Responsible Parenthood versus Planned Parenthood

[Corki]

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.)

Translation: the above is probably enough information for 90% of married couples to make informed decsions. If your situation is more complex and you need more specific information, please consult your priest of spiritual director.

PS None of the information is hard to find. 20 minutes with a search engine will get you tons of information. Some of it, especially that written by the Popes is lengthy (but then you wanted specifics, right?). Most of what has been written has been interpreted into simpler terms as you found out with the Christopher West article.

 

[wynnejj]

When I started this thread, my motivation was see if the Catholic Church speaks to the issues of our day, in plain language, about what constitute “acting responsibly in limiting family size”.

My understanding is that Catholics are expected to enter marriage with a complete open-ness to having children. Intrinsically, I know that there are serious reasons that married couples may have to stop having children temporarily or even permanently, during the course of their marriage. Nevertheless, the spirit of the marriage covenant is and has always been “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it.”. In other words, be generous and only hold back for serious reasons. Anything less is contrary to spirit of marriage which is to model the marriage convenant of Christ and His Church. A key point that I want to stress here is that overpopulation and eugenic concerns are NOT serious reasons to limit the family size in the context of “responsible parenthood”.

Planned Parenthood markets their agenda of population control and eugenics with the concept of “responsible parenthood” - the woman’s choice answer to population control and eugenics.

Does the Catholic Catechism and the Magisterium make it clear that overpopulation and eugenic concerns are NOT serious reasons to limit family size in the context of “responsible parenthood”? For example, if juvenile diabetes runs rampant in your family, could you decide to not have children? If you now have 4 kids and want no more, could you justify not having more children for altruistic reasons of population control?

 

[SonCatcher]

Does the Catholic Catechism and the Magisterium make it clear that overpopulation and eugenic concerns are NOT serious reasons to limit family size in the context of “responsible parenthood”? For example, if juvenile diabetes runs rampant in your family, could you decide to not have children? If you now have 4 kids and want no more, could you justify not having more children for altruistic reasons of population control?

As far as I have understood the message it does. Those concerns are usually not in the forefront to any given couple so they are better targeted toward those for whom the concern is dear.

The challenge is in discerning who actually needs the guidance.

 

[wynnejj]

Planet Un-Parenthood
The Myths of Overpopulation
By Fr. Frank Pavone

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0812fea2.asp

It seems to me, that Father Frank Pavone is implying that parents have a right to limit family size for reasons of population control.

That is, NFP for population control reasons may be “serious reasons”.

“Parents have a fundamental right to control their reproductive system and determine the number and spacing of children. Pro-abortion groups would be surprised to know what the Church really teaches in this regard. They have hijacked the term “reproductive rights,” but the Church really believes in such rights, which, of course, need to be exercised in such a way that couples never distort the meaning of human sexuality by impairing their fertility, nor ever kill their offspring, born or unborn.” - Father Frank Pavone

 

[estesbob]

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?”

At conception

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

Not one more or one less than god wants them to have
G

 

[wynnejj]

Not one more or one less than god wants them to have.

Just married. Mutually agreed to remain as permanently celibate partners for population control concerns never to have children. Is that what God wants? Is that OK in terms of “responsible parenthood” (seems like an oxymoron in the context)?

How about a strict regimen of NFP until death do us part for population control reasons?
“Serious reason” - generous without selfish motivations?

 

[Corki]

Planet Un-Parenthood
The Myths of Overpopulation
By Fr. Frank Pavone

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0812fea2.asp

It seems to me, that Father Frank Pavone is implying that parents have a right to limit family size for reasons of population control.

That is, NFP for population control reasons may be “serious reasons”.

“Parents have a fundamental right to control their reproductive system and determine the number and spacing of children. Pro-abortion groups would be surprised to know what the Church really teaches in this regard. They have hijacked the term “reproductive rights,” but the Church really believes in such rights, which, of course, need to be exercised in such a way that couples never distort the meaning of human sexuality by impairing their fertility, nor ever kill their offspring, born or unborn.” - Father Frank Pavone

When you add on the very next paragraph, you see that Fr. Pavone is not advocting population control at all.

Therefore the Church opposes any government plan to try to control fertility by placing limits on parents’ God-given right to procreate and educate their children. Population control policies exhibit, in Mosher’s words, a “technocratic paternalism,” which subjugates family and individual fertility to the wishes of the state.

Whether it is a couple making the decision or the government, controlling fertility to conform with “the wishes of the state” would be wrong.

There are going to be people in some parts of the world that prudently decide to keep their familly size small due to infrastucture issues. (not enough local resources) This isn’t a legitimate line of reasoning for most of the Western world.

And, of course, in places like China where having another child could lead to persecution, a couple would be justified to limit the size of their family.

For example, if juvenile diabetes runs rampant in your family, could you decide to not have children?

Are you trying to equate this to eugenics? Eugenics involves a systematic plan to improve the population. The decision of an individual couple to not bring children with a birth defect into the world is not eugenics.

 

[wynnejj]

When you add on the very next paragraph, you see that Fr. Pavone is not advocting population control at all.

The article starts with individuals voluntarily sterilizing themselves for environmental / overpopulation reasons, talks about the overpopulation myth, then makes the statement that suggests that the church accords married couples full “reproductive rights” in limiting children, then talks about society / state has no right to interfere with any decisions in that regards. It reads to me like he’s saying married couples can make a decision to limit family for overpopulation reasons, based on the beginning of the article, but no outside agency has any right to force any decision on them.

Whether it is a couple making the decision or the government, controlling fertility to conform with “the wishes of the state” would be wrong.

There are going to be people in some parts of the world that prudently decide to keep their familly size small due to infrastucture issues. (not enough local resources) This isn’t a legitimate line of reasoning for most of the Western world.

And, of course, in places like China where having another child could lead to persecution, a couple would be justified to limit the size of their family.

I think your analysis of the intent of the church is correct.

Are you trying to equate this to eugenics? Eugenics involves a systematic plan to improve the population. The decision of an individual couple to not bring children with a birth defect into the world is not eugenics.

Eugenics is the science of breeding man to remove defects. But, I think you are right that the implication is that there is outside state / society coercion.

Interestingly, there’a a book entitied “Searchlights on Health: The Science of Eugenics” by B. G. Jefferis and J. L. Nichols (copyright 1920) that is basically about predominant Protestant Christian values where they suggest that one should select their marriage partner for “good breeding” characteristics, or voluntarily avoid marriage for the good of society if you have serious defects.

gutenberg.org/files/13444/13444-h/13444-h.htm

 

[wynnejj]

Is it “beyond the paygrade” of the Catholic Church to tell married couples NOT to limit their family size for environmental population control reasons “with specificity” in that it is not a valid “serious reason”, even though it may have a dubious unselfish aspect to it, and that “world population” is not what is meant by “temporal society” considerations?

The bishops have put together guidelines of “responsible parenthood”. So, is overpopulation a valid “serious reason”?
usccb.org/prolife/issues/nfp/ResponsibleParenthood.pdf

Let them [husband and wife] 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. (GS, #50)

Pope John Paul II gave this summary of “responsible parenthood”. So, is overpopulation a valid “serious reason”?
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TB116.HTM

From this it follows that the concept of responsible parenthood contains the disposition not merely to avoid a further birth but also to increase the family in accordance with the criteria of prudence. In this light in which the question of responsible parenthood must be examined and decided, there is always of paramount importance “the objective moral order instituted by God, the order of which a right conscience is the true interpreter” (HV 10).

The commitment to 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” (HV 10). One cannot therefore speak of acting arbitrarily.

“Not merely to avoid a birth but also to increase the family” is talking about the greater general welfare of the whole human family in solidarity, including the interests of husband & wife, current children, temporal society and the Church herself. Sounds like a little like “Faithful Citizenship” idea of “proportionate reasoning” left to the voter’s conscience. Clear as mud to me!

I totally disagree with JPII’s assertion:

The Council document, in limiting itself to recalling the necessary premises for responsible parenthood, has set them out in a completely unambiguous manner, clarifying the constitutive elements of such parenthood, that is, the mature judgment of the personal conscience in relationship to the divine law, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium of the Church.

I think that it is obvious that Fr. Frank Pavone’s statement suggests that Church and State have no right to influence population control decisions, and that the married couple themselves may indeed regulate their births for population control reasons with full “reproductive rights”, but there are Catholic restrictions on how to do it.

catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0812fea2.asp

Parents have a fundamental right to control their reproductive system and determine the number and spacing of children. Pro-abortion groups would be surprised to know what the Church really teaches in this regard. They have hijacked the term “reproductive rights,” but the Church really believes in such rights, which, of course, need to be exercised in such a way that couples never distort the meaning of human sexuality by impairing their fertility, nor ever kill their offspring, born or unborn.

Conclusion: In reality, the threat of overpopulation is a recognized concern in the Magisterium’s view. They have allowed married couples full reproductive rights in terms of limiting family, and the ends can be the good of society as well as the family, with the restriction that the means are the product of chastity.

 

[Sullibe]

I’m confused. I"m still trying to figure out how Fr. Pavone’s paragraph, the one you quoted is equated at all to population control.

“Parents have a fundamental right to control their reproductive system and determine the number and spacing of children. Pro-abortion groups would be surprised to know what the Church really teaches in this regard. They have hijacked the term “reproductive rights,” but the Church really believes in such rights, which, of course, need to be exercised in such a way that couples never distort the meaning of human sexuality by impairing their fertility, nor ever kill their offspring, born or unborn.” - Father Frank Pavone

I read that paragraph as indicating that it is within the rights of a married couple to postpone, delay, space or indefinitely abstain from having children if they (the couple) feel that they are unable to take care of and provide for more children than they already have. But that only has to do with the couple and their family. Perhaps having a 4th child or a 5th child will place an undue burden either financial, mentally, emotionally, or even physically on the parents or even the other children. Limiting family size is perfectly valid in those situations, and it has nothing to do with the population of the earth.

 

[wynnejj]

I’m confused. I"m still trying to figure out how Fr. Pavone’s paragraph, the one you quoted is equated at all to population control.

“Parents have a fundamental right to control their reproductive system and determine the number and spacing of children. Pro-abortion groups would be surprised to know what the Church really teaches in this regard. They have hijacked the term “reproductive rights,” but the Church really believes in such rights, which, of course, need to be exercised in such a way that couples never distort the meaning of human sexuality by impairing their fertility, nor ever kill their offspring, born or unborn.” - Father Frank Pavone

I read that paragraph as indicating that it is within the rights of a married couple to postpone, delay, space or indefinitely abstain from having children if they (the couple) feel that they are unable to take care of and provide for more children than they already have. But that only has to do with the couple and their family. Perhaps having a 4th child or a 5th child will place an undue burden either financial, mentally, emotionally, or even physically on the parents or even the other children. Limiting family size is perfectly valid in those situations, and it has nothing to do with the population of the earth.

Father Frank Pavone is not required for the purposes of an article to be comprehensive and legalistic in his statements. Consequently, he may have tried to get an idea across without much detail that could be misleading. In the context of the article, he talks about folks who had themselves sterilized for environmental population control reasons. Then he talks about how overpopulation is a myth. Then he equates Planned Parenthood’s concept of “reproductive rights” of a woman’s right to full control as to whether to have a baby, with the idea that Catholicism has similar idea, but it is the married couple who has full authority governed by their conscience informed by Catholic guidelines as to whether to have a baby, but the means has to be through abstinence or NFP. The way it was stated gives that impression. At least, in the context of the whole article, it sure seems that way.

The theme of this thread is that nowhere in the church documents that describe “responsible parenthood” and the regulation of births, does it give any indication that if someone is an environmental population control believer that they should NOT be able to exercise their conscience in this regard as a “serious reason” for severely limiting their family size. In that sense, they believe they are being “generous” in the spirit of solidarity (all for all) and the common good of society, without selfish motivations.

 

[wynnejj]

When married couples say they have a large family, there is a common perception in modern society’s mindset, and among many Catholic peers, that there is something wrong with that. That in some way the married couple is not being responsible as a world citizen. It is commonly understood that decent folk limit their family size to some reasonable number, say 4. So it is not too far a leap that a wealthy couple who have plenty of resources to raise a large family would feel that it is incumbent upon them for the good of society as a “serious reason” to limit their family.

Does the Church in anyway refute this? Where? If not, is this not a tacit indication that the Church recognizes that limiting family size is a world concern? So overpopulation is not myth, eh - despite protestations to the contrary in defense of our anti-abortion arguments.

 

[wynnejj]

Once upon a time …

That was then, this is now.

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.

“Once upon a time” was in my memory … my formative years of 1950s and 1960s … before the notion of family planning worldwide was in full vogue. The divorce rate was more like 25%, and few declined to marry in favor of undeclared common-law marriage. Now the divorce rate is more like 50%, and a very high percentage are in common law marriage arrangements.

It is against Catholic doctrine for a woman to “take charge” of their lives in the context of their fertility. The Church has awarded married couples only full authority to mutually agree as one flesh upon decisions of limiting family size or spacing births.

The Church, I believe, has denounced its own authority to force or coerce the conscience of married couples with regards to limiting families, other than to state that the Divine intent of marriage is to be generous with prudence. The Church has also stated that society and their governments should do nothing to “game the system” to force or coerce the decisions of married couples about regulating their births.

A married couple’s view about being a good world citizen in terms of conscience in looking at the whole picture of “responsible parenthood” is held as their full authority in terms of “reproductive rights”, including conscience issues about environmental restraint of too large families and, I suspect, to have no children because of some serious inheritable defect in their family’s history. For unitive aspects, if one adheres to marital chastity and never renders or bars an individual conjugal act from the prospect of a child, then they are fulfilling the minimal requirements of the procreative aspects of the marital contract.

Generosity is to be viewed like charitable generosity - a journey getting closer to the generosity of Christ towards the Church. In this sense, Scott’s CEO allegory makes sense in an earlier post.

 

[Corki]

“Once upon a time” was in my memory … my formative years of 1950s and 1960s … before the notion of family planning worldwide was in full vogue. The divorce rate was more like 25%, and few declined to marry in favor of undeclared common-law marriage. Now the divorce rate is more like 50%, and a very high percentage are in common law marriage arrangements.

Yes, and that is what HV predicted.

It is against Catholic doctrine for a woman to “take charge” of their lives in the context of their fertility. The Church has awarded married couples only full authority to mutually agree as one flesh upon decisions of limiting family size or spacing births.

I’m not sure who you are quoting here. But this is true.

The Church, I believe, has denounced its own authority to force or coerce the conscience of married couples with regards to limiting families, other than to state that the Divine intent of marriage is to be generous with prudence.

The Church is not a policeman. The Church is a teacher. Especially when it comes to informed decision making, the Church, IMHO, does not offer a long list of “thou shalt nots” but rather leads us to the “yes” decisions.

The Church has also stated that society and their governments should do nothing to “game the system” to force or coerce the decisions of married couples about regulating their births.

Do you disagree?

A married couple’s view about being a good world citizen in terms of conscience in looking at the whole picture of “responsible parenthood” is held as their full authority in terms of “reproductive rights”, including conscience issues about environmental restraint of too large families and, I suspect, to have no children because of some serious inheritable defect in their family’s history.

No where does the Church say that environmental issues would be serious reasons to avoid having children. That being said, the Church documents are for the whole world, not just the US or the Western industrialized countries. For me, sitting here in my cozy suburb, the idea that world population numbers or environmental pressure would give me more than a passing thought with regard to family size seems farfetched. But to someone living in a crowded slum, the priorities may be different.

Avoiding passing on inheritable defects to the next generation is responsible. The big “yes” in Catholic teaching on responsible parenthood is to focus on God rather than selfish concerns. It’s not selfish to avoid having a child who faces genetic illness. The danger is a mindset that we only want “perfect” children but that’s another topic entirely.
For unitive aspects, if one adheres to marital chastity and never renders or bars an individual conjugal act from the prospect of a child, then they are fulfilling the minimal requirements of the procreative aspects of the marital contract.

Generosity is to be viewed like charitable generosity - a journey getting closer to the generosity of Christ towards the Church. In this sense, Scott’s CEO allegory makes sense in an earlier post.

The CEO analogy isn’t bad but family is more like an apprenticeship, IMO. Good, responsible parents are created from children in a family that models good, responsible, parenthood.

 

[Corki]

When married couples say they have a large family, there is a common perception in modern society’s mindset, and among many Catholic peers, that there is something wrong with that. That in some way the married couple is not being responsible as a world citizen. It is commonly understood that decent folk limit their family size to some reasonable number, say 4. So it is not too far a leap that a wealthy couple who have plenty of resources to raise a large family would feel that it is incumbent upon them for the good of society as a “serious reason” to limit their family.

If resources were the only factor, what would be the serious reason for such a family to consciously stop at 4 children?

Does the Church in anyway refute this? Where? If not, is this not a tacit indication that the Church recognizes that limiting family size is a world concern? So overpopulation is not myth, eh - despite protestations to the contrary in defense of our anti-abortion arguments.

Yes, the Church refutes this. HV and Casti Canubii refute this. But not in terms of “world concern”. Virtually all of the teaching on parenthood is in terms of the family unit. The Church does not teach parenthood as a national or global issue.

And yes, overpopulation is a myth.

 

[wynnejj]

Yes, the Church refutes this. HV and Casti Canubii refute this. But not in terms of “world concern”

How does it refute this premise? What words have you read that give evidence to your premise in unambiguous language that overpopulation is not a “serious reason” with un-“selfish motivations”? I’ve recently pored over HV, and that is not what I get out of it. I’ve looked at the bishop’s “Responsible Parenthood”, a litany of quotations from church documents pertaining to the subject. I’ve read JPII’s summary from the EWTN link on “responsible parenthood” where he claims the language of our church fathers is unambiguous, but I think not having researched from enough church sources to be conscientious and dutiful for a laymen. There are many aspects, and the whole picture is the concern, from duty to God, yourself, spouse, children, church and society. There is a suggestion of ordering, but no sense of “world concern”, especially in the context of “sodality” (all for all), that overpopulation is a non-issue. In fact, more and more the Magisterium seems to make pronouncements that indicate their concern for environmental issues that were little heard prior to Vatican II.

Show me the words!!! Anybody???

 

[wynnejj]

Here is an interesting phraseology that suggests that the mindset of the authors would not generally adopt this strategy.

Trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice, married Christians
glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human
and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate.
Among the couples who fulfill their God-given task in this way, those merit special
mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to
bring up suitably even a relatively large family. (GS, #50)

When one uses the word “even” as in “even an oversized family compared to the norm”, it could easily be taken as a double meaning. It is ambiguous language that implies that the authors would not generally advise such a course, but if you can pull it off, more power to you and our congratulations. Does it sound like overpopulation is not a concern in the author’s minds? On the other hand, it could simply imply that it may be counter-intuitive to normal sensibilities of society that this is indeed a very laudable thing.

Note: Just how unambiguous would it be if they had omitted “even”. It would be a generally approved affirmation that big families are always best. With “even”, it seems a qualified approval, which may be the very point of its inclusion in the sentence.

 

[wynnejj]

What could this phrase in Humanae Vitae mean, outlining the aspects of responsible parenthood to be considered, other than a population concern either locally or globally?

Your duty to “human society” is a factor in the moral order of priorities in determining your 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.”

What comes to mind is the fact that one may have a public service job that takes away from the married couple’s ability to do their duties, in terms of time and energies, to God, their marriage or family?

This may be obvious to some, but not to others who look at the secular view of “responsible parenthood” as being having less kids to have a more material life with the good feeling that you are not contributing to the so-called world population problem that the United Nation thinks is serious enough reason to force or coerce family planning on nations.

 

[Rence]

I kind of don’t understand what is so upsetting to those who want to have large families with regards to the size of other families. If you are called to have a large family, you will have a large family. Not everyone is called to have a large family. There is no set number of children that one is required by the Church to have or not have. If you want to have ten children, have ten children and God Bless you. Others may not be called to have more than two. But they are blessed as well.

I suppose there are many ways to take the meanings of the rules and guides written in the catechism and encyclicals. When in doubt, I’m sure the family priest or the diocese can answer one’s questions as they pick apart the CCC and encyclicals.

As to considering ‘human society’ when descerning whether to have a child, or another child, perhaps we are to consider the burden on society when we as a family cannot provide for them — making the burden of feeding, clothing, physically and emotionally providing and spiritually providing, a responsibility of “society”. After all, if a parent is overwhelmed and cannot take care of an additional child, someone else will have to. That’s something to consider when deciding to get pregnant.

However, one can’t ignore that some areas of the world are less populated than others. And while we could fit everyone in the world in one State of America and feed those people with all the resources available from the rest of the world, quite frankly, we know that’s not the point because that’s not going to happen. We live where we live, and it usually doesn’t change just so that someone can have ten children unless that’s what they’re called to do. I live in a rural place and I can see my neighbors living 1500 feet away when the cool fall whether starts killing the leaves on the trees. Still, I am not compelled to fill every square foot of dirt with a child. Others live in very crowded conditions, frankly, too crowded for my taste, but to each his or her own. So, considering ‘human society’ may be something that someone living in an overpopulated part of the world, such as China (where people are punished for becoming pregnant) might consider.

Either way, following the golden rule has never failed me. I see people complaining on the forums about how they are looked down on because they have a ‘large’ family. Yet, those same folks are quick to pick apart the CCC and encyclicals and claim that others don’t have a good enough reason to not grow their family as big as theirs. People, those called to have large families are having them. Those called to have smaller families are doing just that. There is no set number of children that is required by the Church.

 

[wynnejj]

Here’s my take on Divine Will. We are told to “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it”, so therefore be generous with prudence, of course, but treat overpopulation as if it is “above your paygrade”, until such time that you hit environmental circumstances in your locale which dictate to you that must limit your family size to meet your responsibilities. In fact, I’m 99% sure that is exactly what we are hearing from the various encyclicals about regulating births.

However, in view of fears of overpopulation being so pervasive due to the hype in our modern society and the fact that the UNFPA is taking it as a “serious reason” to force or coerce family planning decisions, I think that the wording of the CCC and encyclicals that I have read so far make it seem that married couples are free to form their own opinion and take action by limiting their families in order to be a good environmentally sound “world citizen”. That is, the question about whether the Church should advise for or against limiting families for the good of human society as a “serious reason” is simply, with respect to the Magisterium, “above their paygrade”.

The Church, in my opinion, does not want to force or coerce the married couple’s conscience for population or eugenics reason, as they have asked the State not to do.