Morality of NFP to limit family size

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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???

That has already been discussed on this thread. We specifically discussed future education. I believe that it is inconsistent for some people to use that as the sole reason to avoid and others not. It makes the moral decision different for each person which is inconsistent with theology. I also think that it is a condemnation of others who do not provide certain luxuries to their children. And I think it is a consequence of an anti child and materialistic society.

As someone who has both used ABC and NFP sinfully I can tell you that we were gifted even when we were sinning to understand that we were not letting God’s voice into our family. We knew the teachings, we believed them and we also knew we were too weak to follow them. This insight, I believe, is something that many people lack.

Tell me ftp. Do you believe a parent has the obligation to pay for college for all their children? ( I cringe at such a first world theology question)

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

Well Ill be danged. George Bush would be proud of the strategery involved…

 

[Xantippe]

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.

Right. One often sees in these discussions talk about just taking kids as they come–as if we ourselves weren’t making them, or God would send us children without us having sex. Babies don’t just come via stork–we have to actively do things in order to create them.

Apologies for the commercial analogy, but it’s like talking about taking Amazon deliveries as they come. I made the Amazon orders, and I’m getting packages from Amazon because I ordered the stuff. (For the purposes of this analogy, let’s ignore the fact that other people can send me packages, too, without consulting me first.)

 

[Xantippe]

That has already been discussed on this thread. We specifically discussed future education. I believe that it is inconsistent for some people to use that as the sole reason to avoid and others not. It makes the moral decision different for each person which is inconsistent with theology.

**Why?

Do you think that moral theology should tell you exactly what to feed your kids for lunch today?

Moral theology is great, moral theology is wonderful, but moral theology cannot and does not give blanket orders for every single possible situation. **

I also think that it is a condemnation of others who do not provide certain luxuries to their children. And I think it is a consequence of an anti child and materialistic society.

As someone who has both used ABC and NFP sinfully I can tell you that we were gifted even when we were sinning to understand that we were not letting God’s voice into our family. We knew the teachings, we believed them and we also knew we were too weak to follow them. This insight, I believe, is something that many people lack.

**I’ve never used artificial contraception, ever, and I’m 39 years old.

And I’ve never believed, while using NFP, that I was doing so sinfully.**

Tell me ftp. Do you believe a parent has the obligation to pay for college for all their children? ( I cringe at such a first world theology question)

]That’s not really a fair question to ask somebody for whom it’s an unreal situation–presumably, he doesn’t face the sort of college or health expenses that we Americans do. But, I’d guess that our housing and transportation situation is probably much more suitable for larger families.

But I’ll answer for myself that I think that parents should make a reasonable contribution to prepare children for economically productive adulthood. That’s what good parents have always done to the best of their abilities, in all times and places. I also think that the parents’ obligation to do this may be suspended if the child is unable to benefit from that contribution, whether because of intellectual inability, willful neglect of their studies, or drug or alcohol abuse.

I think good parents do have to think about how they will launch adult children into productive and independent adulthood, whether that will include college or not.

 

[nodito]

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?

Paul, seriously? You’re suggesting it might be immoral to have children if you won’t be able to send them to college?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

]That’s not really a fair question to ask somebody for whom it’s an unreal situation–presumably, he doesn’t face the sort of college or health expenses that we Americans do. But, I’d guess that our housing and transportation situation is probably much more suitable for larger families.

But I’ll answer for myself that I think that parents should make a reasonable contribution to prepare children for economically productive adulthood. That’s what good parents have always done to the best of their abilities, in all times and places. I also think that the parents’ obligation to do this may be suspended if the child is unable to benefit from that contribution, whether because of intellectual inability, willful neglect of their studies, or drug or alcohol abuse.

I think good parents do have to think about how they will launch adult children into productive and independent adulthood, whether that will include college or not.

Absolutely! If it were this broad we would always agree. The problem is when you get specific enough to exclude others. Parents have the duty to prepare children to be productive Holy adults. However, that can be achieved in many ways. As both you and I have demonstrated. You have stated that in your area the schooling is sub par. You choose to private school your children, and you are blessed to have the financed to do so. But those who cannot or do not, or who find the school system adequate can morally reproduce right?

 

[fpt]

That has already been discussed on this thread. We specifically discussed future education. I believe that it is inconsistent for some people to use that as the sole reason to avoid and others not. It makes the moral decision different for each person which is inconsistent with theology. I also think that it is a condemnation of others who do not provide certain luxuries to their children. And I think it is a consequence of an anti child and materialistic society.

As someone who has both used ABC and NFP sinfully I can tell you that we were gifted even when we were sinning to understand that we were not letting God’s voice into our family. We knew the teachings, we believed them and we also knew we were too weak to follow them. This insight, I believe, is something that many people lack.

Tell me ftp. Do you believe a parent has the obligation to pay for college for all their children? ( I cringe at such a first world theology question)

The responsible procreation (the responsible fatherhood and the responsible motherhood)*** has like corollaries the responsible education, and the responsible instruction.*** The responsible procreation is linked to the responsible education and the responsible instruction. The moral obligations of parents are to educate and to instruct their children (body, soul and heart), natural way (to speak, to write, to count, to think of, to think about, to act, to react, to understand, to get culture, to learn a work) and supernatural way (the moral education, the religious education). All the dimensions of the human person has to be taken in consideration: the body with the corollaries, the spiritual soul with the corollaries, the sensible soul with the corollaries and the affectivity with the corollaries.

The parents have to try (a moral obligation of means) of developing the natural gifts of their children in order to permit them to choice, freely, as it is possible, their vocations (natural vocations and the supranatural vocation). In consequence*, in a reasonable way with the catholic logic*, the parents should try to make normal efforts for paying the college for all their children, in function of the natural gifts of each one.

Yes, the fact of wanting to save up money for children’s future education can be a fair reason for not having a large family, if the objective financial situation is reunited. Of course, the fact of wanting a very expensive university is crazy, but a normal university, it is not per se, a sign of selfishness.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

T
Yes, the fact of wanting to save up money for children’s future education can be a fair reason for not having a large family, if the objective financial situation is reunited. Of course, the fact of wanting a very expensive university is crazy, but a normal university, it is not per se, a sign of selfishness.

That makes no sense. A normal one not an expensive one? What a relative answer.

So, A Chaldean Catholic in Iraq facing persecution should not procreate, is that correct? Should there even be marriages in situations where education is not an option?

The Bias against the poor is something I think Pope Francis will address.

With a nod to your style.

The poor are not theologically different than the rich.
The poor are not ignorant of God’s Church or laws
The poor are not banned from procreating
The poor are not morally obliged to become rich
The poor are not subhuman
The poor are not under a different divine law
The poor are not denied reproductive rights
The poor are not excused from the command to multiply
The poor are not worth less in marriage and family than the rich.

 

[fpt]

That has already been discussed on this thread. We specifically discussed future education. I believe that it is inconsistent for some people to use that as the sole reason to avoid and others not. It makes the moral decision different for each person which is inconsistent with theology. I also think that it is a condemnation of others who do not provide certain luxuries to their children. And I think it is a consequence of an anti child and materialistic society.

As someone who has both used ABC and NFP sinfully I can tell you that we were gifted even when we were sinning to understand that we were not letting God’s voice into our family. We knew the teachings, we believed them and we also knew we were too weak to follow them. This insight, I believe, is something that many people lack.

Tell me ftp. Do you believe a parent has the obligation to pay for college for all their children? ( I cringe at such a first world theology question)

My answer is linked to my environment. I am in Europe and in France. In the poor countries, the primary school and the secondary school are the priorities for the parents. The issues and the applications of the rules are function of the circumstances of each couple. We are living in a State and in a Nation. By definition, the morality of the use of the natural family planning is in function of circumstances. In the moral theology, there are the evil acts, always and per se, and the neutral acts that can be wrong, only, in functions of circumstances.

 

[fpt]

That makes no sense. A normal one not an expensive one? What a relative answer.

So, A Chaldean Catholic in Iraq facing persecution should not procreate, is that correct? Should there even be marriages in situations where education is not an option?

The Bias against the poor is something I think Pope Francis will address.

With a nod to your style.

The poor are not theologically different than the rich. * Rich people have moral obligations to help poor people.* Their moral duty of helping the poor people is in function of their richness.

The poor are not ignorant of God’s Church or laws okay
The poor are not banned from procreating okay
The poor are not morally obliged to become rich okay
The poor are not subhuman okay
The poor are not under a different divine law okay
The poor are not denied reproductive rights okay
The poor are not excused from the command to multiply okay
The poor are not worth less in marriage and family than the rich.

okay

All couples must procreate with responsibility.

 

[fpt]

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.

The fact of practicing (a practical decision) the conjugal act, without a conscious mind, is not very natural and supernatural.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

okay

All couples must procreate with responsibility.

What is the responsibility involved with a persecuted or poor Catholic?

 

[fpt]

That has already been discussed on this thread. We specifically discussed future education. I believe that it is inconsistent for some people to use that as the sole reason to avoid and others not. It makes the moral decision different for each person which is inconsistent with theology. I also think that it is a condemnation of others who do not provide certain luxuries to their children. And I think it is a consequence of an anti child and materialistic society.

As someone who has both used ABC and NFP sinfully I can tell you that we were gifted even when we were sinning to understand that we were not letting God’s voice into our family. We knew the teachings, we believed them and we also knew we were too weak to follow them. This insight, I believe, is something that many people lack.

Tell me ftp. Do you believe a parent has the obligation to pay for college for all their children? ( I cringe at such a first world theology question)

If you think of that the fact of wanting to finish some academic education for a young couple or wanting to save up money for children’s future education is morally wrong, because those reasons are not serious, grave or fair, it is, only, your choice and your view.*

 

[fpt]

What is the responsibility involved with a persecuted or poor Catholic?

During the time of a war, the fact of trying to have a large family is not very responsible. During the time of war the fact of wanting a family is normal, but a large family it can be irresponsible.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

If you think of that the fact of wanting to finish some academic education for a young couple or wanting to save up money for children’s future education is morally wrong, because those reasons are not serious, grave or fair, it is, only, your choice and your view.*

I think if the sole reason to postpone or even not have a child is that you wish to pay for a big ticket first world item like college or a car, then yes, that is wrong. Can that be a factor? Sure. Can a couple cite it as a reason to postpone Sure, but can a couple say, “no” to a child because of paying off a school, no.

Why is it that my wife and I are having a fifth and she just finished her masters degree which we will be paying for? Is that wrong? Should we not have had a child? Should we give it up for adoption to some parents that have their school paid for? This is the inconstancy in moral theology of NFP…

 

[fpt]

What is the responsibility involved with a persecuted or poor Catholic?

Objectively speaking, in China the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
During a war, the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
During the civil war, the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
During an epidemic period, the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
A poor catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Objectively speaking, in China the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
During a war, the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
During the civil war, the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
During an epidemic period, the catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;
A poor catholic couple has the moral right to use the N.F.P;

Actually any couple has the right to use NFP… it is the reasons that are different.

Couple A (decides to have a child in a war environment knowing that the Child has a good chance of growing up a slave or persecuted and tortured)

Couple B (Decides not to have a child because College is too expensive)

Both couples are under the command to multiply.
Both couples are married.

Why is the moral choice for one, not the same as the other… Why could couple A be sinning and Couple B be doing the prudent thing?

 

[fpt]

I think if the sole reason to postpone or even not have a child is that you wish to pay for a big ticket first world item like college or a car, then yes, that is wrong. Can that be a factor? Sure. Can a couple cite it as a reason to postpone Sure, but can a couple say, “no” to a child because of paying off a school, no.

Why is it that my wife and I are having a fifth and she just finished her masters degree which we will be paying for? Is that wrong? Should we not have had a child? Should we give it up for adoption to some parents that have their school paid for? This is the inconstancy in moral theology of NFP…

It is a personal choice, it is your free will, it is your own responsibility of parents. It is between you, your wife and God. It is not business. You are free to act like you think on this topic. The other couples have the moral right to think in the other way, the catholicism permits this diversity.

 

[fpt]

Actually any couple has the right to use NFP… it is the reasons that are different.

Couple A (decides to have a child in a war environment knowing that the Child has a good chance of growing up a slave or persecuted and tortured)

Couple B (Decides not to have a child because College is too expensive)

Both couples are under the command to multiply.
Both couples are married.

Why is the moral choice for one, not the same as the other… Why could couple A be sinning and Couple B be doing the prudent thing?

The couple (A) and like future parents, they have moral right to want to procreate, but they have to try to do the best for protecting the future baby. If they use the N.F.P., they does not sin, but if they want a big family, the reason calls them to wait some best days.

Couple B. The large family can be an obstacle to the normal academic education of each kid, thus the fact of not having another baby *can be moral, via the use of rhe N.F.P.
*

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The couple (A) and like future parents, they have moral right to want to procreate, but they have to try to do the best for protecting the future baby. If they use the N.F.P., they does not sin, but if they want a big family, the reason calls them to wait some best days.

Couple B. The large family can be an obstacle to the normal academic education of each kid, thus the fact of not having another baby *can be moral, via the use of rhe N.F.P.
*

So, couple A has the moral obligation to try to prevent children?

Yes or no?