H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Can I get a clarification on this?
Do you mean post secondary education?
Spiritual education?
public education?
- Status
Do you mean post secondary education?
Spiritual education?
public education?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Ditto Olive456. But if you refer to the link in my post #99 on this thread, it gives a good reflection of the Churchs stance on ‘serious reasons’ for using NFP. Cheers. Hope that answers your question.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Eh, it’s one thing I can take care of. I can’t fix the national debt, but I can realistically get kids through college without student loans and educate them to be careful and smart about money.That is a little harder to say if you had six kids…
But I don’t, do I.
Honestly, it is something you would never know.And in America (God bless us) education is “free”
**And it’s worth every penny.
Just kidding.
More seriously, public education in the US is not free. You buy a school “membership” by living in and paying taxes in a particular geographical area. As a rule, the more you are able to pay, the better the education you get (and that is particularly true for special needs children). If you aren’t able to afford the “membership” for the kind of education your kids need, they won’t get it. Bad US public schools are really, really bad. Good US schools can be really, really good. **
**(For foreign readers, this is a semi-humorous account of US public education. If you want a serious explanation, PM me.)
In our particular case, we value a school setting that is big enough to find friends, small enough not to get lost in, has very serious academics in subjects neither my husband nor I could teach, and that has been very compassionate and patient in dealing with our older child’s autism spectrum issues (and lots of compassion and patience has been needed).
When you have an autistic child (even just a mildly autistic child) you cling to anything that works and you do anything to keep things going well. **
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…
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
So you did mean college then. So the statement “I would rather have three kids and pay for college for them than six and not be able to pay for college for them” is accurate?
X
Xantippe
Guest
I think I particularly mean K-12, because a good K-12 education is the foundation for everything else, and if you get a good K-12 education, everything else is just icing on the cake.
Of course a good K-12 education will include a good religious education. I’m pretty happy with what our kids are getting, between CCD, their Protestant (but Catholic friendly) school, the homilies they hear, their personal reading, and the “book club” that they do with their daddy. From time to time, he’ll read them a Platonic dialogue with them or something from C.S. Lewis.
So, if I had to prioritize, I’d choose paying for K-12 over paying for undergraduate, but I’d like us to pay for both (assuming we’d cover the equivalent of 4 years of state school with appropriate academic and financial contributions from the children).
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I am so confused then. A K-12 supplemented by CCD is free.
Three kids or 6.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Not if we were going to live where we live now.I am so confused then. A K-12 supplemented by CCD is free.
We’d have to either A) stay where we are (which is very convenient to my husband’s work and allows us to be part of the college community) and transfer the kids into the bad public schools or B) sell our house, move to the suburbs, enroll our kids in a good suburban public school, and have my husband commute. (And no, C) homeschooling is not an option I am interested in.)
There’s no such thing as “public school” in general. There are good ones and bad ones and oh my, what a difference it makes. And the good ones cost way more than the bad ones. (As I mentioned upthread, I went to mostly terrible public schools, and that’s not what I want for my kids.)
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
So wait, now the reason is Uhaul related?
Whatever.
Move or don’t move… Put them in public schools or dont, get out of the ghetto or not. 
Is the statement “I would rather have 3 kids and pay for college for them than 6 and not” Accurate? Yes or no?
A
Abu
Guest
The first time Rome spoke on the matter was as long ago as 1853, Pope Pius IX, when the Sacred Penitentiary answered a dubium (a formal request for an official clarification) submitted by the Bishop of Amiens, France. He asked, “Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?”
The reply was, "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.” (Non esse inquietandos illos de quibus in precibus, dummodo nihil agant per quod conceptio impediatur).
cmri.org/03-nfp.html
Pope Paul in HV11, in a little studied section of the encyclical *Humanae Vitae *when commenting on abstinence among married couples wrote: “The discipline which is proper to the purity of married couples, far from harming conjugal love, rather confers on it a higher human value. It demands continual effort yet, thanks to its beneficent influence; husband and wife fully develop their personalities, being enriched with spiritual values. Such discipline bestows upon family life fruits of serenity and peace, and facilitates the solution of other problems; it favors attention for one’s partner, helps both parties to drive out selfishness, the enemy of true love; and deepens their sense of responsibility.”
How true – self-control is enhanced, the warp and woof of developing fidelity to Christ and neighbour.
Clear cut:
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I’d phrase it like this: “I would rather have 3 kids and give them a good education than 6 kids and send them to the kind of schools I went to for K-12. And ideally, I’d like my kids to graduate from college without student student loans.”So wait, now the reason is Uhaul related?
Whatever.
Is the statement “I would rather have 3 kids and pay for college for them than 6 and not” Accurate? Yes or no?
Also, in my view, education covers everything–K-12, CCD, extracurriculars, camps, home activities with the kids, college, internships, etc. Whatever one does to launch a child into independent adulthood is education.
Remember, I had a really bad public school experience and grew up without a lot of pretty basic stuff. So, I’m coming at this from the perspective of having grown up in poverty and in a lousy school situation.
Also, it is a big deal to leave a neighborhood and a location that you like, pull kids out of a school that they like, and separate them from their friends. Kids hate switching schools. We did that between pre-K and K once and even at that early age, there was holy heck to pay–my nearly 5-year-old started having twice daily potty accidents after we moved, and she did it for about a month.
I would never move a child out of a school that was working for them, unless I had a really, really good reasons.
Also, my husband hates moving and he would do more or less anything not to move again.
And again–special needs. I don’t think the phrase “autism spectrum” that Longing Soul and I have been using is registering on you.
J
JustaSinner
Guest
The existence of a literal meaning (e.g. that children can be a material blessing) does not undermine the sometimes far more important spiritual meaning of passages. Further, while all the particulars of the spiritual application I described previously may not be readily apparent or accepted, the primary one–namely, that faithful Covenant children are spiritual weapons on behalf of the Kingdom of God is a readily apparent principal that Old and New Covenant reader alike can draw from this Psalm). Also, you seem to forget the strong Apostolic Tradition of spiritualizing Scriptures that had clear literal meanings–e.g. St. Paul in Galatians 4:21-24 on Genesis 16:1-6 and in 1 Corinthians 9:9 on Deuteronomy 25:4, etc.
Of course, the early church used this spiritualizing interpretations extensively. All that said, I agree that the allegorical interpretation can be abused just as other methods of interpretation.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I must tell you, I have had a deep respect for your posts since I started here. You are intelligent, thoughtful, Catholic and you have a good handle on your faith. And you have a strong faith. I am proud to be a “fellow Catholic” with you.
But I must also tell you that sometimes you are mysterious.
I too, had a bad public school experience. Socially. It was horrible. And then I went to a Catholic high school and it was soooo much better. I not only survived, but I thrived. I became learned, I became popular with my classmates and I was involved in many sports and opportunities that I would never have had in public schools. I may not have made it out of public schools much less made it into a good College and had success there as well. No one knows how much I owe to my Catholic Schooling. Including College, I owe it my faith. But my old high school is the poster child for poor Catholic schools. They focus on football, offering free education if you are good enough to play. (poaching from the public school teams.) They are about as watered down in the faith as you could be. The theology department is downright wacko. I would never send my kids there, much less pay for it! But I, like you, have been made to be “gunshy” about education. And don’t get me wrong, my public school education was top notch. My mother, a veteran teacher, made sure I had the best teachers and schools. So, naturally, she freaked out and still does about my decision to home school my children.
Both you and I take education of our children as one of the most serious responsibilities we have. I have colleges on my wish list for each of my children, (God willing some will be seminaries)
And I sure expect each child to explore their vocations and continue their educations. And, I would go into debt for each one. But, not to the extreme of denying them their sibling souls that they have. No, tuition is not that important. It should not be for anyone, not anyone living in these United States of America. My children are protected from the damage that could be done. They are academically successful so far and spiritually elite.As I stated before, I respect you personally. Which is why I was hurt by your statement about 6 kids vs 3. You see, that is a condemnation of others who will not provide the education you define as something you want to give your children. It is the same as if I said to you that I pity your children that they do not have 3 other siblings. It is out of line and judgmental. And that happens A LOT on the NFP subjects. I have been guilty of it as well. But it is important to realize that when you emphasize that NFP is a personal Holy Choice one makes with God then what you said can be taken the same as if I said that I think families with 2 kids are wrong.
You must see that we who are privileged, (me with the homeschooling, and you with the paid school,) must not let that privilege make us int elitists. And the idea that a “good parent” should pay for school for their children or not have them is indeed, elitist. And wrong.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I think that one first needs to look at the literal meaning before doing daring exigetical acrobatics.
The idea of children as “spiritual weapons” squicks me out.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That is a great bouquet of Church statements to show the consistent attitude of the Church over time, Abu. I especially value the final comments…“The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”
Thomas Aquinas famously said "For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law presuppose the natural law. "
We know that because human beings as with all living creatures are a part of the ecology of all creation. In times of ecological dearth like climate extremes and meagre food sources that species are less driven to reproduce in great numbers and in times of sudden culling of some sort, species are highly driven to reproduce.
Part of our responsibility as breeders is tied to the wellbeing of the whole species. The Church highly esteems this aspect of our instinctive nature which is why contraception, which inhibits natures course, is such a scourge.
There is absolutely no basis in nature to say that the ‘default’ in human reproduction is to produce large numbers of offspring spanning the course of the fertile life. That creates just as artificial ideology as that of contraception and is dangerous to ‘the very essence of civilisation’.
R
Rau
Guest
I imagine Xantippe and Hoosier Daddy both express “personal” perspectives, not absolute ones. To prefer (in a looking to the future sense) 3 kids parented and educated in a particular manner, to 6 parented and educated in a different manner as the circumstances would have it, is a personal perspective that I think a person is free to hold and express. And the reverse position ‘likewise’. To hold such a personal position does not mean that we think lesser of a person holding a different position. These positions do not define a scale of absolute goodness, just one relevant personally, and not in any wider sense. And of course, we may change our view on that scale with time or events.I must tell you, I have had a deep respect for your posts since I started here. You are intelligent, thoughtful, Catholic and you have a good handle on your faith. And you have a strong faith. I am proud to be a “fellow Catholic” with you.
But I must also tell you that sometimes you are mysterious.
I too, had a bad public school experience. Socially. It was horrible. And then I went to a Catholic high school and it was soooo much better. I not only survived, but I thrived. I became learned, I became popular with my classmates and I was involved in many sports and opportunities that I would never have had in public schools. I may not have made it out of public schools much less made it into a good College and had success there as well. No one knows how much I owe to my Catholic Schooling. Including College, I owe it my faith. But my old high school is the poster child for poor Catholic schools. They focus on football, offering free education if you are good enough to play. (poaching from the public school teams.) They are about as watered down in the faith as you could be. The theology department is downright wacko. I would never send my kids there, much less pay for it! But I, like you, have been made to be “gunshy” about education. And don’t get me wrong, my public school education was top notch. My mother, a veteran teacher, made sure I had the best teachers and schools. So, naturally, she freaked out and still does about my decision to home school my children.
Both you and I take education of our children as one of the most serious responsibilities we have. I have colleges on my wish list for each of my children, (God willing some will be seminaries)
As I stated before, I respect you personally. Which is why I was hurt by your statement about 6 kids vs 3. You see, that is a condemnation of others who will not provide the education you define as something you want to give your children. It is the same as if I said to you that I pity your children that they do not have 3 other siblings. It is out of line and judgmental. And that happens A LOT on the NFP subjects. I have been guilty of it as well. But it is important to realize that when you emphasize that NFP is a personal Holy Choice one makes with God then what you said can be taken the same as if I said that I think families with 2 kids are wrong.
You must see that we who are privileged, (me with the homeschooling, and you with the paid school,) must not let that privilege make us int elitists. And the idea that a “good parent” should pay for school for their children or not have them is indeed, elitist. And wrong.
X
Xantippe
Guest
And I don’t think anybody has said that.I must tell you, I have had a deep respect for your posts since I started here. You are intelligent, thoughtful, Catholic and you have a good handle on your faith. And you have a strong faith. I am proud to be a “fellow Catholic” with you.
Awwww!
Both you and I take education of our children as one of the most serious responsibilities we have. I have colleges on my wish list for each of my children, (God willing some will be seminaries)
**In all honesty, there were three of us growing up, and I don’t feel at all deprived that my Protestant parents didn’t provide us with another three siblings. We had great fun, especially my sister and I (brother is almost 9 years younger than me). I’m reasonably close to my sister and I think my brother is a good guy, but I don’t talk to him that often (I mostly just confer with his wife by email about gifts for the kids). I don’t feel like I lost anything important by not having more siblings, whereas if I had lost any material advantages (there weren’t many when I was a kid), it would have been a bigger blow.
And in fact, now that I am a grownup with three kids of my own (very similarly spaced to my siblings), I realize that the appearance of my baby brother (and the start of a home construction project while we were living in the house) coincided with a downturn in my relationship with my mom, as well as a decline in my academic performance at school. I’m afraid that my parents simply did not have the resources (material or energy-wise) to do a good job with parenting three children. We survived, but now that I have kids the same age, I can see that my mom was overwhelmed.
**
As I stated before, I respect you personally. Which is why I was hurt by your statement about 6 kids vs 3. You see, that is a condemnation of others who will not provide the education you define as something you want to give your children.
Not at all. I said that I prefer 3 kids that I can give a good education to.
You must see that we who are privileged, (me with the homeschooling, and you with the paid school,) must not let that privilege make us int elitists. And the idea that a “good parent” should pay for school for their children or not have them is indeed, elitist. And wrong.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Throughout this whole thread, xantippe has been on the defensive position in response to your overreach of Church teaching. You can’t just switch to the defensive role now !
J
JustaSinner
Guest
I assume you are aware of the fact that you and every believer is to be a spiritual weapon in the hand of our Lord. Besides, whether you interpret the passage in the spiritual or in a strictly literal sense (and I’m certainly not convinced that the literal sense is entirely secular as you make it out to be), children are still defined in Psalm 127 as figurative/spiritual arrows. So I’m afraid we’re stuck with that either way we slice it.
Further, taking the testimony of Scripture as a whole (namely, how it all centers on Christ and loving our Lord with all of our heart, soul, and mind) I think it takes more exegetical acrobatics to read the central Scriptural passage on the blessing of children in an entirely secular/materialistic sense (i.e. reading the passage in such a way that it speaks of children only as a means of our own temporal prosperity and speaks nothing of the deeper spiritual blessings that flow from these priceless and eternal souls God entrusts us with). I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Fr Michael Miller makes a great case for Pope JPII’s vision of the family as the primary cell in society with his EWTN essay…
ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/FR93402.TXT
- Status