Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Who said ANYTHING about permanent intention to not have children.?
I’m out.
You completely took my words and changed their intent to suit your argument.

Not at all!!! Not need to be defensive! How does one intend to dicipher the FUTURE children one has.

A couple can have 2 kids “planning” this as their life’s calling. One fo their serious reason for limiting thier family can be to pay for private school or college etc. And then one can win the lottery or lose their job, Either way renders their family “planning” obsolete.

And one cannot have a permanent intention to use sex as unittive but not procreative.

Separating the two is silly, yet we often do. And the Church’s theology of NFP as we know it now is being figurued out in the Church’s time. It is NOT the norm. It is the exception. It is the concession that a merciful God give’s his children. But it is not the intention.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

His English seems fine for understanding him. Perhaps you are more frustrated with his excessively long posts that go off at tangents, rather than simply addressing the point at hand?

FPT - please practice shorter posts directed at the issues in the post to which you are responding.

I think it is his lists and trains of thought I struggle with and that could be a result of a bad or inadequate tool for translating what he wishes to say. At times I have found myself agreeing with what I think he is getting at and at others I have felt like Alice in Wonderland.

 

[Rau]

Not at all!!! Not need to be defensive! How does one intend to dicipher the FUTURE children one has.

A couple can have 2 kids “planning” this as their life’s calling. One fo their serious reason for limiting thier family can be to pay for private school or college etc. And then one can win the lottery or lose their job, Either way renders their family “planning” obsolete.

And one cannot have a permanent intention to use sex as unittive but not procreative.

Separating the two is silly, yet we often do. And the Church’s theology of NFP as we know it now is being figurued out in the Church’s time. It is NOT the norm. It is the exception. It is the concession that a merciful God give’s his children. But it is not the intention.

It is thanks to God’s mercy that we may have a say in our family size?

 

[fpt]

Does a married couple have a duty to produce children (if possible)? Yes or no would be a sufficient answer.

My answer is:
A married couple has the moral duty to be open to the life, in respecting the moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. It means to practice the conjugal act in the unity and in the potential procreativity.

I cannot say that a married couple have a duty to produce children (if possible), because the words " duty to produce children " is too much and is not exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

*** " the moral duty to be open to the life" via a responsible procreation.***

Sorry, but yes or no is not be a sufficient answer, in my humble opinion.

 

[Rau]

My answer is:
A married couple has the moral duty to be open to the life, in respecting the moral order of the marriage and of the marital act. It means to practice the conjugal act in the unity and in the potential procreativity.

I cannot say that a married couple have a duty to produce children (if possible), because the words " duty to produce children " is too much and is not exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

*** " the moral duty to be open to the life" via a responsible procreation.***

Sorry, but yes or no is not be a sufficient answer, in my humble opinion.

I believe you are saying “no, there is no such duty. The only duty is to be open to life”.

 

[JustaSinner]

I’m not sure that there is any such “fleshly inclination” in Psalm 127.

The translation you’re quoting from omits the word, “behold.” However, in the Hebrew Psalm 127:3 is prefaced by the word “Behold/Look/See” (2009 Strong’s Concordance). I realize this is an arguable point, but the propositions that God sets forth in Scripture for our acceptance (by faith–i.e. to behold/see by faith), are almost always contrary in some degree to the inclinations of our sinful flesh. Clearly, there are many in our day who refuse to “Behold” that “children are a heritage of the LORD, and the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Psalm 127:3.

What I see in that series of verses is full-throated enthusiasm for the material blessings that the psalmist expected a large family of children to bring–they are a weapon and a means of prevailing over legal opponents.

In OT times, having a lot of children was largely a material blessing.

No doubt, children were (and are) a “material blessing” (except, paradoxically, to the extent they are considered a hindrance to other “material blessings” that are more exalted by the world/individual preference). However, both then and now, children are much more than mere “material blessings.”

As Psalm 127:4 and 5 note: “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate.”

Covenant children are “arrows” for the godly man, who, “by the word of the/their testimony” (Revelations 12:11) overcome the Enemy in the Gate (they are dynamic Member’s of Christ’s Body, before whom the “gates of hell shall not prevail”).

This will likely be my last post in this thread for the time being, so God Bless and have a great day.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It is thanks to God’s mercy that we may have a say in our family size?

It is thanks to God’s mercy that a married couple who cannot have a child due to a medical condition financial condition or “serious/grave” reason are given the power to unify in the sexual act without procreating. That is the mercy of NFP and the mercy of God who has given this “dispensation” so to speak for those who are suffering and cannot procreate at a certain time. NFP is an act of mercy by the Church and designed by God. That act of mercy should be held as precious and not some “right” that we seek to employ to fulfill our own whims and lusts.

 

[fpt]

Provocative questions:

What is a large family? How many children for a large family?
What is a small family? How many children for a small family?
Is there a number that permit to define a small or large family?
How many months between each conception? How many months between each childbirth?

The simple fact of wanting to give an answer, by a number, is already a issue. If a catholic lay responds to me, in giving a number, he is already, in a intellectual approach, that is wrong, in my humble opinion.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Provocative questions:

What is a large family? How many children for a large family?
What is a small family? How many children for a small family?
Is there a number that permit to define a small or large family?
How many months between each conception? How many months between each childbirth?

The simple fact of wanting to give an answer, by a number, is already a issue. If a catholic lay responds to me, in giving a number, he is already, in a intellectual approach, that is wrong, in my humble opinion.

There is no defintion of large or small family. There are families who seek God’s will and those that don’t. And that has nothing to do with a set number of children. Either way. It is selfish to say “I only want 1 child” and it is selfish to say I want 22 children.

 

[fpt]

I believe you are saying “no, there is no such duty. The only duty is to be open to life”.

According to the Canon Law and canonical jurisprudence, the nullity of marriage can be declared, if before the wedding, one spouse agrees with the fact of having conjugal sex only during the infertile times of wife. Here, the nullity can be noted.

 

[fpt]

There is no defintion of large or small family. There are families who seek God’s will and those that don’t. And that has nothing to do with a set number of children. Either way. It is selfish to say “I only want 1 child” and it is selfish to say I want 22 children.

You are totally on the same line than me. I agree with you 100%

 

[sailor28]

olive456,

I tried to send you a PM but your inbox is full. You need to delete messages before you can receive anymore.

 

[Rau]

It is thanks to God’s mercy that a married couple who cannot have a child due to a medical condition financial condition or “serious/grave” reason are given the power to unify in the sexual act without procreating. That is the mercy of NFP and the mercy of God who has given this “dispensation” so to speak for those who are suffering and cannot procreate at a certain time. NFP is an act of mercy by the Church and designed by God. That act of mercy should be held as precious and not some “right” that we seek to employ to fulfill our own whims and lusts.

Were it the case that there was no infertile time, yet our physical urges were as they are, that would be the antithesis of mercy.

God’s design seems “sensible” to me.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Were it the case that there was no infertile time, yet our physical urges were as they are, that would be the antithesis of mercy.

God’s design seems “sensible” to me.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

I often am shocked by Catholics who look at my four, soon to be five kids and think that there is something extraordinary or special about some superpower we have that they do not… There is no more to it than answering God’s call. It has been scary at times, and hard to let go of our own wishes, but it has been more rewarding than a private education…

I would rather have three children that I could give a good education, than six that I couldn’t give a good education to.

I was poor as a child and went to bad schools and I suffered for it. I want my kids to have what I didn’t have as a child (excellent academics, consistently caring and knowledgeable teachers, companionship with other Christian families, friendship, intellectually and physically stimulating athletics, appropriate medical care, appropriate therapy as needed) and I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

 

[JustaSinner]

As Psalm 127:4 and 5 note: “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate.”

Covenant children are “arrows” for the godly man, who, “by the word of the/their testimony” (Revelations 12:11) overcome the Enemy in the Gate (they are dynamic Member’s of Christ’s Body, before whom the “gates of hell shall not prevail”).

As a p.s. to my prior reply–I would note that the sum of what I’m saying here (regardless of whether one agrees with the specific spiritual meaning/interpretations I’m giving)–is that faithful Covenant children of believers both in the Old and New Testament are spiritual “arrows” for the Kingdom of God.

Ultimately, our central goal/purpose as believers in having children should be in raising up a godly seed to the Lord. As I’m sure everyone would agree, having happy, healthy, well educated, well balanced, financially prosperous children who are good citizens is (from the eternal perspective) a complete waste of time if our children are not first and foremost sold out utterly to Christ and His Gospel. In other words, godly children are, above all, spiritual arrows in the hands of the warrior/mighty man, Christ. Therefore, it would appear that a husband and wife withholds these precious arrows from Christ’s hand by unnecessarily refusing God’s gift of children (of course, they likewise withhold these spiritual arrows from Christ’s hands by failing to train up their children in the fear and the admonition of the Lord).

Thanks for the interesting discussion. God bless and have a good week.

 

[Xantippe]

It is thanks to God’s mercy that we may have a say in our family size?

Yes, that would be weird if babies just appeared willy nilly without our having done anything to make them appear.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I would rather have three children that I could give a good education, than six that I couldn’t give a good education to…

That is a little harder to say if you had six kids…

Honestly, it is something you would never know. And in America (God bless us) education is “free”

I suppose you could have so many kids that you could have enough financial aide to care for them…

The system is soooooooo messed up! Which is why I don’t bother factoring in the system into my rate of procreation. We cannot continue down the road we are on. You may feel comforted by providing a debt free education for your kids in the name of freedom from slavery, but the debt we all have in this country is something our children will be saddled with no matter what. Unless you plan on exporting those kids, they will be paying for school as long as they have a W2…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Yes, that would be weird if babies just appeared willy nilly without our having done anything to make them appear.

Hmmmm That describes the attitude of some homosexual couples.

 

[Xantippe]

The translation you’re quoting from omits the word, “behold.” However, in the Hebrew Psalm 127:3 is prefaced by the word “Behold/Look/See” (2009 Strong’s Concordance). I realize this is an arguable point, but the propositions that God sets forth in Scripture for our acceptance (by faith–i.e. to behold/see by faith), are almost always contrary in some degree to the inclinations of our sinful flesh. Clearly, there are many in our day who refuse to “Behold” that “children are a heritage of the LORD, and the fruit of the womb is His reward.” Psalm 127:3.

No doubt, children were (and are) a “material blessing” (except, paradoxically, to the extent they are considered a hindrance to other “material blessings” that are more exalted by the world/individual preference). However, both then and now, children are much more than mere “material blessings.”

As Psalm 127:4 and 5 note: “Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate.”

Covenant children are “arrows” for the godly man, who, “by the word of the/their testimony” (Revelations 12:11) overcome the Enemy in the Gate (they are dynamic Member’s of Christ’s Body, before whom the “gates of hell shall not prevail”).

This will likely be my last post in this thread for the time being, so God Bless and have a great day.

Eh, that’s rather an exegetical leap and rather out of character for the psalmist.

Why not read it more simply as meaning something like, if you appear in court (i.e. at the city gate) with half a dozen strapping adult sons, you’ll get a fairer and more respectful hearing for your legal dispute than you would if you appeared as a feeble elderly man, all alone?

You’re spiritualizing something that has a fairly clear literal meaning.