O
olive456
Guest
God knows you weren’t a selfish mother.
- Status
X
Xantippe
Guest
I really doubt you have the sort of X-ray vision you think you do with regard to academics and being able to identify who is and isn’t wholly responsible for their tuition.
Our support wouldn’t be unconditional. It wouldn’t be more than four years, and it would be for kids who were demonstrating reasonable academic progress.
Also, it’s not “paying your own” way when it’s large quantities of borrowed money. As we’ve seen from innumerable articles on the subject, students don’t understand what $20k in debt or $30k or $50k or $80k or $100k means until they start paying it off on an entry level salary. Those debt levels are part of why the average at first marriage in the US is now 27 for women and 29 for men. It also, very naturally, delays childbearing. When two graduates with the average debt of $28k marry, that’s $56k in debt to pay off for the two of them, even with no graduate debt at all.
bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-13/college-tuition-in-the-u-s-again-rises-faster-than-inflation.html
I think you may be thinking in terms of 80s or 90s college expenses. I personally got through a very fancy private college with $6k total in loans in the mid-90s (a combination of merit scholarships, need scholarships, mom and dad, and working like a fiend in the summer). Things are different now.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
That is just silly. There are days I don’t even have the patience to have one kid. How do you know?
P
pensmama87
Guest
Yup, yup, yup.
Been there, done that (I’m 27.)
We’re very fortunate that my husband’s parents had the foresight to save enough for his education that he did not go into any debt at all (and he worked hard for scholarships, too). I had scholarships, but still accrued a LOT of debt for my education, on a graduate degree that was supposed to be practical but ended up useless.
We are open to a large family, but I’m not going to put my kids through the same thing. Education debt is a big deal, and teenagers and young adults, even mature ones, don’t understand that. My parents didn’t think it was a big deal (my dad said he couldn’t help pay for my school because he “had four kids” but what he really meant was “I spend my money poorly and bought these two sports cars [even though I can’t afford those either].”) Some guidance from them really would have been appreciated and I could have spared myself and my marriage a LOT of headache and heartache.
X
Xantippe
Guest
olive456;12667437 said:
X
Xantippe
Guest
I think that people do tend to think that things are exactly the way they were when they were 20-somethings, and they don’t get how particularly dangerous student loans are today (because they are non-bankruptable).
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes it is quite understandable where her misunderstanding came in eleven years ago when that was written. Due to the CCC’s use of a the term “just reason”.
(I would suggest that the use was not an additional “level” but rather simply another term use to indicate that same thing -there are no “two levels”. A reason that is a just reason is a serious reason -if it is not serious it is not “just”. One does not find two categories indicated but rather the same teaching using variant terms as one would use in any writing)
As I noted the recent documents all use to my knowledge the term - “serious reasons”.
And indeed the document that was issued by Pope Benedict XVI as a Compendium of the CCC states quite clearly that it is a “serious reason” that is needed.
The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
497. When is it moral to regulate births?
2368-2369
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
498. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372
Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
It does not repeat the term “just reason” but uses the term “serious reason”- to which is also used in the other documents.
And as Pope Benedict XVI noted in the his Motu proprio issuing the Compendium:
“In its structure, contents and language, the *Compendium *faithfully reflects the Catechism of the Catholic Church and will thus assist in making the Catechism more widely known and more deeply understood.”
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU%20PROPRIO****
More examples of usage of the term in Church Documents: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12665925&postcount=44
(But again that does not mean “life or death” there are all sorts of reasons that are serious in life that can come up…which may be another reason to use the term “just reason” as well - for some may think that “serious” means one might drop dead or starve or loose ones home or something…)
X
Xantippe
Guest
Married people are called to both the procreation AND the education of children (in fact, that’s generally seen as a single calling to both duties). It is entirely possible for there to be a trade-off between having more children and providing a better education for the children that one has.
Obviously, different families will have different circumstances and will view the trade-off differently, but nonetheless, a compromise of some sort generally has to be made (unless nature takes it out of our hands entirely).
Obviously, different families will have different circumstances and will view the trade-off differently, but nonetheless, a compromise of some sort generally has to be made (unless nature takes it out of our hands entirely).
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes it is quite understandable where her misunderstanding came in eleven years ago when that was written. Due to the CCC’s use of the term “just reason”.
(I would suggest that the use was not an additional “level” but rather simply another term use to indicate that same thing -there are no “two levels”. A reason that is a just reason is a serious reason -if it is not serious it is not “just”. One does not find two categories indicated but rather the same teaching using variant terms as one would use in any writing)
As I noted the recent documents all use to my knowledge the term - “serious reasons”.
And indeed the document that was issued by Pope Benedict XVI as a Compendium of the CCC states quite clearly that it is a “serious reason” that is needed.
The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
497. When is it moral to regulate births?
2368-2369
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
498. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372
Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
It does not repeat the term “just reason” but uses the term “serious reason”- to which is also used in the other documents.
And as Pope Benedict XVI noted in the his Motu proprio issuing the Compendium:
“In its structure, contents and language, the *Compendium *faithfully reflects the Catechism of the Catholic Church and will thus assist in making the Catechism more widely known and more deeply understood.”
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html#MOTU%20PROPRIO****
More examples of usage of the term in Church Documents: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12665925&postcount=44
(But again that does not mean only “life or death”- there are all sorts of reasons that are serious in life that can come up…which may be another reason to use the term “just reason” as well - for some may think that “serious” means one might drop dead or starve or loose ones home or something…)
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Do you see that as a condemnation on third world marrieds? Or of historical marrieds? Or do you want to clarify your definition of education…?
C
Corki
Guest
I didn’t say anything about “much easier”. I said there aren’t** the same **pressures. A parent who might think she can’t handle another kid in diapers might have a different perspective once the older children are out of that stage.
The Church doesn’t ask you to do the impossible. She asks you not to shut the door preemptively and to continually assess the serious reasons you delayed another child still exist. Certainly for some people, the answer will be “yes” but for others, there will come a time when the serious reasons either aren’t there any more or aren’t as serious.
The issue I have with a couple setting an arbitrary number is that, for many couples, this means that they are no longer discerning. And if they aren’t discerning, are they still open to life? I can’t answer that but it’s something that a couple should be taking seriously.
M
manualman
Guest
While a serious reason is required, the real beauty of NFP is that it is in harmony with your human nature instead of opposed to it like contraception is. If you are genuinely discerning and asking God in prayer to open your eyes to what is right, NFP itself has a way of separating the frivolous from the serious reasons.
God doesn’t expect every Tom, Dick and Harry to get a theology master’s degree to know right from wrong. If you avoid things that fundamentally alter the human experience from God’s design, it’s not that hard to figure it out in the field. If you think your reason is serious and STILL think it’s serious after using NFP to avoid for a while, your reason is probably serious. If it’s less than serious, the practice of NFP after a while will probably point out that another baby really wouldn’t be so bad.
God doesn’t expect every Tom, Dick and Harry to get a theology master’s degree to know right from wrong. If you avoid things that fundamentally alter the human experience from God’s design, it’s not that hard to figure it out in the field. If you think your reason is serious and STILL think it’s serious after using NFP to avoid for a while, your reason is probably serious. If it’s less than serious, the practice of NFP after a while will probably point out that another baby really wouldn’t be so bad.
C
Corki
Guest
X
Xantippe
Guest
On the subject of debt, a good friend who is a bit younger than me is Protestant, an SAHM and has two kids–one a disabled early elementary child with substantial medical and therapy expenses and one toddler. She also has $600 a month in student loan payments, if I’m remembering correctly, and will until her oldest is of college (!) age. She says that when she was in school, she had no idea how hard the loans were going to make her life once she was an SAHM and home with her kids.
I’m so happy to be of a generation that got through college without one of the monster mid-five digit loans that are now so typical, and I’d like to do the same for my kids.
I’m so happy to be of a generation that got through college without one of the monster mid-five digit loans that are now so typical, and I’d like to do the same for my kids.
M
manualman
Guest
As a tangent aside, this really is another example of how government policy for the last 20 years has amounted to a war on the middle class. College is now for those so wealthy that they can pay cash for it or so poor that they can get enough grants to pay for it. Those of us in the middle are screwed. Not coincidentally, Obamacare is making health care the exact same way. In the name of “helping the poor” they are trying to re-establish feudalism where a tiny few at the top have it all and the rest have nothing but scraps.
I’m 4 years out from dealing with kid college costs, but it’s already affecting us. We’re moving to a better high school district that has an excellent AP class curricula and we may have each kid do a year of local community college first before going to the “name” university for the degree. 3 kids times $25k/year is $75,000 total savings by making college from a 4 year to a 3 year plan!
F
fpt
Guest
The responsible procreation (the responsible fatherhood and the responsible motherhood), that implies the responsible education and the responsible instruction, is one of rules of marriage. The conscientization of the potentiality of the fecundation, in the context of the marital act, is a very good thing for the catholic couple. We are not animals, we are human beings, the pro-creators, not a type of conjugal reproducers.
The quiverfullism of the conjugal act is not catholic;
The absolute pro-creationism of the conjugal act is not catholic;
The absolute natalism of the conjugal act is not catholic;
The absolute race to the large family via the conjugal act is not catholic;
The catholic wife is not a machine to babies;
The catholic wife is not an uterus to babies;
The husband is not, only, a father;
The wife is not, only, a mother;
The vocation of catholic husband is not, only, to be father;
The vocation of catholic wife is not, only, to be a mother;
The catholic wife has several vocations;
The catholic husband has several vocations;
The fact of having a large family is not one of ends of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not one of moral obligations of marriage;
The irresponsible practices of union of bodies is morally wrong;
The quiverfullism of the conjugal act is not catholic;
The absolute pro-creationism of the conjugal act is not catholic;
The absolute natalism of the conjugal act is not catholic;
The absolute race to the large family via the conjugal act is not catholic;
The catholic wife is not a machine to babies;
The catholic wife is not an uterus to babies;
The husband is not, only, a father;
The wife is not, only, a mother;
The vocation of catholic husband is not, only, to be father;
The vocation of catholic wife is not, only, to be a mother;
The catholic wife has several vocations;
The catholic husband has several vocations;
The fact of having a large family is not one of ends of marriage;
The fact of having a large family is not one of moral obligations of marriage;
The irresponsible practices of union of bodies is morally wrong;
X
Xantippe
Guest
I lost a long reply to this earlier this morning (the 2-year-old smacked a water bottle down on my keyboard), but here are some of my ideas.
- Minimally speaking, “education” is that which parents provide to their children that gets the children up to speed to have and support children of their own. In our current society, a lot of us parents can unfortunately look forward to financially subsidizing children well into their 20s, particularly if we aren’t able to help a lot with college and the kids need to live at home while paying off debt. It’s kind of a pay-now-pay-later deal. (Particularly unlucky parents will have to pay both for college and to subsidize 20-somethings at home, of course.)
- Historically speaking, people have been (if anything) way more pragmatic and (frankly) materialistic about marriage than we are today. (Consider how the surrounding society in Fiddler on the Roof approached matchmaking.) Pre-20th century, people did not generally marry until they had the means to support a family. There are many reasons for the differences between us and them. One that comes to mind is that we don’t have to set up our adult children for independence by handing them a chunk of the family farm or bringing them into the family business–there are many, many more good vocational options today for young adults than there were 200 years ago in Europe. Family resources are not a small pie that we divvy up amongst our kids and then they have to divvy up their slice among their kids, ad infinitum, so we are in some ways freer to have larger families than our ancestors were. Also, there is a minimal social safety net, so we know that no matter what, we are not going to starve. In previous times, our ancestors did not have that kind of mental security.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
This is a fascinating topic to me and one that manifests itself almost solely on the idea of NFP (
I honestly don’t understand why this is not a bigger topic in itself) And you know of my posting history that education is a primary concern and priority for my family. As a homeschooling dad, it has to be. And academically my children are working at a little above grade level. But spiritually my children are light years past their counterparts, not only secular but even the Catholic School children. And to me, that is my most important goal. To get my children to heaven. That is our only goal. Early on, we thought that one of our children may be with us for her whole life. That she could never be independent. She has a rare chromosomal deletion and we have no idea how severely it manifests itself or not. Luckily it appears that she will be a normal person in the world. But there was a time, and honestly every parent should think about this, that we may have had a dependent forever. We still could factoring in more children. So, parentally our moral obligations are not necessarily tied to education and children procreating. And believe me, I think every parent should help a child be debt free. But that is not possible. Not every good Catholic Holy parent will be able to supply that to their children. And it is not a failure on their part or the childs part, it just is. I think in your zeal for education (a zeal that I share) and your zeal for financial independance (a zeal I also share) that we can sometimes place an undue emphasis on these issues as graced Americans. To say that a person, that a parent MUST supply a child with any sort of education beyond spiritual is placing an undue emphasis on what we call education. You know, Universities, frat parties, football games and such. With a crushing debt for the majority of people. And even if some parents CAN pay for school for little johnny and Emily (notice I only named two children) Not everyone will be able to do that. Schools have to make money somehow, so affordable debt free education is never a reality to the vast majority of the world. And in this world of vacations, cars, boats, organic baby food, and cloth diaper services, we also add up tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for a college education that to be honest, not everybody needs. I spent over 100,000 dollars on my two degrees. I have no debt, I used my father’s inheritance to pay for it. But I will never get the money’s worth out of it. I will never make up for that initial cost. And honestly, if people have large families, usually one person stays home. So I will not ever work again in my field. My wife, as you know, just graduated with an MBA. This comes 10 years after her last degree. Did we have the 60 gs to pony up for the degree? Nope. So we become slaves (like you said) Either a slave to a loan, or a slave to a company. (Many companies require a term contract if they help with your school)Underneath all of this I think is a thing no one really talks about anymore. But reared its head recently at the synod on the family. Lost in all the sensationalistic media hype was the idea that the third world Church (Africans) and the west (Germans) are not in unison. This was glossed over and moved on from but it is a reality that is worth exploring. It is not about conservative or liberal it is about the purpose of family. And it seems that modern (educated) society has been ignorant of some pretty basic things lately. In the west, we have lost the simple life and faith that many in poverty (true poverty not I can renew my foodstamps on my celphone poverty) could teach us more about. ESPECIALLY with the family. And since morality is uniform, since God’s law and Will is for all, perhaps we should listen more to those who perhaps get married and have a child in a persecuted land, or a starving situation, these people cannot write a dissertation on Holiness, or how to discern how many children to have, they have no education to do so, but they can teach us how to love and what God’s purpose is of children and family.
Bottom line, while I agree with you that every parent should provide the education their children need, I think that it is obviously limited to what they can do, and if I can’t pay for all 5 (so far) of my children to go to some ****** university, I hope that they value their siblings souls and company more than their own debt free ness.
While financial reasons can be a thing to base discerning another child on, only having a certain number of children so you can pay for their college is well, just plain wrong!
And of course historically you have a different view. The majority of the world, the majority of God’s saints, and the majority of marriages that have brought forth life, have done so in slavery, poverty and illiteracy. From the Jews in Egypt, to current Catholic couples in Iraq that are discerning if they should have another child to replace the one ISIS has just chopped in half. To a persecuted family in the Holocaust.
No, University or “education” is not a sole factor to value a human life at.
- Status