T
turtle18
Guest
Very well put and I agree 100% with your statements. And I am a single woman. I believe he owes an outright apology for his remarks-instead of this lame CYA homily.
- Status
D
dad_o_six
Guest
Longing soul: yes, I am equating birth control with contraception. That is what most normal English-speakers would think. No, I do not consider NFP to be a form of birth control. As someone already said, perhaps in another thread, NFP is not 100% effective. So to use the word “control” with NFP would be misleading. Having practiced NFP, I cannot say it was anything like control, other than a step toward gaining control of my passions–which is really the point. My understanding is that, in the past, Lent was a time of chastity. People used to be a lot tougher than they are today. How’s about that for a Lenten resolution?
I did not say that I expected to be praised for having a large family. That is just presumptuous and rude.
Allow me to digress for a moment. I didn’t go to Catholic school. But I had friends who did. One friend was one of probably nine. His father worked in the mill. All nine children from my friend’s family went to the Catholic school. If they paid tuition at all, it was nominal.
Fast forward to today. The local Catholic elementary school costs I think $5000 a year. There is a discount for more children, but not that much. Meanwhile, over half of the students at the school are not Catholic. Overwhelmingly they are the sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers and captains of industry. They expect the parents (mostly wealthy) to run Bingo for the community (mostly poor) to help support the school. Since when did the Catholic church ask the poor to support the education of the wealthy?
I don’t expect to send my kids to Catholic school for free. Actually, I wouldn’t want my children exposed to those snotty, rich, bullies. Contrast this to the Catholic school my friend attended, and you can see that the current attitude toward large families is anything but charitable.
The truth is that people hear what they want to hear, and the Pope is in part responsible for conveying a clear message with the full knowledge that people will misconstrue his statements. On this point, I’m more in line with NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) than NFP. I strongly suspect that the Pope knows more about NLP than you or I, and he makes these kinds of statements deliberately to tweak Catholic opinion.
I did not say that I expected to be praised for having a large family. That is just presumptuous and rude.
Allow me to digress for a moment. I didn’t go to Catholic school. But I had friends who did. One friend was one of probably nine. His father worked in the mill. All nine children from my friend’s family went to the Catholic school. If they paid tuition at all, it was nominal.
Fast forward to today. The local Catholic elementary school costs I think $5000 a year. There is a discount for more children, but not that much. Meanwhile, over half of the students at the school are not Catholic. Overwhelmingly they are the sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers and captains of industry. They expect the parents (mostly wealthy) to run Bingo for the community (mostly poor) to help support the school. Since when did the Catholic church ask the poor to support the education of the wealthy?
I don’t expect to send my kids to Catholic school for free. Actually, I wouldn’t want my children exposed to those snotty, rich, bullies. Contrast this to the Catholic school my friend attended, and you can see that the current attitude toward large families is anything but charitable.
The truth is that people hear what they want to hear, and the Pope is in part responsible for conveying a clear message with the full knowledge that people will misconstrue his statements. On this point, I’m more in line with NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) than NFP. I strongly suspect that the Pope knows more about NLP than you or I, and he makes these kinds of statements deliberately to tweak Catholic opinion.
U
utunumsint
Guest
As a soon to be dad of six and fellow NFP practitioner, I fully sympathize with your comments. I was also put off by the Pope’s choice of words.
That said, there are a lot of liberal Catholics who are loving this guy. Including my relatives. I am sure I will hear an earful from them very soon. And it will annoy the hell out of me. But - it may bring them closer to the church again. We faithful Catholics who are strong in the faith can take a few punches. Anyone who takes the time to investigate any church document on this issue will realize that the Pope is not saying anything that is not already the church’s teachings. Read the CCC, Humanae Vitae, Gaudium et Spes (I am sure you already have): they all teach about responsible procreation.
That said, where I do draw the line is here: that woman’s decision to have 7 kids via caesarian section was hers to make. All the church documents state this. The pope does not have the right to sit in judgment of her. Not even her own spiritual director has that right. Some people might see her actions as heroic. Perhaps even God will. But that is between her and the Lord.
That said (again) - is there a limit to how open to life one ought to be? Does there come a point when one ought to stop, for the sake of the kids who are already in existence? Although I think the Pope did not need to use such a specific example, he perhaps could have made a similar statement in a more pastoral way. Knowing how difficult NFP can be, perhaps this is the path of greater holiness? Perhaps we need homilies on how marriage is also a vocation towards self mastery in the service of our spouse and the good of our children - even when abstinence becomes almost constant and how marriages can survive even this evil.
God bless,
Ut
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The distinction is necessary so that people are fully aware of what defines ‘contraception’. Sometimes people refer to ABC being artificial birth control (contraception) as opposed to natural birth control (NFP) which many Catholics successfully use to control the makeup of their families.
Do you mean giving up sex for Lent? I’ve never heard of that in my 52 years of Catholic life. I think you might have got that from the fundamentalist type Catholics who like to implement their own standards of Catholicism.
Loads of large families go to Catholic school all over the world without a hint of a problem. The only problem is those that have entitlement issues because they mistakenly think they are better Catholics because of their numbers and deserve some sort of esteemed position in life. That is the attitude that Pope Francis has in his sights.
I one time speculated that I don’t think Pope Francis gives a hoot about what the media is reporting. He is calling it as he sees it. Sometimes I think he might have a quick glimpse of CAF to see what the hot topics are and make a comment to that end.
But I think you are in fairyland to think he is playing some kind of jedi mind tricks on us.
D
dad_o_six
Guest
My wife and I practiced NFP for many years, and we came away with three over-riding impressions: 1. Though it could be effective at slightly reducing the size of our family and spacing our children, it was by no means a sure thing. In other words, don’t drink the Kool-Aid. 2. My wife, especially, found it mechanical and unromantic. It ended up feeling a lot like birth control. 3. Eventually, it became very evident that the times we most wanted to engage in the conjugal act were precisely the days when she was most likely to become pregnant. Though humans do not go into “heat,” we became convinced that something like “heat” does occur in humans. Therefore, a method of reducing pregnancy by restricting intercourse to times outside of fertility seemed to go against our natural inclinations.
That led us, especially my wife, to further research the issue.
Turns out that Pope Pius XII talked about this issue in his “Address to the Italian Midwives.” This was not just an extemporaneous speech, but an official, written document that does meet the muster of papal infallibility. In this speech, Pope Pius XII specifically warned against the phenomenological philosophy of Dietrich von Hildebrand. Though the two were friends, Pius XII warned that Hildebrand’s philosophy on marriage was a novelty and specifically against church teaching. Traditionally, the purpose of marriage was always procreative. Any unitive function was secondary, an outgrowth of having children. Hildebrand saw marriage as both unitive and procreative, neither taking precedence. Further, he felt that the “marital embrace” (a total novelty in Catholic theology) was a way for couples to build their marital unity, rather than through the mutual bond of raising children together. Again, Pius XII specifically warned against this philosophy as problematic and contrary to traditional Catholic beliefs.
Fast forward to Humanae Vitae, in the late 60s. Pope Paul VI borrowed heavily from von Hildebrand in this encyclical. Though on the surface, it does seem very conservative, especially at that time. To most ears, it still does today. But in reality, Humanae Vitae contained the seeds of what has evolved into a radical departure from Catholic doctrine of the past.
That’s why I used the example of my grandmother born around the beginning of the 20th Century. She would be shocked by Pope Francis’ recent remarks because they do go counter to what Catholics believed in the past.
Do I think the Pope is using Jedi mind tricks? Interesting metaphor because Jedi mind tricks only work on the minds of the weak. But I don’t believe that careful linguistic manipulation is anything nearly as mysterious. I do think the Pope is a lot smarter than most people could even imagine. And I think he is far less inclined to misspeak than people who are not at his intellectual and spiritual level. For example, I think the leaked letter from the Synod in October was accidentally on purpose. I think this comment is likewise.
Here’s the problem: there is an evolution in thought that is almost imperceptible but very real. Specifically, my wife and I studied NFP a number of years ago. We were taught that NFP was morally neutral. In other words, in itself, NFP is neither good nor bad. But it could be used for good (to space families who are open to fertility) or for bad (as a means of birth control). A few years ago, we heard a priest saying that NFP is a moral good. This is also the clear implication of what the Pope said. How does this thinking enter the minds of well-meaning Catholics? Through an over-emphasis on what, I think, was perhaps intended as a side thought, “responsible parenting” (another gross novelty in Catholic theology). If it is okay to make that kind of judgment about “responsible parenting,” then it then becomes perfectly acceptable to treat NFP as a form of birth control.
The side effect of this is a marked decrease in the charity that the vast number of practicing Catholic families (especially in America and Europe) extend to larger Catholic families. As evidence of this marked decrease in the most important Cardinal virtue, I submit to you that a parochial education is now out of reach to all but the more affluent of Catholic (and non-Catholic) Americans. (There are very few exceptions. I hear Lincoln Nebraska, thanks to a good Bishop, was one.)
That led us, especially my wife, to further research the issue.
Turns out that Pope Pius XII talked about this issue in his “Address to the Italian Midwives.” This was not just an extemporaneous speech, but an official, written document that does meet the muster of papal infallibility. In this speech, Pope Pius XII specifically warned against the phenomenological philosophy of Dietrich von Hildebrand. Though the two were friends, Pius XII warned that Hildebrand’s philosophy on marriage was a novelty and specifically against church teaching. Traditionally, the purpose of marriage was always procreative. Any unitive function was secondary, an outgrowth of having children. Hildebrand saw marriage as both unitive and procreative, neither taking precedence. Further, he felt that the “marital embrace” (a total novelty in Catholic theology) was a way for couples to build their marital unity, rather than through the mutual bond of raising children together. Again, Pius XII specifically warned against this philosophy as problematic and contrary to traditional Catholic beliefs.
Fast forward to Humanae Vitae, in the late 60s. Pope Paul VI borrowed heavily from von Hildebrand in this encyclical. Though on the surface, it does seem very conservative, especially at that time. To most ears, it still does today. But in reality, Humanae Vitae contained the seeds of what has evolved into a radical departure from Catholic doctrine of the past.
That’s why I used the example of my grandmother born around the beginning of the 20th Century. She would be shocked by Pope Francis’ recent remarks because they do go counter to what Catholics believed in the past.
Do I think the Pope is using Jedi mind tricks? Interesting metaphor because Jedi mind tricks only work on the minds of the weak. But I don’t believe that careful linguistic manipulation is anything nearly as mysterious. I do think the Pope is a lot smarter than most people could even imagine. And I think he is far less inclined to misspeak than people who are not at his intellectual and spiritual level. For example, I think the leaked letter from the Synod in October was accidentally on purpose. I think this comment is likewise.
Here’s the problem: there is an evolution in thought that is almost imperceptible but very real. Specifically, my wife and I studied NFP a number of years ago. We were taught that NFP was morally neutral. In other words, in itself, NFP is neither good nor bad. But it could be used for good (to space families who are open to fertility) or for bad (as a means of birth control). A few years ago, we heard a priest saying that NFP is a moral good. This is also the clear implication of what the Pope said. How does this thinking enter the minds of well-meaning Catholics? Through an over-emphasis on what, I think, was perhaps intended as a side thought, “responsible parenting” (another gross novelty in Catholic theology). If it is okay to make that kind of judgment about “responsible parenting,” then it then becomes perfectly acceptable to treat NFP as a form of birth control.
The side effect of this is a marked decrease in the charity that the vast number of practicing Catholic families (especially in America and Europe) extend to larger Catholic families. As evidence of this marked decrease in the most important Cardinal virtue, I submit to you that a parochial education is now out of reach to all but the more affluent of Catholic (and non-Catholic) Americans. (There are very few exceptions. I hear Lincoln Nebraska, thanks to a good Bishop, was one.)
U
utunumsint
Guest
dad_o_six - I think you are seeing contradictions in church teaching that aren’t there… can you show me specifically where the encyclical you mention papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm contradicts church teaching? Say the Catechism sections on fecundity and faithfulness in marriage scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm?
God bless,
Ut
God bless,
Ut
G
graciew
Guest
Last evening we were 8 moms having home made pizza after an hour healthy tennis break. It is summer holidays here. We were happy to find an evening to share in January.
One of my friends has 8 kids,3 others have 5 kids each,2 have 3 kids each and 2 have 2 each.
We mentioned what Pope Francis had said about large families in a couple of his addresses,
Everything was clear,not a problem and nothing disrupted our gathering.
This is also sincerely what s going on somewhere else on earth.
One of my friends has 8 kids,3 others have 5 kids each,2 have 3 kids each and 2 have 2 each.
We mentioned what Pope Francis had said about large families in a couple of his addresses,
Everything was clear,not a problem and nothing disrupted our gathering.
This is also sincerely what s going on somewhere else on earth.
D
dad_o_six
Guest
From Pope Pius XII:
*The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.*
*The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.*
D
dad_o_six
Guest
From Pope Pius XII:
*The primary end of marriage
Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator’s will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.
*
From Catechism:
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
I’m not big into this kind of semantic hair-splitting or looking for the absolute truth in the text. I didn’t return to the Catholic faith because I was convinced by some pedantic argument. I returned to the faith of my grandmother because I was convinced by experience and the kindness of others. I found traditional Catholic faith by also recognizing the Grace in other people’s lives (and lack of Grace in others). I also found tradition because I could clearly recognize the toad being boiled alive.
“Primary” and “not equally primary” Versus “Twofold” and “cannot be separated”
This took me two minutes to find these two quotes. I could do better, perhaps. But it wasn’t hard. But what really convinced me was the experience. Does that make me a phenomenologist?
U
utunumsint
Guest
Well, to me those two statements are not in contradiction. They are saying different things. Pius is saying the primary end of marriage is procreation, and not primarily “the personal perfection of the married couple”. But he does not say that this end does not exist at all within a marriage. He just says those ends are “… essentially subordinated to it.” The CCC quote you gave does not contradict this. It just reinforces the notion that these ends are both present in marriage and in fact inseparably joined. You could easily read that text as stating that you cannot properly fulfill your primary procreative vocation in marriage without taking care of “the good of the spouses themselves”. That just seems to be common sense.
And we can use NFP to do this, as Pius says, for grave reasons.
This mirrors what is said in Humanae Vitae, paragraph 16
The 20 in that passage from Humanae Vitae points to this footnote: (20) See Pius XII, Address to Midwives: AAS 43 (1951), 846.
But I totally agree with you that NFP is not pleasant, although I will say that I have grown as a person and in self control because of it. I will also add that having so many kids does stretch us financially. We never have enough to do the things that those with both spouses working and fewer kids can. And it sometimes puts me in humiliating positions. But perhaps that is just my pride at fault there.
Your grandmother must have been a powerful source of grace in your life. I also attribute my conversion back to the faith to my grandmother. I still remember vividly her smile and her simple faith. They had 7 children. My grandfather was a man of faith as well, who lived a very Catholic and principled life.
God bless,
Ut
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’ve done NFP for spacing children and now expressly avoiding pregnancy… for 27 years. It involves a certain type of sacrifice that seems exaggerated today against the cultural backdrop of anti abstinence. Abstinence is seen as old fashioned and unnecessary and vocations that involve celibacy are seen as weird and strangely enough as you propose in your number 3… ‘unnatural’.
The difference that people find is rarely due to differing cycles but more due to differing attitudes towards abstinence.
I can’t speak directly to that because I’ve never practiced artificial birth control to compare it with… but again, I don’t believe your premise that romance and spontaneous affections are solely tied to the sex act.
As I said before, there is an erroneous premise underpinning the extremes of belief, that like our fellow animals, the natural thing is unrestricted copulation in answer to the biological drive. The fact of marriage within human experience expressly challenges that idea. Of course our physical callings are primarily sourced in our species drive to progeneration but human beings have a higher calling by virtue of our relationship with God. Our purest desire is to dedicate our relationship to a greater Good. To commit to one lifelong relationship in the interest of family relationship thereby subordinating our physical drive , to that end. The human experience is one that esteems abstinence in the face of our primary physical drive in all sorts of ways and circumstances and that includes in creating family.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It sounds like you have adopted an anti Vatican II position so if the post V2 Popes are wrong in your eyes I doubt that there’s anything I could say to you on the matter except that 2 of those Popes are now saints… one highly esteemed for his writing on marriage and family.
In another post you identify as a traditionalist and I find that many traditionalists up to a certain point in life espouse similar beliefs of marital intimacy but there is a sudden silence from older traditionalists on abstinence. This leads me to wonder if the ‘leave it to God’ approach is even sustainable for the fertile lifetime of the marriage. The majority of couples do not keep producing until menopause in the early 50’s of a woman’s life so is complete abstinence in the tradition of a Josephite marriage, a common thing for traditionalists?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist myself. I have faith that the Church is in good hands and concentrate on forming my conscience through study, prayer and contemplation. Responsible parenting as the Church teaches, is a holy and orthodox teaching and brings new light to the virtue of periodic abstinence in the economy of marriage.
As for the Catholic school system…. It has always and will always face a struggle to maintain its value base in a secular society hostile to religion but it is a testament to the faith of many that parochial education still even exists. Our last child finished 2 years ago and we are still paying for it and will be for a few years to come but I have no regrets. I will always support the Catholic education system in whatever way I can which strangely seems to be these days defending it on the internet against other Catholics hostility.
D
dad_o_six
Guest
So many thoughts, so little time.
Here’s the crux of the argument. If you follow Pope Pius XII, then the deliberate restriction of the conjugal act to periods of sterility (in those days, the rhythm method) was permissible but only for “grave and serious reasons.” If you follow Paul VI et al, then the marital embrace may be restricted to infertile periods as “responsible parenthood.” In both cases, the couple must be open to fertility if these measures fail. But it seems to me that “grave and serious reasons” meant one thing culturally and “responsible parenthood” means something else. Particularly, “responsible parenthood” seems to be taking on legs and developing an almost deconstructionist type of meaning, i.e. evolving.
Here’s the most charitable solution I can muster at this time. “Grave and serious reasons” and “responsible parenthood” actually mean the same thing. Or they should. Or could.
I get what the Pope is saying. I try not to be a blue-ribbon Catholic just because I have seven children, but sometimes I fail. Cracks me up when families with more children talk down their noses at me, or when they scoff at where I attend Mass. But realistically, it is obvious that 93% of modern Catholics reject the church’s teaching on fidelity. When the Pope says that three is enough children, what are people supposed to think? Most people cannot parse the difference between an exceptional case and a normative case. I think the real risk is that eventually, the message will be so watered down, so much like the culture, that being Catholic will be irrelevant.
Sorry, I support Catholic schools, too–in theory. But in practice, it seems to me anecdotally that the one sure way to make sure that your children do not grow up to practice the faith is to send them to Catholic school.
Here’s the crux of the argument. If you follow Pope Pius XII, then the deliberate restriction of the conjugal act to periods of sterility (in those days, the rhythm method) was permissible but only for “grave and serious reasons.” If you follow Paul VI et al, then the marital embrace may be restricted to infertile periods as “responsible parenthood.” In both cases, the couple must be open to fertility if these measures fail. But it seems to me that “grave and serious reasons” meant one thing culturally and “responsible parenthood” means something else. Particularly, “responsible parenthood” seems to be taking on legs and developing an almost deconstructionist type of meaning, i.e. evolving.
Here’s the most charitable solution I can muster at this time. “Grave and serious reasons” and “responsible parenthood” actually mean the same thing. Or they should. Or could.
I get what the Pope is saying. I try not to be a blue-ribbon Catholic just because I have seven children, but sometimes I fail. Cracks me up when families with more children talk down their noses at me, or when they scoff at where I attend Mass. But realistically, it is obvious that 93% of modern Catholics reject the church’s teaching on fidelity. When the Pope says that three is enough children, what are people supposed to think? Most people cannot parse the difference between an exceptional case and a normative case. I think the real risk is that eventually, the message will be so watered down, so much like the culture, that being Catholic will be irrelevant.
Sorry, I support Catholic schools, too–in theory. But in practice, it seems to me anecdotally that the one sure way to make sure that your children do not grow up to practice the faith is to send them to Catholic school.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Part of the problem is that the comments along with the translations are done “from the hip,” or at least it appears that way.
I recall when Pope Benedict was resigning. He read it in Latin, and although it took an hour to figure out what he was saying, it was taken seriously.
Now which is to be taken more seriously, the rabbits/responsibility comment or the large families comment?
Or are we trying to please both sides?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The Pope wasn’t answering a question 'how many children is enough?" when he mentioned three children… he was addressing the idea of population control. He was citing experts who say that three children would serve that particular purpose. I guess 2 to replace yourselves and a ‘spare’.
But that biological reality doesn’t take any account of the actual aptitude or quality of parenting or the world environment that new people are expected to flourish in and contribute to. The decision to have children has to be based entirely on the couples discernment and the only guidance the Church has ever given is regarding natural Christian generosity and to be thoughtful of your own capacities and more importantly thoughtful of the potential child’s welfare. When you think about that… how can it be possible to dictate strict rules to a couple regarding their family size? No one knows a couple that well except the couple themselves.
In 1853 the Roman Sacred Penitentiary replied to a request for an official clarification submitted by the Bishop of Amiens in France, which 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?” Rome replied: “After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation.”
So we can see that prior to Pope Pius XII, the Church bottom line was to leave the decision to the couple and since that time neither the Sacred Penitentiary, Pius XII, Paul VI, nor John Paul II specify concretely what constitutes a “iusta causa.”
So in that light, the only thing ‘just cause’ could mean is responsible parenting that takes a whole lot of things into account from personal aptitude, genetic realities and societies capacity to assist you to be a help and support to your children. Mother Teresa was an avid champion and teacher of NFP to the women of Calcutta, knowing that India was a long way from having the capacity or serious inclination to support millions in serious poverty. But also a woman who is not safely able to deliver children by the natural means of childbirth should consider what her responsibility to her family is. If her decision to have 8 children depends on her confidence in the medical system to keep on supporting her with caesarians, she is not being responsible. ‘In the wild’ or the olden days she most likely would have died a couple of times over by now leaving her family motherless.
This is where the subtle belief that ‘society owes me’, avoids taking personal responsibility properly. I believe that goes for a certain attitude of homeschoolers as well. If they were homeschooling their children within their own capacities that is one thing… but the reality is that they are relying on a curriculum developed by the institution of education that they deride and reject. They expect society to give them the fruits of the education system to prepare their children for life in the world but at the same time sneer and jeer at how bad that system is! Biting the hand that feeds you is not a good policy. Most people are very happy to support homeschoolers and their choice but its this attitude of poo pahing institutional education as inferior to their choice. I personally know that the Catholic education system leaves a lot to be desired but I also know I as a parent leave a lot to be desired! I’m where I am because of my own Catholic upbringing but I’m highly aware of my failures and flaws as a parent also. It seems appropriate to me to default to gratitude for the goods that society contributes to my parenting… not to criticise and insult that contribution as not meeting my high standards.
D
dad_o_six
Guest
Not trying to criticize or, what did you say, pooh pah? Funny stuff. My comments on Catholic schooling today is really not meant to criticize, but to state my observations. I know LOTS of modern families who sent all five, six, or seven of their children to Catholic grade school, often Catholic High School, and frequently Catholic university. When their children grow up, they are almost never practicing Catholics, occasionally Protestants, and generally nothing at all. Conversely, I know dozens of traditional Catholic families who sometimes sent their children to Catholic school but more and more opt for homeschooling. Of course, not all of these children follow their parents in the faith. But I would estimate that around 80% do. ALL of the parents that I know who have children who were called to the religious or clerical life were traditionalists.
So here’s my point. We could split hairs on CAF or another, more conservative site, all day long, and absolutely nothing would change. A huge part of the problem is that we tend to discuss outliers or exceptional cases, and we neglect to focus on the normal, average case. Also, we act as though our answers were clear-cut, when in reality most of these issues require PRIVATE counsel with a competent priest. Truth is that the folks on CAF are mostly part of the 7% of Catholics who actually believe that NFP is a viable choice. Oddly enough, you folks and I are more alike than not. And yet I we argue more than we would with cafeteria Catholics and so on.
In short, you pushed me away from the modern Catholic Church. I just went down the street to tradition. But, by capitulating to the culture, you are pushing cafeteria Catholics and nominal Catholics away in droves.
So here’s my point. We could split hairs on CAF or another, more conservative site, all day long, and absolutely nothing would change. A huge part of the problem is that we tend to discuss outliers or exceptional cases, and we neglect to focus on the normal, average case. Also, we act as though our answers were clear-cut, when in reality most of these issues require PRIVATE counsel with a competent priest. Truth is that the folks on CAF are mostly part of the 7% of Catholics who actually believe that NFP is a viable choice. Oddly enough, you folks and I are more alike than not. And yet I we argue more than we would with cafeteria Catholics and so on.
In short, you pushed me away from the modern Catholic Church. I just went down the street to tradition. But, by capitulating to the culture, you are pushing cafeteria Catholics and nominal Catholics away in droves.
U
utunumsint
Guest
I spent the first four or five years in an FSSP parish after I was married. There were amazing people there, really striving hard to live the fullness of their Catholic faith. Honestly, what finally drove me away from that church was a subculture (not everyone by any means at the parish) that believed all the current problems in the church stemmed from Vatican II, and whatever Vatican II tried to accomplish, it had failed. And the proof was always found in the massive falling away of Catholic and the massive confusion after the council.
There may be some truth to this, but I think this is an oversimplification. I honestly felt that the community had become way to isolated from the world and inward focused. Also, it wasn’t Catholic enough for me, in the sense of universal.
Honestly, after leaving that church, I would probably have been fairly lost had it not been for a strong Opus Dei presence in the Diocese. They appealed to me much more since they were not so turned in on themselves, and inward, and past focused. They embrace everything from the councils and are heavily engaged in the world. I honestly believe that this is the only way forward for the church. We have to stay anchored in our tradition, but we cannot stay in the past.
I still attend mass and adoration at times in that parish, and still have good friends there, but I think my family is doing well in the novus ordo parish we joined.
God bless,
Ut
D
dad_o_six
Guest
Our experience at FSSP was that you could actually pray during the Mass. But our first attendance was kind of funny. It was Pentacost. Like good modern Catholics, my wife had us all dressed with some prominent red. I think I had a red shirt and she had a red dress. Well, the FSSP (and I think Opus Dei as well) tend to be very conservative in their dress. I think most of the men had stolen their suits from Ralph Nader in the 60s. Well, we stuck out like a red, sore thumb. Very awkward. In retrospect, very funny though. Have not had anything like that experience in other traditional communities.
Interesting sociology. My experience in the modern church was that it was taboo to say anything about CINOs (I apologize for the term, but it fits, as does the analogy to RINOs), but in the modern church it is open season on traditionalists and people with large families. Then in an official traditional branch of the modernist church, FSSP, the pendulum seems to swing in the opposite direction. These folks, God bless them, are trying so hard to be good Catholics that they come across as wrapped too tight and susceptible to breakdown. Perhaps it’s because they still feel like there is a target on their backs. They are traditionalists at the mercy of the modern church. Their priests are called off willy nilly to perform the modern rite. And their churches are often closed on the whims of the hierarchy, despite stronger attendance and productivity in terms of vocations.
If you want to understand Catholic morality, you have to know a little something about Aristotle. Virtue is almost always an issue of balance, but the golden mean is seldom in the middle of extremes. Rather, one extreme is usually much easier to fall into. It’s easier to be arrogant than humble, gluttonous than anorexic, and so forth. But it is possible to be too humble, too controlled with diet, and so forth. Jesus, however, did not speak like Aristotle. Jesus always criticized the easier vice, pride or gluttony, and urged people to strive for the opposite. Why? Most people will strive for the opposite, fall short, and accidentally fall somewhere close to the mean. It’s the same with the issue of fecundity. In modern times, it’s easy to just use birth control and have no children or a small family. But it is difficult to follow NFP or just be open to fertility. The vast majority (the 93% who reject the church’s teaching) will fall short. A few (some of the 7% who do follow church teaching) will hit the mark. And a few (the remainder of the 7%) may overshoot the mark and become what I call blue-ribbon Catholics. I happen to think that Jesus would have praised them. Today, we have a hierarchy that is critical of those who overshoot the mark, but silent on those who don’t even try. Seems to me everything is topsy turvy
As for me, I don’t expect praise for having a large family. But I don’t accept criticism for the size of my family, not from fellow Catholics, and certainly not from the hierarchy. Likewise, I do not expect generosity from my fellow parishioners, but I am grateful when they are. And I do believe that this generosity is a mark of Sacramental Grace. Conversely, the lack of generosity leads me to suspect there is something amiss, perhaps something invalid, and denotes a lack of Sacramental Grace.
Interesting sociology. My experience in the modern church was that it was taboo to say anything about CINOs (I apologize for the term, but it fits, as does the analogy to RINOs), but in the modern church it is open season on traditionalists and people with large families. Then in an official traditional branch of the modernist church, FSSP, the pendulum seems to swing in the opposite direction. These folks, God bless them, are trying so hard to be good Catholics that they come across as wrapped too tight and susceptible to breakdown. Perhaps it’s because they still feel like there is a target on their backs. They are traditionalists at the mercy of the modern church. Their priests are called off willy nilly to perform the modern rite. And their churches are often closed on the whims of the hierarchy, despite stronger attendance and productivity in terms of vocations.
If you want to understand Catholic morality, you have to know a little something about Aristotle. Virtue is almost always an issue of balance, but the golden mean is seldom in the middle of extremes. Rather, one extreme is usually much easier to fall into. It’s easier to be arrogant than humble, gluttonous than anorexic, and so forth. But it is possible to be too humble, too controlled with diet, and so forth. Jesus, however, did not speak like Aristotle. Jesus always criticized the easier vice, pride or gluttony, and urged people to strive for the opposite. Why? Most people will strive for the opposite, fall short, and accidentally fall somewhere close to the mean. It’s the same with the issue of fecundity. In modern times, it’s easy to just use birth control and have no children or a small family. But it is difficult to follow NFP or just be open to fertility. The vast majority (the 93% who reject the church’s teaching) will fall short. A few (some of the 7% who do follow church teaching) will hit the mark. And a few (the remainder of the 7%) may overshoot the mark and become what I call blue-ribbon Catholics. I happen to think that Jesus would have praised them. Today, we have a hierarchy that is critical of those who overshoot the mark, but silent on those who don’t even try. Seems to me everything is topsy turvy
As for me, I don’t expect praise for having a large family. But I don’t accept criticism for the size of my family, not from fellow Catholics, and certainly not from the hierarchy. Likewise, I do not expect generosity from my fellow parishioners, but I am grateful when they are. And I do believe that this generosity is a mark of Sacramental Grace. Conversely, the lack of generosity leads me to suspect there is something amiss, perhaps something invalid, and denotes a lack of Sacramental Grace.
P
ProVobis
Guest
From my standpoint, people have become more attached to the “spirit” of Vatican II, rather than the documents themselves. It seems the reason we can’t really go forward (with the two forms of the Latin Rite) is that people who are “stuck in the 70’s” are too busy pointing fingers at those who are “stuck in the 50’s.” And possibly vice versa. But both eventually will become isolated.
- Status