, for instance. There are many difficulties that “may” arise, but to refrain from marriage for fear of what we might have to deal with years down the line does nothing but freeze us in the present, making us prisoners of our own fears. If we all made our decisions based on fears for the future who would do anything?–go to school, drive a car, take a job, etc. There’s no use worrying about what might happen in this-or-that circumstance until it actually happens.

We can plan for some eventualities, like retirement and even death, but to tell God he has to let us violate his truth out of fear of what might happen means we don’t really trust him–that Christ was mistaken in giving his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to his Church. So, who has that authority, become the question. All and sundry for any reasons they like? God doesn’t let us wallow in such uncertainty–he gave us his truths for our good. Be assured that everything he commands of us is for our benefit and ultimate good.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The issue with arguing for “medical” exceptions that allow for contraception, is that there is another way to avoid the medical complication of pregnancy, and that is, don’t have sex. Or, use NFP to allow for SOME sex to happen at a time when chances of pregnancy are low.

It seems most of the arguments for exceptions presupposes that it is impossible for married couples to abstain, or that doing so would surely result in the end of the marriage.

Of course, I realize that in reality it can be very difficult to abstain especially when spouses are not in agreement about either using NFP at all, or whether their particular situation justifies the use of NFP.

The idea that “the ends justifies the means” and so there’s no moral difference between NFP and ABC, is flawed because the Catholic Church does NOT teach consequentialism. Even the “doctrine of double effect” includes the caveat that the good of the primary effect be large enough to allow for the second, unintended effect. So, while using OCPs in cases of severe endometriosis might be allowed under this principle, I doubt using OCPs in cases of ordinary acne would be.

 

[bitterhope]

I do understand what you mean about not grasping the whole contraception in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. It is a very hard thing for people to accept, even for otherwise anti ABC people. NFP can be used for years successfully for some women. I’m thinking it could by many but I’m not convinced to be honest. Then there are people like me that can not possibly at all make NFP work. My body can’t be the only female body that works the way it does. When my husband was convinced we needed to avoid another baby we abstained completely. It will go back to that of the situation ever warrants this again, but probably it never will. It is very hard for a couple to keep their relationship close and completely abstaining should only occur in very extreme circumstances. I pray for all couples that have that cross in their lives because I know how rough it can be.

That being said, we are called by God to order our hearts toward His heart and are called to mend our wills to His will. Trusting that He has our very best interest in mind at all times comes with the knowledge that His ways are not usually our ways. Many times what we want or think is best is not what God sees fit for us. Dying is not a punishment. No, we don’t seek out death and we must attempt to preserve our own lives, but it is through dying that we are born into heaven to be with God. God created each of us to live out His will here on earth and then to join Him in eternal happiness in heaven. If a couple opts to continue a sexual relationship knowing that it could result in a dangerous situation, they must also be willing to trust that God will choose for them what is best for them as a family and a couple. They are free to limit the chances by using NFP, but if they are truly needing or wanting to not risk things, avoiding sex is the only real option. All methods of birth control have been known to fail. Abstinence is fool proof. Anything besides abstinence requires accepting that all life belongs to God.

From experience I know that often hysterectomy is done when many of the reasons pregnancy is not recommended because the mother’s health would benefit from the surgery. An unstable uterus that is removed prevents bleeding issues, that sort of thing. So often that is going to be the way things go and that is perfectly ok.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I’m single but here goes. On various points, I think Phil’s explanations shed light.

If priest isn’t your own calling, it doesn’t matter what the ramifications of it are to those called to it. The lay calling is of the greatest importance and that is yours.

As Della says the Church isn’t genuinely too demanding but it is often presented so. What your husband and you decide are your good boundaries must predominate. In some cases over-intrusive confessors were the spin off of resistance to British colonisation in Ireland, the French Ancien Regime, etc. Please remember openness to life should include accompanying the lonely.

It’s for us to police our own observance. When I needed to go to confession I already had the assurance of receiving God’s grace as soon as I decided to go. I got the priest to ratify it. Priests are too used to the likes of us burdening them for years on end with fruitless doubts. It must depress them!

As for things being God given I see Him smiling and expecting us to use all human as well as divine gifts constructively and with a certain degree of discretion appropriately. The Church structure when it works properly is good for regulating, rather than stifling. If one suspects a modicum of human improvisation here or there, should it really shatter your faith? God doesn’t set out to be controlling, however much some of us might want Him to be.

The Christian life is a journey of degrees. We certainly ought to ask God to lead us deeper in, over a period of time.

Typical parish structures don’t provide forums for ongoing exploration: once one is “done” one is abandoned to one’s own devices apart from what is made of confession. If people will let you befriend them, you could start something at home, it probably doesn’t need the parish priest’s permission especially if not announced in the bulletin. Or there are movements (some of them relatively wholesome).

If the relationship with Jesus is compelling you, all these things will fall into place somehow, some time, whether one thinks that “looks textbook” or not.

In some milieus, Catholics are picking each others’ state of observance apart. All that should simply be ignored. Is it the compelling relationship with Jesus that puts the glint (or the tears) in your eye?

I admit that being single I am at least ignored which has its convenient side!

 

[AiyanaS]

It is impossible to prejudge every situation that may arise beforehand–that’s anticipating problems that may never happen and is, again unproductive and lacking trust in God’s care of us. There are a myriad of possibilities regarding what might happen. We can only deal with individual needs as they arise.

One could have the same reservations about anything thing in life–getting married, for instance. There are many difficulties that “may” arise, but to refrain from marriage for fear of what we might have to deal with years down the line does nothing but freeze us in the present, making us prisoners of our own fears. If we all made our decisions based on fears for the future who would do anything?–go to school, drive a car, take a job, etc. There’s no use worrying about what might happen in this-or-that circumstance until it actually happens.

We can plan for some eventualities, like retirement and even death, but to tell God he has to let us violate his truth out of fear of what might happen means we don’t really trust him–that Christ was mistaken in giving his authority to decide matters of faith and morals to his Church. So, who has that authority, become the question. All and sundry for any reasons they like? God doesn’t let us wallow in such uncertainty–he gave us his truths for our good. Be assured that everything he commands of us is for our benefit and ultimate good.

Then what about people who opt to get a double mastectomy because they carry the BRCA 1 gene, like Angelina Jolie? She had the surgery as a preventative measure to prevent the possible development of breast cancer, as people with the BRCA 1 gene have increased risk of developing this type of cancer. I believe there is also a long line of women in her family who developed breast cancer as well. She chose the surgery so she could make sure she would be alive to raise her children and see them grow up, which might not have happened if she developed breast cancer. Not to mention spare them from having to see there mother go through chemotherapy and experience the fear that she might die.

Would you say that Mrs. Jolie and others who took the drastic step of having currently healthy breast tissue surgically removed out of fear of a disease they may never develop, were wrong too do so? Should they not have taken advantage of medical advances and instead trusted God with there health? As there actions, were unproductive and anticipating a problem that may never come and thus there actions, motivated by the fear of developing cancer, showed a total lack of trust in God. Are these women foolish for prejudging and worrying about a situation that may never happen? But yet women who get sterilized with the sole purpose of preventing a potential pregnancy because it could kill her (ex. Marfans syndrome, a connective tissue disorder which the stress of pregnancy can cause a women’s aorta to burst under the strain) are in the wrong? Both prevent a potential disaster and put the women’s health and life first. I know people use the argument for sterilization with the sole purpose to prevent pregnancy “you don’t fix what isn’t broken”, but with the double mastectomy the healthy breast tissue “isn’t broken either”, buts its removed to prevent cancer, just like sterilization is to prevent a life threatening pregnancy.

I’ve heard the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” and I believe it applies here. He can only do so much, there are times when action by the individual must be taken, and God is waiting for them too, like in that story of the man who kept waiting on God to save him, not realizing God was trying to send him help. After all, what was the guy waiting for? A beam of light to come down from the sky and an angel to appear who would carry him to safety? Lol

 

[pensmama87]

The issue with arguing for “medical” exceptions that allow for contraception, is that there is another way to avoid the medical complication of pregnancy, and that is, don’t have sex. Or, use NFP to allow for SOME sex to happen at a time when chances of pregnancy are low.

It seems most of the arguments for exceptions presupposes that it is impossible for married couples to abstain, or that doing so would surely result in the end of the marriage.

I was thinking I must have missed somebody saying this already. Maybe I did, but thanks for saying it here!

The thing is, contraception and sterilization work by stopping the healthy functioning of the body. A person could use hormone therapy (like that found in the Pill) or in extreme cases surgery (like hysterectomy) to correct a medical disorder, but for almost any other body system we would say it’s crazy to disrupt healthy functioning on purpose.

The choice is not “Mirena or pregnant and die” or “Pill or pregnant or die” or “tubal ligation or pregnant and die.” The fact that we never even consider abstinence as an option tells a lot about how sex is viewed today. Sex is a great good. It has that in common with food or water or sleep. But unlike those, it is *not *a necessity, and there are times and situations to refrain from it. If there are things in the way of that, remedy those things - don’t fix the thing that ain’t broken.

 

[LethalMouse]

Sorry for the confusion.

My understanding is that the church allows hysterectemies for things like cancer (ie a medical need) similar to your stealing analogy however they dont allow hysterectemies for contraception to prevent a serious medical situation arising. I suppose on your analogy it would be equivalent to someone taking the clothes before the accident occured but knowing it was going to occur. The end result is the same ie prevention of a medical problem (cancer or death from a pregnancy related medical issue) however the initial intent is different. I get confused as to me because the end result is for a medical need, I cant see how the two are different

My ex gf was told she could not get pregnant again so she had unprotected sex with a guy… when I started dating her she had a 8month old kid that medically can’t exist.

My cousin had a baby that they said should be aborted. The kid would surely never live and the mother if she carried it would almost surely die.

The mother is raising her healthy baby boy.

 

[Della]

Then what about people who opt to get a double mastectomy because they carry the BRCA 1 gene, like Angelina Jolie? She had the surgery as a preventative measure to prevent the possible development of breast cancer, as people with the BRCA 1 gene have increased risk of developing this type of cancer. I believe there is also a long line of women in her family who developed breast cancer as well. She chose the surgery so she could make sure she would be alive to raise her children and see them grow up, which might not have happened if she developed breast cancer. Not to mention spare them from having to see there mother go through chemotherapy and experience the fear that she might die.

Would you say that Mrs. Jolie and others who took the drastic step of having currently healthy breast tissue surgically removed out of fear of a disease they may never develop, were wrong too do so? Should they not have taken advantage of medical advances and instead trusted God with there health? As there actions, were unproductive and anticipating a problem that may never come and thus there actions, motivated by the fear of developing cancer, showed a total lack of trust in God. Are these women foolish for prejudging and worrying about a situation that may never happen? But yet women who get sterilized with the sole purpose of preventing a potential pregnancy because it could kill her (ex. Marfans syndrome, a connective tissue disorder which the stress of pregnancy can cause a women’s aorta to burst under the strain) are in the wrong? Both prevent a potential disaster and put the women’s health and life first. I know people use the argument for sterilization with the sole purpose to prevent pregnancy “you don’t fix what isn’t broken”, but with the double mastectomy the healthy breast tissue “isn’t broken either”, buts its removed to prevent cancer, just like sterilization is to prevent a life threatening pregnancy.

I’ve heard the phrase “God helps those who help themselves” and I believe it applies here. He can only do so much, there are times when action by the individual must be taken, and God is waiting for them too, like in that story of the man who kept waiting on God to save him, not realizing God was trying to send him help. After all, what was the guy waiting for? A beam of light to come down from the sky and an angel to appear who would carry him to safety? Lol

I would say that having a double mastectomy in anticipation of something that may not happen is mutilation of one’s body. Better to have regular check-ups, as one’s doctor thinks best. Now, I can’t determine if Ms. Jolie was justified in what she did. I’m not her doctor nor her confessor. It may have been necessary in her case–I don’t know and it’s none of my business. As I wrote, but everyone seems to skip over, such decisions are between a woman, her husband, her doctor, and her confessor. If such surgery is necessary by all means have it. Both my sister and one of her daughters had hysterectomies rather young–my sister in her late 40’s and my niece in her 30’s which were necessary for their continued good health. This is not a black and white issue, as some people, who apparently have listened to secular ideas and their interpretations of Church teachings would have us believe.

As for your final analogy, no, it’s not true that “God can only do so much.” God can do anything he wishes. Rather, God expects us to use prudential judgment, employing a well-formed conscience in making all moral decisions. This is where the advise and direction of one’s confessor is invaluable.

 

[Vico]

So are you saying the church is OK for hysterectemy for contraceptive purposes if the preventing a pregnancy is to save a life from health problems caused by a subsequent pregnancy?

Hysterectomy is morally justified if the removal of the uterus is necessary for grave medical reasons, but not justified when the purpose is direct sterilization. That the ultimate purpose may be considered therapeutic, e.g., precluding the strain of pregnancy with cardiac or renal disease, does not make it indirect sterilization because it is evident that the procedure must first be contraceptive before it can be therapeutic.

 

[AiyanaS]

Now, I can’t determine if Ms. Jolie was justified in what she did. I’m not her doctor nor her confessor. It may have been necessary in her case–I don’t know and it’s none of my business.

She had it for the reason I described. She had genetic testing, because 8 family members, including her mother, died of breast cancer. She tested positive for the BRCA1 gene and in fear for her life and children, had the double mastectomy as a precaution. Her decision actually motivated other women to get genetic testing and have mastectomies as well, including a comedian I read about, don’t remember her name though.

As for your final analogy, no, it’s not true that “God can only do so much.” God can do anything he wishes. Rather, God expects us to use prudential judgment, employing a well-formed conscience in making all moral decisions. This is where the advise and direction of one’s confessor is invaluable.

I think I should reframe what I said, I meant “God will only do so much”, as yes, God can do whatever He wants. However, there are times when He is waiting for us to take action, like the man in the story and God will bless/take his own action from there, of whatever that decision is.

 

[Della]

She had it for the reason I described. She had genetic testing, because 8 family members, including her mother, died of breast cancer. She tested positive for the BRCA1 gene and in fear for her life and children, had the double mastectomy as a precaution. Her decision actually motivated other women to get genetic testing and have mastectomies as well, including a comedian I read about, don’t remember her name though.

As I wrote, I am not the one to decide if what she did was right or wrong. I believe I already answered this question fully enough.

I think I should reframe what I said, I meant “God will only do so much”, as yes, God can do whatever He wants. However, there are times when He is waiting for us to take action, like the man in the story and God will bless/take his own action from there, of whatever that decision is.

Taking action when needed is not the same thing as acting in anticipation what may never happen. The first is prudential judgment the other is merely giving into fear.

 

[Sarcelle]

Haven’t read all the posts in this thread, but just want to say that God is certainly aware of man’s inhumanity to man…

I certainly cannot say that I understand it, but I certainly am aware that it exists. Well, Who are we supposed to rely on first, last, and always? Who is ALWAYS there for us?

Man’s inhumanity to man is imo never understandable. However, from what I can tell, most people have experienced it to one degree or another. As Catholics, not only should we know to turn to God for everything, including such times - but also to pray for the souls of everyone, including people who are very offensive (also praying that we are not ourselves offensive)…

Keeping in mind that this is what Jesus did from the Cross.

God is certainly aware of the cruelties we humans inflict on each other. Not only is God aware but God feels the suffering and pain that people inflict on each other as if He was the recipient. The fact that we are still here is testament to His Mercy and Patience.

 

[AiyanaS]

Taking action when needed is not the same thing as acting in anticipation what may never happen. The first is prudential judgment the other is merely giving into fear.

But isn’t it better too be safe (take action now), than be sorry later?

 

[Della]

But isn’t it better too be safe (take action now), than be sorry later?

As I’ve written in another post, just when do we stop being “too safe”? No one can anticipate all circumstances that may arise. If we live our lives like that we’ll never do anything for fear something bad might come of it. There’s such a thing as being too fearful–of overthinking things to the point we freeze ourselves in the present–trying to hold on to what we have instead of looking forward to what God has planned for us. I won’t and can’t live my life like that–constantly fearful that I could have/should have done this or that to prevent something from happening merely because it may happen.

For example, both my parents died too young due to an hereditary health condition. Should I live in fear I too may succumb? No, I’m taking proper medications and living my life as best I can. I plan on living as long as God intends me to trusting that he knows my beginning and my end. Sensible precautions are fine, of course, but taking draconian measures out of fear and fear alone is unnecessary. Doing so tells God that he isn’t able to care for us–that we need to be in complete control of everything, when in fact, all we are and all we have belongs to him.

 

[AiyanaS]

As I’ve written in another post, just when do we stop being “too safe”? No one can anticipate all circumstances that may arise. If we live our lives like that we’ll never do anything for fear something bad might come of it. There’s such a thing as being too fearful–of overthinking things to the point we freeze ourselves in the present–trying to hold on to what we have instead of looking forward to what God has planned for us. I won’t and can’t live my life like that–constantly fearful that I could have/should have done this or that to prevent something from happening merely because it may happen.

For example, both my parents died too young due to an hereditary health condition. Should I live in fear I too may succumb? No, I’m taking proper medications and living my life as best I can. I plan on living as long as God intends me to trusting that he knows my beginning and my end. Sensible precautions are fine, of course, but taking draconian measures out of fear and fear alone is unnecessary. Doing so tells God that he isn’t able to care for us–that we need to be in complete control of everything, when in fact, all we are and all we have belongs to him.

But couples who are forced to use permanent abstinence when a full term pregnancy could kill the mother are taking a drastic measure out of fear, especially for a couple in there 30s or even 20’s and too say it’s not, at least in my opinion, undermines the importance of intimacy in marriage. This can happen too, some women’s bodies are not made to carry children, pregnancy causes there body to react horribly, which is devastating news especially for a young couple who really wanted kids. Permanent abstinence means they are forced to give up sex until menopause, out of fear, and must control all urges and desires which can lead to a couple being too afraid to show any physical affection (light touches, cuddling, kissing) towards there spouse in fear that it will lead to sex, causing frustration to build up over time and strain on a marriage because they are run by the fear of a pregnancy and the wife’s resulting death keeps them from doing anything.

Are these couples telling God with there decision to eliminate marital relations indefinitely, that He isn’t able to care for them and that they do not trust Him enough to do what’s best for them? By being run by fear are they not trusting that should they have relations, even on a safe day that He will not turn around and make the wife pregnant again, with a pregnancy that would eventually kill or have serious consequences too her health long term? Wouldn’t God be hurt by the resentment and distance between spouses such a situation could cause in a marriage?

I’m sorry, I am as conflicted as the OP on this topic as well.

 

[Della]

But couples who are forced to use permanent abstinence when a full term pregnancy could kill the mother are taking a drastic measure out of fear, especially for a couple in there 30s or even 20’s and too say it’s not, at least in my opinion, undermines the importance of intimacy in marriage. This can happen too, some women’s bodies are not made to carry children, pregnancy causes there body to react horribly, which is devastating news especially for a young couple who really wanted kids. Permanent abstinence means they are forced to give up sex until menopause, out of fear, and must control all urges and desires which can lead to a couple being too afraid to show any physical affection (light touches, cuddling, kissing) towards there spouse in fear that it will lead to sex, causing frustration to build up over time and strain on a marriage because they are run by the fear of a pregnancy and the wife’s resulting death keeps them from doing anything.

Are these couples telling God with there decision to eliminate marital relations indefinitely, that He isn’t able to care for them and that they do not trust Him enough to do what’s best for them? By being run by fear are they not trusting that should they have relations, even on a safe day that He will not turn around and make the wife pregnant again, with a pregnancy that would eventually kill or have serious consequences too her health long term? Wouldn’t God be hurt by the resentment and distance between spouses such a situation could cause in a marriage?

I’m sorry, I am as conflicted as the OP on this topic as well.

If they think that total abstinence is their only option, they need to seek better resources for their problem not blame God for expecting them to abide by his laws. There are resources out there. It never hurts to consult several doctors and to look into all possibilities–that’s our part–that and praying for healing and for the strength to do God’s will. It’s not impossible, just not easy–but Jesus never promised that it would be easy to follow him. Indeed, he told us we need to “take up our cross daily” to follow him. Still, I think some people are needlessly carrying crosses they don’t need to when they could be doing something positive about their needs.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Again to stress I’m single, but what I think Aiyana is asking and what Della isn’t bringing across is that Mr & Mrs OP may have limited access to spiritual direction once she has been “done” through RCIA, and they have to weigh up the issues described by Aiyana all by themselves.

Based on my observation of my married friends, it’s their discretion that counts. They themselves maybe don’t know what the state of their own faith is. As Aiyana says, “Are these couples telling God … that He isn’t able to care for them and that they do not trust Him enough to do what’s best for them?”

Hopefully it won’t be as bad as I say but I know many of my married friends have spent decades without anyone to talk things like this over. Sometimes, someone muscles in pretending they are suitable, but they give exaggerated advice of some sort.

There are indeed two halves to this, the bodily half and the spiritual half. In real life, we are left to guesswork. It’s no good believing God is out to clobber us.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thanks all for your replies so far! I am taking all of what you say into consideration. Some points that have been made or stories shared have helped

In terms of the “out of fear” comments, I agree to an extent and understand that doctors don’t always get it right; suggesting an abortion when the baby goes on to live a normal life etc. This is why I will never judge another woman’s decision to still have children in their individual situations. However there is a difference between fear of the unknown or something with a very small chance of happening and a woman who will more than likely/definitely develop serious health consequences if she were to become pregnant again (maybe the knowledge comes from previous pregnancies).

I suppose the worry I have with NFP is its not foolproof. I’m not Catholic so haven’t followed it rigidly anyway, but hormonal birth control does not suit me. I have done a sort of NFP (cervical mucus to know when I ovulate) for about 2 years but in a very relaxed way, sometimes not checking and then realising we’ve had intercourse in a fertile period. I’ve had two unplanned pregnancies and have welcomed each one as I would subsequent children. I am very much open in that regard and would never regret a child but it does put a lot of fear into me as to how easily I get pregnant ( I know I should be grateful). Problem is another battle I have is private vs state school, if we just have 2 children, we could afford private, anymore and it would have to be state. Not the end of the world obviously and part of me loves the idea of a large family but this battle I have does make “losing control” over birth control more scary. I do have medical reasons for a hysterectomy anyhow but I won’t go down that route until my internal battle is settled.

Sorry information about me, but it’s why the NFP question is an important one to me.

 

[Della]

Again to stress I’m single, but what I think Aiyana is asking and what Della isn’t bringing across is that Mr & Mrs OP may have limited access to spiritual direction once she has been “done” through RCIA, and they have to weigh up the issues described by Aiyana all by themselves.

Based on my observation of my married friends, it’s their discretion that counts. They themselves maybe don’t know what the state of their own faith is. As Aiyana says, “Are these couples telling God … that He isn’t able to care for them and that they do not trust Him enough to do what’s best for them?”

Hopefully it won’t be as bad as I say but I know many of my married friends have spent decades without anyone to talk things like this over. Sometimes, someone muscles in pretending they are suitable, but they give exaggerated advice of some sort.

There are indeed two halves to this, the bodily half and the spiritual half. In real life, we are left to guesswork. It’s no good believing God is out to clobber us.

Couples can always go to their priest or their diocese for resources. People do have options, but in many cases they simply don’t take advantage of them or they think they’ll be judged or they feel it’s too personal. None of these are the case. They need to ask for help if they need it. We should never be to proud to ask for help when we need it–there are resources–all people have to do is ask.

Truth_Faith13, not all public schools are bad. My brother sent his to one that was just as supportive of their Catholic faith as the parish school. The important thing is to make one’s home a “domestic church” but praying together and educating children in the faith.–which is why we need to know it. No matter where children go to school, they are going to have to deal with the secular culture because it’s all around us, not just at public schools. Again, fear cannot dictate what we do in life or we will be paralyzed into doing nothing. We can only do our best and leave the rest to God.