Responsible Parenthood versus Planned Parenthood

[wynnejj]

I think that in view of “quality of life versus quantity of life” issues …

The Catholic Church can’t convincingly respond to the secular question …
“At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

If the Catholic Church dodges the corollary question …
“At what point does limiting family size become acting responsibly, in your view?”

With the same secular answer …
“Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.”

The point of this thread is to explore how the Catholic Church plainly responds to the question of responsible parenthood versus planned parenthood.

 

[Corki]

I don’t understand the “vs”. Isn’t planned parenthood (chosing when and how many children to have) just a subset of responsible parenthood?

 

[wynnejj]

My understanding of “responsible parenthood” is the idea that one can limit family size within Catholic guidelines if the married couple mutually decide to abstain from sexual relations, whether permanently or temporarily. Catholic guidelines of “responsible parenthood” are a subset of secular guidelines of “planned parenthood” due to the more restrictive rules regarding limiting family size.

 

[OscarsMama]

IThe Catholic Church can’t convincingly respond to the secular question …
“At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”

If the Catholic Church dodges the corollary question …
“At what point does limiting family size become acting responsibly, in your view?”

.

Pardon me if I fail to understand your OP.

A baby gets human rights when they are human. That is the moment of conception. The belief that a baby in the first few weeks is a “potential human” doesn’t make sense. There is NOT chance that it is going to be anything else. People don’t give birth to puppies, birds, or turtles. . So, a human being deserves human rights. That’s plain and simple.

Catholics can limit family size though NFP. You are right. It is probably not smart to have 14 children if you are homeless and can’t even feed yourself. That is where NFP comes in. I think that it is a misconception that people think that Catholics believe that we should breed like rats p). Not true. Catholics believe that we should be responsible; by practicing NFP.

As for information or specifics about NFP, you will have to ask somebody who is married or has children. I have neither. Oscar is my dog!!!

 

[wynnejj]

Catholics can limit family size though NFP. You are right. It is probably not smart to have 14 children if you are homeless and can’t even feed yourself. That is where NFP comes in. I think that it is a misconception that people think that Catholics believe that we should breed like rats p). Not true. Catholics believe that we should be responsible; by practicing NFP.

Maybe, I’m wrong but I think that the RCC really provides no direction in whether or not to limit family size, just how not to do it. To mutually agree to abstain, whether temporarily or permanently, is the only permitted method of limiting family size for a married couple.

The gist of this thread is where is there some “specificity” about when a married couple should limit family size in order to act responsibly.

Is a newborn child always a blessing and never a curse, and is having more children always a blessing and never a curse? If the answer to both questions is “yes”, then when is limiting family size ever acting responsibly - that is, one has a moral duty to limit family size?

 

[SonCatcher]

Maybe, I’m wrong but I think that the RCC really provides no direction in whether or not to limit family size, just how not to do it. To mutually agree to abstain, whether temporarily or permanently, is the only permitted method of limiting family size for a married couple.

The gist of this thread is where is there some “specificity” about when a married couple should limit family size in order to act responsibly.

Is a newborn child always a blessing and never a curse, and is having more children always a blessing and never a curse? If the answer to both questions is “yes”, then when is limiting family size ever acting responsibly - that is, one has a moral duty to limit family size?

The answer to both is indeed “yes.” However, even though the addition of a new life is a greater good, if the addition impedes the family from properly maintaining the good that is meeting the needs of those with whom they have already been entrusted, it is prudent to delay until such a time those needs can be met.

How about an allegory with the work world: Would you want a CEO who lacks training and experience for the job? I suppose not. Learning to responsibly manage a company starts at the bottom. You would want someone who perhaps started as a clerk, technician or such. As his skills grew and he outshone the others, it would be acceptable to give him a position of greater responsibility, but not right to the top. Let him manage a small team, first and prove himself there. If he is good over a small department, try him in a larger one. With each move, he attains greater ability to manage larger groups. Eventually, he can run the whole company. Others, however, will find their abilities maxed out at a lower level (some never even moving beyond their initial stage). None of them is inferior in any way and each should be able to discern his own limit and seek out promotion based on that.

Applying this to families, each couple needs to take stock of their whole situation before determining whether to have a(nother) child. They have the right and responsibility to.

 

[Corki]

Maybe, I’m wrong but I think that the RCC really provides no direction in whether or not to limit family size, just how not to do it. To mutually agree to abstain, whether temporarily or permanently, is the only permitted method of limiting family size for a married couple.

The gist of this thread is where is there some “specificity” about when a married couple should limit family size in order to act responsibly.

Is a newborn child always a blessing and never a curse, and is having more children always a blessing and never a curse? If the answer to both questions is “yes”, then when is limiting family size ever acting responsibly - that is, one has a moral duty to limit family size?

Oh, I see where you are going.

The Church addresses this from several directions

Humanae Vitae – Pope Paul VI

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, #50 – Document of Vatican II

They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself.

Familiaris Consortio – Blessed Pope John Paul II

On the one hand, in fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, to promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society.

Caritas in Veritate – Pope Benedict XVI

Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic resource. Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not least to the size of their population and the talents of their people.

Here’s a good summary

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=347

 

[Dawnia]

One of the problems with planning parenthood, in the US anyway, is that one day you can be a multimillionaire and the next a homeless beggar. That is pretty extreme, but it occasionally happens. There are too many things beyond your control to wait until you have the perfect job (which you could loose), the right amount of money (which could be eaten by unexpected expenses, living in the perfect place, etc, you could be waiting forever. And if you do have the resources to support 14 kids and then your employer goes belly up is that poor planning on your part because you should have been able to predict the future?

In the case of whether you should bring a child into the world or not, you just have to trust in God because there is no way you can plan for all the things that life will bring your way.

Why doesn’t the Church tell anyone when they should or shouldn’t have children? Because it’s God’s job to decide that.

 

[wynnejj]

The answer to both is indeed “yes.” However, even though the addition of a new life is a greater good, if the addition impedes the family from properly maintaining the good that is meeting the needs of those with whom they have already been entrusted, it is prudent to delay until such a time those needs can be met.

Let me say this about prudent family planning.

Once upon a time there was a predominantly Christian society that produced babies the natural way. They married early according to their natural biological clocks. They accepted children with surprise like all the other animals in the animal kingdom. Those young couples were hardly ready for marriage but they struggled and persevered and generally maintained family stability. The divorce rate was much lower then, and people marvelled at the tabloids describing the high divorce rate of the entertainment industry. What was their problem?

Then there was a notion of “quality of life over quantity of life”. Christians questioned whether contraception within marriage should be considered acceptable. It was generally agreed by many Christian denominations that it was acting responsibly to limit family size and to space children via contraception. The Catholic Church officially said “NO” with much disagreement internally, and the teaching was not pushed at the local level.

Before long, dual-income no-kids (DINKs) became fashionable and man and wife were now part of the workforce. With fewer kids and more time to work, technology advanced and the educational requirements grew. Young adults needed advanced degrees to compete in the job market, which generally required deferring marriage and children placing a strain on their natural biological clocks. No problem. It is now acting responsibly to defer marriage and children in order to gain an education. The Christian community generally turns a blind eye to the situation where kids start to cohabit and contracept in pre-marital relationships in their co-ed dorms. Knowing full well that these relationships were against official Christianity, habitually living the lie led to questioning the integrity of Christian authority, which leads to leaving the Church. Christianity is now both irreverent and irrelevant.

Planned Parenthood markets the idea of acting responsibly through family planning. To promote business, they actively promote promiscuity which leads to abortions. Now people marvel at the news reports describing our own high divorce rates, single parent difficulties, and the need for abortion, with news commentary about political solutions by the entertainment industry. What is our problem?

I’m wondering whether prudent family planning is NO family planning.

 

[Corki]

Let me say this about prudent family planning.

Once upon a time …

I’m wondering whether prudent family planning is NO family planning.

Once upon a time, there was high infant mortality and most people lived in a rural or agrarian culture. Little was known about birth related maternal health risks.

Once upon a time, Catholic schools were very inexpensive for parishioners and there was no such thing as not being able to “afford” a Catholic education for your children.

Once upon a time, most women married very young, with (if they were lucky) a grade school eduation.

Once upon a time, a couple was considered lucky if their own parents were alive to see their grandchildren.

That was then, this is now.

Much more is known about infant health and how to manage pregnancy risk. But also it’s known that it takes almost 2 years for a woman’s body to recover from a pregnancy.

More people live, due to changes in the economy, in urban settings where every additional person is a large additional expense.

Catholic school is horribly expensive and public school is just horrible.

Women are recognized as intelligent and are well educated. They can “take charge” of thier lives, including their fertility. Barefoot and pregnant is (thankfully) a joke that earns DH a probie slap.

It’s not all about money or quality of life. Many families limit the number of children because of a serious health condidtion of the mother. Others because they have a child with special needs that requires lots of care. Some families care for thier elderly parents in addition to their own children. Some families live on the edge of poverty.

The Church doesn’t give us a table to look up how many kids to have. Nor does she tell us how many is too many or too few. She encourages prudence and responsibility.

The Church does say that in the modern times Catholics have tended to plan too much and trust too little. Many more families probably *should *stop planning and just let God decide.

 

[SonCatcher]

Let me say this about prudent family planning.

Once upon a time there was a predominantly Christian society that produced babies the natural way. They married early according to their natural biological clocks. They accepted children with surprise like all the other animals in the animal kingdom. Those young couples were hardly ready for marriage but they struggled and persevered and generally maintained family stability. The divorce rate was much lower then, and people marvelled at the tabloids describing the high divorce rate of the entertainment industry. What was their problem?

Not sure I understand who you mean by “their.”

Then there was a notion of “quality of life over quantity of life”. Christians questioned whether contraception within marriage should be considered acceptable. It was generally agreed by many Christian denominations that it was acting responsibly to limit family size and to space children via contraception. The Catholic Church officially said “NO” with much disagreement internally, and the teaching was not pushed at the local level.

The Church did and continues to teach that contraception is not moral under any circumstances. The Church also has accepted that couples may have a say in determining the potential size of their families. Traditionally, this has been through complete continence within marriage. With the discovery of fertility science, she has added periodic continence.

Before long, dual-income no-kids (DINKs) became fashionable and man and wife were now part of the workforce. With fewer kids and more time to work, technology advanced and the educational requirements grew. Young adults needed advanced degrees to compete in the job market, which generally required deferring marriage and children placing a strain on their natural biological clocks. No problem. It is now acting responsibly to defer marriage and children in order to gain an education. The Christian community generally turns a blind eye to the situation where kids start to cohabit and contracept in pre-marital relationships in their co-ed dorms. Knowing full well that these relationships were against official Christianity, habitually living the lie led to questioning the integrity of Christian authority, which leads to leaving the Church. Christianity is now both irreverent and irrelevant.

Planned Parenthood markets the idea of acting responsibly through family planning. To promote business, they actively promote promiscuity which leads to abortions. Now people marvel at the news reports describing our own high divorce rates, single parent difficulties, and the need for abortion, with news commentary about political solutions by the entertainment industry. What is our problem?

Those are largely secular problems that the Catholic Church does have a solution for. The challenge is that so many in this fallen world turn a deaf ear.

I’m wondering whether prudent family planning is NO family planning.

Interesting hypothesis. You are welcome to develop it.

Personally, I see the Church’s stance that couples may limit/space children according to their own discernment but only through the use of continence as being a kind of middle road that avoids both laxity and rigorism.

 

[wynnejj]

Here’s a good summary

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=347

Thank you for your references. The article above was particulary interesting.

I found this article as well, very interesting…
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp

God, Sex, and Babies
What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood
By Christopher West

The first sentence sums up my general frustration about Catholic teaching regards sexuality in this confusing era:

*“In my experience sharing Catholic teaching on marital love and sexuality around the world, one thing is certain: Confusion reigns regarding Church teaching on responsible parenthood.”
*
Why is their such confusion? A lot of my frustration with the Catholic teaching is the sense of ambiguity, instead of specificity. And the fact that you can’t a good read on what the Catholic Church teaches from its Catechism.

From the article, it states:
*“If spouses choose to limit family size, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches only that it “is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood” (CCC 2368).”
*
Go to your Catholic Catechism with the question:
“At what point does limiting family size become acting responsibly, in your view? For example, should we be concerned about overpopulation?”

See if you don’t come back thinking the question was dodged with:
“Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.”

 

[Corki]

Go to your Catholic Catechism with the question:
“At what point does limiting family size become acting responsibly, in your view? For example, should we be concerned about overpopulation?”

See if you don’t come back thinking the question was dodged with:
“Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade.”

How do you go to the Catechism and ask it a question? How do you ask it for its “view”? Whose pay grade?

 

[wynnejj]

Personally, I see the Church’s stance that couples may limit/space children according to their own discernment but only through the use of continence as being a kind of middle road that avoids both laxity and rigorism.

Actually, I do too. I understand that my view of “NO family planning” has a term for it, called “providentialism”. What I have difficulty with, is the lack of specificity in explaining what is considered selfish motivations that are not in accord with responsible parenthood.

And more importantly, when human sexuality is the topic of the day, why is it so hard to get a read from our Catholic Catechism? Why must we resort to difficult to read encyclicals with those little sentences that say so much if you parse it minutely and gather the keywords and cross-reference them with all the encyclicals and pastoral letters that use the keyword (like for example, “solidarity”).

 

[wynnejj]

How do you go to the Catechism and ask it a question? How do you ask it for its “view”? Whose pay grade?

Our president made that answer saying that he would not speak authoritatively because he can’t speak for God. The catechism does speak for God. If you have a burning question about what a Catholic is allowed to do or not do, you go to the catechism to get the view of the Catholic Church. The catechism glosses with the term “responsible parenthood” which turns out has a lot of meaning if one reads other church documents. The president used a gloss to deflect and not answer the question directly.

 

[Corki]

Actually, I do too. I understand that my view of “NO family planning” has a term for it, called “providentialism”. What I have difficulty with, is the lack of specificity in explaining what is considered selfish motivations that are not in accord with responsible parenthood.

And more importantly, when human sexuality is the topic of the day, why is it so hard to get a read from our Catholic Catechism? Why must we resort to difficult to read encyclicals with those little sentences that say so much if you parse it minutely and gather the keywords and cross-reference them with all the encyclicals and pastoral letters that use the keyword (like for example, “solidarity”).

There is no way the Catechism or any other source could make blanket statements about exactly how many kids a given couple should have or when a motivation becomes selfish. This is why Catholics are encouraged to go to frequent Confession and to seek Spiritual direction. If in doubt, ask your priest.

And more importantly, when human sexuality is the topic of the day, why is it so hard to get a read from our Catholic Catechism?

I think part of the answer lies in the fact that the Church and the Catechism are not as obsessed about sex as the average American Catholic.

 

[SonCatcher]

Actually, I do too. I understand that my view of “NO family planning” has a term for it, called “providentialism”. What I have difficulty with, is the lack of specificity in explaining what is considered selfish motivations that are not in accord with responsible parenthood.

And more importantly, when human sexuality is the topic of the day, why is it so hard to get a read from our Catholic Catechism? Why must we resort to difficult to read encyclicals with those little sentences that say so much if you parse it minutely and gather the keywords and cross-reference them with all the encyclicals and pastoral letters that use the keyword (like for example, “solidarity”).

Part of the challenge in defining what is selfish vs what is legitimate is that certain reasons may be alternately one or the other depending upon the circumstances of the couple involved. For example, a doctor might have warned them there is a 75% chance of serious health problems and possibly even death of mother, child or both if she has another pregnancy. One couple might look at that decision and decide it is not worth the risk. Another might look at exactly the same information and decide that, even though serious, the prognosis does not warrant specifically avoiding pregnancy. No one else can interpret that for them. Certainly, any couples in that situation should pray for guidance, however, God does lead people in the same situation different ways.

 

[wynnejj]

I think part of the answer lies in the fact that the Church and the Catechism are not as obsessed about sex as the average American Catholic.

If my kids were obsessed with exploring sexual appetites, as a responsible parent I would be obsessed about making sure my kid understood the rules. The world is obsessed with exploring sexual appetites, so I would expect my Mother the Church, concerned for the welfare of all God’s children, to ensure that the world understands the rules.

Planned Parenthood (the organization) sets the tone clearly as to what it considers to be “responsible parenthood”. That is, for whatever reason a woman wishes to prevent or terminate a pregnancy prior to birth, she has complete reproductive rights.

It seems the Catholic Church has a responsibility to the world to answer clearly her definition of “responsible parenthood”, in terms of reproductive rights.

I don’t think the Catechism fills that role, so I’m trying to scope out what “selfish” motives mean and what “responsible parenthood” means in those official church documents that lend itself to providing those answers.

Many of your references in your first post give me a very good starting point, and I thank you.

 

[wynnejj]

Here’s a good summary

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=347

From the above article with my commentary…

The Church has always stressed the moral responsibility involved in the decision to conceive a child, and Humanae Vitae outlines the following areas of parental responsibility (#10):

• Biological: “With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person.”
  (Translation: No “kinky” sex.)
• Emotional: “With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.”
  (Translation: If your wife says she has a headache, take her word for it.)
• Attendant Conditions: “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”
  (Translation: Don’t be too liberal or too conservative in your personal choice of family size.)
• Objective Moral Order: “Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.”
  (Translation: Make time for your family and raise your kids properly.)

The Pope concludes:

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (#10)
(Translation: We’ve got the information somewhere in our archives. Wait. Maybe I lent it out to your parish priest.)

 

[wynnejj]

One of the problems with planning parenthood, in the US anyway, is that one day you can be a multimillionaire and the next a homeless beggar. That is pretty extreme, but it occasionally happens. There are too many things beyond your control to wait until you have the perfect job (which you could loose), the right amount of money (which could be eaten by unexpected expenses, living in the perfect place, etc, you could be waiting forever. And if you do have the resources to support 14 kids and then your employer goes belly up is that poor planning on your part because you should have been able to predict the future?

In the case of whether you should bring a child into the world or not, you just have to trust in God because there is no way you can plan for all the things that life will bring your way.

Why doesn’t the Church tell anyone when they should or shouldn’t have children? Because it’s God’s job to decide that.

I’m pre-disposed to trust to Divine Providence completely. One of the articles I read called it “providentialism”, and suggested that circumstances need to be assessed realistically without selfish motivations for the married couple to decide whether to have a baby. If there are “serious reasons” not to have more children, then married couples actually have a responsibility to use good judgement as to whether they should abstain from sex until or when circumstances change for the better. Financial responsibility considerations should be weighed, I suspect, against the basic needs of the rest of the family.