Responsible Parenthood versus Planned Parenthood

[SonCatcher]

The United Nations certainly is not a moral authority to guide people on how to discern their family size (as far as I know, most Catholics don’t consider them to be one and those who do likely have far larger spiritual issues). The U.N. are free to educate on the concerns of land use, resource distribution, etc., but that is hardly the same thing.

As for your assertion that the Magisterium dodges specific issues in discussing how couples should discern family size, I do not think it accurate. The Church recognizes that the families in question need to weight all factors according to their conscience and act accordingly. The Church is interested primarily that those consciences are well-formed in the first place (or, at least, that the couples will recognize when their conscience is faulty and seek sound guidance that is particular to their situation). The Church, Magisterium, even the Papacy are all in place to facilitate proper relationship between the individual Catholic and God. They do not control how the individual Catholic responds to that relationship nor should they.

 

[wynnejj]

As for your assertion that the Magisterium dodges specific issues in discussing how couples should discern family size, I do not think it accurate.

The Church does not spell out the specific reasons and is ambiguous when it speaks to duty to human society in the order of moral criteria. I have seen no papal document or even commentary that says that a married couple should not consider potential overpopulation as a serious reason for limiting family size as a moral duty to human society. I’m sure I could scare up religious commentary quite readily to support the opinion of the commentators about how to read the papal documents, but official words have official meaning and lack of words have no meaning. There is a wealth of words out there to comment on a dearth of official words.

There is such a thing as a just war that does not include war engage for a potential threat to a nation’s or world’s welfare. Where are the words that say one should not fight a war on population due to a potential threat to a nation’s or world’s welfare?

 

[wynnejj]

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

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.

[bibledrb]Genesis 9:1[/bibledrb]

The bible says that there is indeed a full capacity of the earth with the words “fill the earth”. Mathematical, statistical, and scientific analysis - which operates on reason without faith - suggests to many in these disciplines that we may indeed hit our full earthly carrying capacity in the not too far distant future. The question is when, not if, from a Biblical perspective, it seems.

Why does the Church not teach parenthood as a national or global issue, in light of overpopulation concerns?

The “Overpopulation is a Myth” view fails on Myth #1, in my view, by saying that the U.N.'s population forecasts show a constant trend of decreasing population growth rate. The suggestion is that the world population will level out in the near future, then decline.

The myth view uses this as an argument against the need to limit family size as an overpopulation concern. But the very trend is a result of pro-active family planning due to world-wide concern.

 

[wynnejj]

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.

A(nother) child? Just to clarify, I think there must be an intention for at least one child minimally. There may be valid reasons for a temporary postponement for the first child which may end up indefinite, but not a eugenics reason to enter the marriage contract to intend on NO children.

Q. Would you marry me knowing that there is juvenile diabetes rampant in my family history?
A. Sure, with NFP 99% effective, we can enjoy the unitive aspects without fear of the procreative aspects.

Canon 1101.2, as grounds for annulment, may come into play if one or both parties had a positive intention not to have children under any circumstances :

If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.

Which explains the use of “additional children” in Humanae Vitae where it states with regard to “responsible parenthood”:

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.

 

[wynnejj]

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

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.

The fact is that family planning is necessary in the current world for overpopulation concerns, and different countries feel it more acutely than others, as acknowledged in the encyclical “Familiaris Consortio”.

1. The Church is certainly aware of the many complex problems which couples in many countries face today in their task of transmitting life in a responsible way. ***She also recognizes the serious problem of population growth in the form it has taken in many parts of the world ***and its moral implications.

This quote seems to acknowledge that local concerns of overpopulation are indeed a “serious reason” for the interests of human society such that a wealthy person in a country with severe resources concerns due to overpopulation might choose to limit their family size regardless of their family unit’s capacity to take on the responsibility of another child.