You see, day after day, Catholic families who are practicing NFP coming in with many children to receive state aid? I just want to clarify.
I fail to see how this is an NFP-specific quesiton. Can’t we just as easily ask this question of couples who do not use NFP? Are you implying that people who practice NFP do not have any control on how large their family can be and they just leave it completely up to God? Because that is not what NFP is.
I am implying that NFP is being open to children even when one can’t afford them be it that they only have one child or 20. I work for an agency that gives federal and state aid to families. All families we serve obviously can’t afford to support their children, because tax dollars are. Yes, there are at least 5 Catholic families with at least 8 children and all these couples are going to have more. NFP is being open to life is it not??? But let me simplify the question without using the term NFP. Is it right to have children when a couple can’t afford them and when they rely on the system for services. I have 2 children and my husband and I work our tails off to support them. We have never had help from any source of tax dollar pay. Forgive me if it angers me that people continue to have children when they are using my tax dollars to help support them. I
Is it morally right or wrong according to the RC for a couple to use NFP to prevent pregnancy?
Yes, I’m okay with it because NFP is just as effective as artificial birth control if followed correctly. You’re really not rationally considering birth control methods…You just see kids in the system. Because only complete abstinence can prevent pregnancies, and there’s really no way to enforce complete abstinence without violating people’s rights. We can’t even influence non-married coupes from having sex… how can we convince married coupls not to have sex…it’s goes with being married.
Well I can see how this would be frustrating to you. But using NFP to space out or prevent pregnancy doesn’t have anything to do with the abuse situations described above. I wouldn’t be opposed to sterilization for the above senarios, nor those women who use abortion as a form of birth control. People who abuse children, or abandon chidren, or who sell their children don’t really need to have them…Also, I need to add the following. It’s off my original question, but it is a frustration those of us who work in the system have. I see children pulled out of homes and placed in foster homes due to abuse. Then in that situation, the mother will go and get pregnant again, and again, and sometimes again. I am starting to believe that the state needs to step in and sterilize these women. Seriously…not only are they bringing children into the world that the state will support, but they are abusing their children.
I’m sure you see a lot of things that the person who is not in your field of work doesn’t see. I used to work for a pediatrician’s office and the majority of patients were Catholic and Jewish. The Jewish families were very large, but only one family (with only two children) were on pulic aid due to a deadbeat father and divorce. The Jewish families with many children (and there were many with 9+ children) were all self-supporting. There were only a few Catholic families with more than two children…I don’t remember if they were on public aid or not. But in my exposure to the big families, I didn’t see very large families on public aid. But then again, my sample population had to have been much smaller than yoursIn the ideal world, I understand that if we would get back to the basics of the family unit, the father being able to support his children by being sole provider so mom can stay home, believing in God, going to church, and stop having premarital sex many of these problems would be solved. However, we don’t live in the ideal world and the problems seem to worsen.
Of course it does.
1ke…most people on these programs aren’t responsible enough to make their appointments much less take care of children. When neglect or abuse happen, the children get taken away, and get pregnant again…that’s irresponsible. Also, good families having more children than they can afford is irresponsible.
We have separation of Church and State so the State can force sterilization or forced contraception on the poor?
I know people who get pregnant every few years just to get federal aid. But I also know people who got pregnant because whatever form of birth control failed, and it caused so much stress on them. But there is no way to tell the difference between the two. But that aside, even if I may (or may not) agree with your sentiments, there’s still children involved who should have no accountability for the decisions (right or wrong) that their parents make. So I can’t see how the governemnt can try to force compliance from parents or else take benefits away from the kids involved.
Nobody’s forcing anybody to do anything. If they want to keep having kids because of some religious obligation, then the rest of us should not be forced to subsidize it. Let the Church take care of these people since it’s their rule that has them procreating like crazy anyway. I know it sounds harsh, but why should I be legally responsible for someone else’s poor life choices? Take it up with charity where it belongs.We have separation of Church and State so the State can force sterilization or forced contraception on the poor?
WOW.
Theoretically, the government could either force compliance for families who want their help or the family can give up custody of the kids. Why should such irresponsible breeding be rewarded and why should I have to pay for it for a family who has no intention of stopping? I go further into debt every month to try and support my family, and it’s hard, but I’m not aboutto have 6 more, say “oops sorry, it’s my religion” and force someone else to pay for them. If the Church is so concerned about people not practicing ABC under any circumstances, hen by all means, let them reach out and take care of the families who are trying to be faithful.
You are misinformed.