Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Xantippe]

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.

The world of the OT and the world of the NT are not at all the same, and I think it’s worthwhile to take the world of the OT on its own terms before treating the OT as an explicitly Christian document.

The world of the OT did (by and large) treat temporal blessings as a sign of divine favor. You find some pushback against that here and there (for instance in the book of Job), but by and large, the fertility of one’s wives and the fertility of one’s crops and flocks were treated as being in more or less the same category. When dealing with the OT and children, we can’t readily separate what is “worldly” and what is “spiritual” about their view of children, because “worldly” and “spiritual” are not OT concepts. (I’ve been reading Rabbi Lapin’s Thou Shall Prosper, which is about traditional Jewish business philosophy, and Rabbi Lapin treats material success in a way that is sometimes rather shocking to the Christian mind, but that’s a throwback to the Old Testament’s equation of worldly success with divine favor.)

I think we cannot underestimate the “worldly” aspect of the treatment of children as a blessing in the OT. We’re talking about a time and place where there was no Social Security, no disability, no workers’ comp, no pensions, no life insurance, no FDIC, etc. Aside from having children, there was no other way to guarantee a reasonably dignified old age. Furthermore, having children was a way for wives “keeping score” in a polygamous society, as we see with the story of the rivalry between Leah and Rachel. There’s a sort of arms race between the two wives (see Genesis 29 and 30), with the women eventually each sending a servant to their husband to run their scores up. And, as we’ve seen in the city gates example, in a time with little in the way of justice or law enforcement, it’s handy to have a large family with lots of grown sons for security and intimidation.

I realize I’ve mentioned this before, but I don’t think it can be overemphasized that the OT fathers of large families are (in pretty much every example where there is evidence) very, very wealthy people. I can’t think of a single example of a poor, large OT family. (And the reason for that is pretty obvious–a very large, very poor family would not stay large very long.) And these large, wealthy OT families all seem to be well supplied with servants. (The famous Proverbs 31 woman has LOTS of help at home.) I think it’s quite ridiculous for modern American women that are home alone with their children and can barely afford an occasional babysitter to try to go quiverfull–it’s a recipe for burnout and failure. Of course modern baby equipment and appliances are great, but you can’t really automate or mass produce childcare (or it would be way cheaper than it is).

Obviously, children are a blessing, but the OT rhapsodies about large families are a product of particular social and economic conditions, and the fact that we don’t see similar effusions in the NT may lead us to suspect that economic and social conditions were different in the world of the early Church.

 

[JustaSinner]

Obviously, children are a blessing, but the OT rhapsodies about large families are a product of particular social and economic conditions, and the fact that we don’t see similar effusions in the NT may lead us to suspect that economic and social conditions were different in the world of the early Church.

Thanks for the post Xantippe. While I am aware of the things you discuss in your post, your post is a fine exposition on the matter. However, even in the Old Covenant the bearing of children who would be raised to be faithful to the LORD was a furtherance of God’s Kingdom (in Ancient Israel) beyond any other temporal goods. This unique spiritual blessing of a multiplicity of children who are raised to know the Lord and build His Kingdom/Church on this earth is only magnified in the New Covenant, where the emphasis is on the pricelessness of every soul and not on wealth in other forms.

Further, while knowledge of differences in economic and social conditions can be very helpful in understanding passages of Scripture, we can never forget that the truths contained in every jot and tittle are eternal (all breathed by the Holy Spirit) and are written above all for New Covenant believers (as St. Paul notes regarding the Old Testament Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 10:11).

It’s been an interesting discussion and perhaps I can carry it on at later time, but I’ll have to refrain at present because of a heavy work week coming up. God Bless and have a great week.

 

[JustaSinner]

p.s. As a quick clarification for anyone who missed the earlier posts–while I believe God commands in Psalm 127 that we see children as a gift to be received and not refused, I don’t want to give any indication that those who are unable to bear children are in any way inferior. To quote from the earlier post: “the degree of God’s favor is not tied to the number of children God grants (God may have reserved far greater blessings to those families who can have few or no children).” Further, as noted before, those called to celibacy for the Kingdom’s sake have been called to something even greater than marriage and children. God Bless and have a great week everyone.

 

[Xantippe]

Thanks for the post Xantippe. While I am aware of the things you discuss in your post, your post is a fine exposition on the matter. However, even in the Old Covenant the bearing of children who would be raised to be faithful to the LORD was a furtherance of God’s Kingdom (in Ancient Israel) beyond any other temporal goods. This unique spiritual blessing of a multiplicity of children who are raised to know the Lord and build His Kingdom/Church on this earth is only magnified in the New Covenant, where the emphasis is on the pricelessness of every soul and not on wealth in other forms.

Further, while knowledge of differences in economic and social conditions can be very helpful in understanding passages of Scripture, we can never forget that the truths contained in every jot and tittle are eternal (all breathed by the Holy Spirit) and are written above all for New Covenant believers (as St. Paul notes regarding the Old Testament Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 10:11).

It’s been an interesting discussion and perhaps I can carry it on at later time, but I’ll have to refrain at present because of a heavy work week coming up. God Bless and have a great week.

I don’t think we can really guarantee that any particular couple can successfully raise unlimited numbers of faithful children to religiously faithful adulthood.

If you look around the internet, there are lots of adult children from large quiverfull families, talking about how minimal an upbringing they got in terms of family resources and parental attention, and plenty of them have bailed on the faith of their childhood.

As I’ve gotten older and my family has grown, I’ve reflected more and more on how my parents coped with the three of us kids under conditions of poverty (US poverty, but relative poverty), and I more and more realize that my mom was at the end of her rope. Three kids was all that they could realistically manage, particularly with my dad’s sporadic employment. I can imagine maybe a fourth (especially with a good spacing between the 3rd and 4th), but if there had been any more than that, it would have either been food stamps, even more dependence on family help, or extreme want. (And at the time, there was already a fair amount of reliance on grandma and grandpa help.) As it was, I never had health insurance as a child (none of the family did), and there was at least one occasion of what I have to categorize as medical neglect. I just can’t even imagine throwing more children into the mix.

 

[LongingSoul]

Lol. Pope Francis in his inimitable style from yesterday…

"The Pope illustrated an example of “irresponsibility”: a pregnant woman he met recently, already with seven children, each born by caesarean-section.

“But does she want to leave seven orphans?” he asked. “This is to tempt God.”

Her response could be, “No, I trust in God,” added Pope Francis.

“But God gives you methods to be responsible,” he continued. “Some think that, and excuse the word, in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits.”

“No, responsible parenthood,” he repeated emphatically.

Pope Francis’ words harken back to the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, in which Bl. Paul VI writes that it is “licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions” in order to space children for “serious motives,” such as physical or psychological health, among other factors.

The Church supports Natural Family Planning - natural methods of spacing children which involve abstinence from sexual intercourse during a woman’s fertile period, without the use of drugs, devices, and surgical procedures. In this way, human sexuality and fertility are respected rather than suppressed."

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-responsible-parenthood-doesnt-mean-birth-control-21274/

 

[Xantippe]

Thanks for the post Xantippe. While I am aware of the things you discuss in your post, your post is a fine exposition on the matter. However, even in the Old Covenant the bearing of children who would be raised to be faithful to the LORD was a furtherance of God’s Kingdom (in Ancient Israel) beyond any other temporal goods. This unique spiritual blessing of a multiplicity of children who are raised to know the Lord and build His Kingdom/Church on this earth is only magnified in the New Covenant, where the emphasis is on the pricelessness of every soul and not on wealth in other forms.

**Further, while knowledge of differences in economic and social conditions can be very helpful in understanding passages of Scripture, we can never forget that the truths contained in every jot and tittle are eternal (all breathed by the Holy Spirit) and are written above all for New Covenant believers (as St. Paul notes regarding the Old Testament Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 10:11). **

It’s been an interesting discussion and perhaps I can carry it on at later time, but I’ll have to refrain at present because of a heavy work week coming up. God Bless and have a great week.

We’ve seen that in Psalms 127 having a lot of sons is mentioned as being useful in dealing with worldly opponents. Likewise, I was just looking at Psalms 128 and observing how closely linked a large family and wealth are for the author. I’m going to give the whole thing, as it isn’t long, and I don’t want it to look as if I’m pulling anything out of context.

Blessed is every one who fears the Lord,
who walks in his ways!
You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands;
you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you.
Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house;
your children will be like olive shoots around your table.
Lo, thus shall the man be blessed who fears the Lord.
The Lord bless you from Zion!
May you see the prosperity of Jerusalem all the days of your life!
May you see your children’s children!
Peace be upon Israel!

We see here a number of ideas expressed very close together: that being god-fearing means financial security, peace, happiness, a large family, a prosperous homeland and long life. These things are all tightly connected in the mind of the psalmist.

 

[fpt]

I guess I figured that kids can pay their own way through college. Most Catholic schools give free tuition to any child after #3 or #4, so that really isn’t a issue, especially since anyone serious about catholic schools can get help through the diocese or K of C.

I see more and more people stopping at kid #2 or #3 because having more children would mean giving up **the yearly vacation!!! **and luxuries. (Note: I’m not talking about necessities, like food. )These don’t seem to be serious reasons,

If the normal yearly vacation of the family are essential for the moral and mental balance of each member of the couple and of the family, per se, it is not selfish. The roles and the function of vacation to the soul, on the body and on the heart are important.

 

[PaulinVA]

…
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 into elitists. And the idea that a “good parent” should pay for school for their children or not have them is indeed, elitist. And wrong.

Why? And I assume you are talking about college. Or perhaps primary school where the public schools are objectively not good.

Is it moral to make procreation decisions that depend on the largess of others? Is it moral to have more children than you can send to college, thereby saddling them with student load debt such that they might not get married or ever own a house? College is almost required nowadays. How about having so many children that you qualify for assistance and rely on the government to provide for your family?

This idea that you should keep having children until your resources are at their limit doesn’t make sense to me, whether those resources are financial, emotional, or whatever.

 

[fpt]

Lol. Pope Francis in his inimitable style from yesterday…

"The Pope illustrated an example of “irresponsibility”: a pregnant woman he met recently, already with seven children, each born by caesarean-section.

“But does she want to leave seven orphans?” he asked. “This is to tempt God.”

Her response could be, “No, I trust in God,” added Pope Francis.

“But God gives you methods to be responsible,” he continued. “Some think that, and excuse the word, in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits.”

“No, responsible parenthood,” he repeated emphatically.

Pope Francis’ words harken back to the 1968 encyclical Humanae vitae, in which Bl. Paul VI writes that it is “licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions” in order to space children for “serious motives,” such as physical or psychological health, among other factors.

The Church supports Natural Family Planning - natural methods of spacing children which involve abstinence from sexual intercourse during a woman’s fertile period, without the use of drugs, devices, and surgical procedures. In this way, human sexuality and fertility are respected rather than suppressed."

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-responsible-parenthood-doesnt-mean-birth-control-21274/

Here, Pope Francis denounces:

The fideism of the marital act;
The quietism of the marital act;
The theoretical providentialism of the marital act;
The quiverfullism of the conjugal act;
The absolute pro-creationism of the conjugal act;
The absolute natalism of the conjugal act;
The absolute race to the large family via the conjugal act;
The irresponsible practices of union of bodies;

We are human pro-creators, and not some human reproducers.* Wife is not a machine to babies. Husband is not a stallion.*

The health of wife, the health of husband, the number of children, the financial situation, the social situation, the cultural situation, the educational situation, the mental / psychological situation, the spiritual situation, the alimentary situation are factors of evaluation for understanding the responsible procreation.

 

[Xantippe]

If the normal yearly vacation of the family are essential for the moral and mental balance of each member of the couple and of the family, per se, it is not selfish. The roles and the function of vacation to the soul, on the body and on the heart are important.

That’s a very interesting point.

In another thread (the one with the husband who won’t do anything), I was just encouraging the idea of at least a short family vacation to get him out of the house, out of his usual routine, and more active. There can be a definite psychological benefit to getting out of the house from time to time.

I think it’s conventional wisdom to pooh pooh vacations, but not every vacation is Disneyland, Hawaii or a luxury ski resort or an African safari. Lots of vacations are much less expensive than that. A few hundred (rather than thousand) dollars can often produce a lot of family fun.

 

[fpt]

Why? And I assume you are talking about college. Or perhaps primary school where the public schools are objectively not good.

Is it moral to make procreation decisions that depend on the largess of others? Is it moral to have more children than you can send to college, thereby saddling them with student load debt such that they might not get married or ever own a house? College is almost required nowadays. How about having so many children that you qualify for assistance and rely on the government to provide for your family?

This idea that you should keep having children until your resources are at their limit doesn’t make sense to me, whether those resources are financial, emotional, or whatever.

You are totally alright. The message of Hoosier Daddy is full of:

fideism of marital act;
quietism of marital act;
theoretical providentialism of the marital act.

For reading:

Abusing NFP
theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

The theoretical providentialists wish there were more to it than that. They wish they could find quotations in Humanae Vitae to support their view of the matter, as, for instance:

“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This idea that you should keep having children until your resources are at their limit doesn’t make sense to me, whether those resources are financial, emotional, or whatever.

I agree:shrug:

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You are totally alright. The message of Hoosier Daddy is full of:

fideism of marital act;
quietism of marital act;
theoretical providentialism of the marital act.
.”

I don’t think those are real words.

But if they were I would say that it is not my “message” at all.

 

[fpt]

I don’t think those are real words.

But if they were I would say that it is not my “message” at all.

The quiverfull movement coming from some protestants and the theoretical providentialism, that are linked to some christian heresies (the fideism and the quietism, in France), are existing.

For reading and for information:

Abusing NFP
theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

The theoretical providentialists wish there were more to it than that. They wish they could find quotations in Humanae Vitae to support their view of the matter, as, for instance:

“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The quiverfull movement coming from some protestants and the theoretical providentialism, that are linked to some christian heresies (the fideism and the quietism, in France), are existing.

For reading and for information:

Abusing NFP
theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

The theoretical providentialists wish there were more to it than that. They wish they could find quotations in Humanae Vitae to support their view of the matter, as, for instance:

“NFP, while distinguishable from contraception in not being absolutely immoral, is seldom licit and always regrettable.”

“Most married couples (especially in the wealthy West) are perfectly capable of having large families, and most reasons cited for not having large families are bogus.”

“Couples who choose to have large families are making the religiously and morally superior choice.”

“Since selfishness is such a near and present danger, no one should practice NFP without first consulting a priest.”

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

ok… Not sure what you are saying or why I am involved in it.

 

[fpt]

ok… Not sure what you are saying or why I am involved in it.

Okay, I was too fast. In my message, I was focusing only on the message of PaulinA and her interpretation. Sorry and so sorry.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

For the record, I am not the CAF flag bearer of the quiverfull movement. I do not subscribe to that type of theology.

 

[fpt]

For the record, I am not the CAF flag bearer of the quiverfull movement. I do not subscribe to that type of theology.

Pardon, pardon and pardon. Sorry, sorry and so sorry. Forgive me, please.

“The following do not constitute valid reasons for using NFP: wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education; being tired; being stressed; being burdened by debt; having to move; having a small, crowded house; being depressed; feeling overwhelmed, etc.”

What is your view on those reasons???

wanting to finish your education; wanting to save up for children’s future education???

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t think those are real words.

But if they were I would say that it is not my “message” at all.

Believe it or not, they are.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fideism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_%28Christian_philosophy%29

(I’m not sure that quietism actually fits very well in this discussion, though.)

“Theoretical providentialist” occurs in fpt’s link here:

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html

Actually, I take that back. Ronald Knox’s book “Enthusiasm” (absolutely fantastic book, by the way), talks about quietism, and as I vaguely recall, quietists believed that they should stop making any practical decisions whatsoever with the conscious mind. So quietism is somewhat relevant to a discussion of NFP vs. providentialism.

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay, I was too fast. In my message, I was focusing only on the message of PaulinA and her interpretation. Sorry and so sorry.

For the record, my name is Paul and I live in the US state of Virginia, abbreviated VA.

…Returning you to the Current NFP debate, already in progress.

AND, we are co-creators with God. When we have sex at the right time, sometimes a child is created. God does not create children when don’t have sex, or we have sex during infertile times. He follows his rules.

Providentialism implies that God does not follow His biology but decides, instance by instance, whether pregnancy will occur. If this were true, we would not be able to scientifically determine what rules should be used for NFP, since God wasn’t following any rules.