Spouses obligation to having more children

[Doc_Keele]

Who has said this? You directly implied I did. I did no such thing. Do you often ridicule (your word, not mine) people and make false accusations? You find this right?

I have not implied that you did
If I wanted to say that you had, I would come out and say it. Believe me.

 

[tafan]

I have not implied that you did
If I wanted to say that you had, I would come out and say it. Believe me.

In post #52 you quoted me and said “I have seen people seriously say that even NFP cannot be used unless there is a “serious” reason this amounts to treating women as baby factories”. Well, I had said that NFP could only be used for serious reasons, this is the church’s position. And then in post #54 you stated you were responding to the “poster”, obviously me since that is who you quoted. So you most certainly did imply to that, there is no need to try to weasel your way out of it now.

 

[choose_to_love]

Doc and Rascal: you are knocking down straw men, repeatedly. No one is saying a couple must have as many children as possible, be pregnant 90% of adult life, etc.

Doc: “I am not advocating any particular set of criteria” - - punting on that one? Come on, we as Christians see a baby as a new immortal soul, and there is a positive command in Scripture to be fruitful and mulitply. This is a serious matter. Yes, it can be taken out of proportion, in either direction, but it is a serious and important matter.

It seems to me this attitude is a reflection of present times where sex is seen as a recreational activity (not imputing that view to you or Rascal particularly), and the obvious connection between sex and babies is denied. It denies also the sacramental character of sex.

Doc, you may be interested in JP II’s Theology of the Body, where he discusses our creation as male and female as imaging the Trinitarian nature of God, the eternal exchange of love so real that it is the Holy Spirt (vast oversimplification), if you haven’t read about it already, for some of the theological background to the Catholic position.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc and Rascal: you are knocking down straw men, repeatedly. No one is saying a couple must have as many children as possible, be pregnant 90% of adult life, etc

That was the implication of some of the statements made on thsi thread. Maybe the posters worded their statements badly, but that was the apparent meaning.

Doc: “I am not advocating any particular set of criteria” - - punting on that one?

Not sure what you mean here? I am not using a punt, or betting?

Come on, we as Christians see a baby as a new immortal soul, and there is a positive command in Scripture to be fruitful and mulitply

Right, a commandment in the Old Testament. Is it relevant to us under the New Covenant?

 

[Doc_Keele]

In post #52 you quoted me and said “I have seen people seriously say that even NFP cannot be used unless there is a “serious” reason this amounts to treating women as baby factories”. Well, I had said that NFP could only be used for serious reasons, this is the church’s position. And then in post #54 you stated you were responding to the “poster”, obviously me since that is who you quoted. So you most certainly did imply to that, there is no need to try to weasel your way out of it now.

Keep your hair on, tafan
If you were one of those who made posts that suggested that women must keeping churning out babies then yes I do ridicule your position - no weasel words at all. Happy?

It is effectively chaining women to the kitchen sink, unless the definition of a “serious reason” is so elastic as to render the qualification almost meaningless?

 

[tafan]

Keep your hair on, tafan
If you were one of those who made posts that suggested that women must keeping churning out babies then yes I do ridicule your position - no weasel words at all. Happy?

It is effectively chaining women to the kitchen sink, unless the definition of a “serious reason” is so elastic as to render the qualification almost meaningless?

Doc Keele, neither I nor anyone else on this thread has posted anything that implied women “must keep churning out babies”. Its not that long of a thread, seems like you could clarify exactly who you are ridiculing.

Since you probably won’t do so, I will try to help out.

I have seen people seriously say that even NFP cannot be used unless there is a “serious” reason
this amounts to treating women as baby factories

So, because of your admitted lack of understanding of the church’s position, you do think I am one of those posters. So you were ridiculing me. which is exacly what you said in post #54, so this is nothing new.

So we are back to one of my first responses to your posts, you need to have a little better informed conscience relative to catholic moral teaching, at least on this subject. I think choose_to+love has given you some good suggestions.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I have **not **admitted “lack of understanding” tafan.
I think and other people have come to the same conclusion that saying that NFP can only be used for “serious reasons” amounts to demeaning women by consigning to a life of having babies, unless “serious reasons” has such a woolly definition as to be meaningless.

I don’t why you feel the need to labour the point as I have quite cheerfully admitting ridiculing you I made myself perfectly clear.

My conscience is informed thanks tafan. Just not moulded.

 

[Rence]

This thread is very confusing to me, even with quotes out of the catechism and other Vatican material.

On the one hand people are saying that it’s okay to limit children if there are serious reasons, but no one is agreeing on what that means. And when one person lists serious reasons, others claim they’re not serious. Some people are saying it depends on the circumstances, and others are implying that anything but a ‘serious’ reason is selfish. Again, no one can agree with what “serious” is.

Then on the other side are those that say you have to keep churning out kids, and if you decide ‘enough is enough’ that you must be celibate in the marriage…which I agree, is treating a woman like a baby-making factory. Married people should enjoy marital relations, even if they decide not to have 5+ kids.

Considering how many Catholic women are on birth control, and considering how few families have more than 2-3 kids…do you think Catholics at large agrees with all this? or follow it? Really, where do you all live that all these families have 5,6,7, 10+ kids? how many families do all of you know with that many kids? I only know ONE Catholic family with 19 children. And other has 7 kids. I don’t know anyone with more than 2-3 kids other than these two families.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes, without a definition of what “serious reasons” are, the qualification is irrelevant.

 

[tafan]

I belabor the point because you still seem to think that the church’s position should be rridiculed. I happen to think that when people, such as you, attack the church’s teaching, it is worth defending. You can see from the Bookcat’s post #19 that the church’s position is exactly what you dispute and ridicule. I started out on this thread hoping to better understand the position myself. It was a rather profitable endeavor until you came along.
Doc Keele:

I have not admitted “lack of understanding” tafan.

Why do you insist on changing your statements?
Doc Keele:

Well I’m commenting on the basis of poster’s comments. Whether these represent official Church teaching or not**, I don’t know**, but that wasn’t the point I was making. I was criticising the posters’ position.

(emphasis added)

 

[Doc_Keele]

I belabor the point because you still seem to think that the church’s position should be ridiculed

No, I don’t. I think the position proposed by some posters should be ridiculed.

It was a rather profitable endeavor until you came along

Do I look bothered?

Why do you insist on changing your statements?

I haven’t. I didn’t post “I am really confused on this issue” did I?

 

[tafan]

Doc Keele:

No, I don’t. I think the position proposed by some posters should be ridiculed.

Lets back uy. I will stop making assumptions about your point of view based on your previous (explicit) statements. What is the position(s) proposed by some posters which should be ridiculed?

 

[Doc_Keele]

The idea that couples must not use NFP and therefore keep procreating unless there are “serious reasons”. It disproportionately affects women, unless there is some loophole in “serious reasons” that I’m missing?

 

[Bookcat]

This thread is very confusing to me, even with quotes out of the catechism and other Vatican material.

On the one hand people are saying that it’s okay to limit children if there are serious reasons, but no one is agreeing on what that means. And when one person lists serious reasons, others claim they’re not serious. Some people are saying it depends on the circumstances, and others are implying that anything but a ‘serious’ reason is selfish. Again, no one can agree with what “serious” is. .

The serious reasons that the Church teaches are required to avoid via NFP …must be judged with an informed conscience …guided by the virtue of prudence…by the married couple themselves (before God). Another may not be able to understand their judgment…and what may be serious for one is not serious for another.

of course this does not mean that a couple who do not have serious reasons must actively try hard to conceive by having a many marital relations during fertile time as possible… many do not get pregnant for years of normal relations…

From the Compendium of the Catechism:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

 

[tafan]

The idea that couples must not use NFP and therefore keep procreating unless there are “serious reasons”. It disproportionately affects women, unless there is some loophole in “serious reasons” that I’m missing?

Bear with me a moment, I am just trying to be precise. So the following shoudl be ridiculed?

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Well this particular clause is interesting - “when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons”. This seems to be implying that any reason for practising NFP that is not “out of selfishness” is serious. I find that a rather odd definition of serious, if that is the meaning.

 

[tafan]

Well this particular clause is interesting - “when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons”. This seems to be implying that any reason for practising NFP that is not “out of selfishness” is serious. I find that a rather odd definition of serious, if that is the meaning.

Now you are backing off your ridicule? It is what we have been saying from the start. It would seem your statement in post 54 where you admitted to not knowing the church’s teaching was correct afterall, later denial notwithstanding.

And of course, you sudden inspiration should be obvious to most, if it is not done for selfish reasons, it stands to reason that for most people, there is some “serious reason” behind it. But that would require thought on your part, and you don’t seem to interested in that (since I have tried to point that post out to you 2 or 3 times before and you wouldn’t even go back and read).

 

[tafan]

Actually, the more I think about it, the less it seems the clause should be odd at all. I can’t think of any reason for not having more kids that would not fall into one of the 2 categories of selfish or serious? Anyone have any examples that come to mind?

 

[hellopeople]

Actually, the more I think about it, the less it seems the clause should be odd at all. I can’t think of any reason for not having more kids that would not fall into one of the 2 categories of selfish or serious? Anyone have any examples that come to mind?

Apparently selfish is “if more kids would interfere with your life”

 

[Rence]

The serious reasons that the Church teaches are required to avoid via NFP …must be judged with an informed conscience …guided by the virtue of prudence…by the married couple themselves (before God). Another may not be able to understand their judgment…and what may be serious for one is not serious for another.

That’s what I thought, but it seems there’s always someone who will argue that a couple’s judgement is made without a “serious” enough reason Thanks for reinforcing what I thought. I guess for every one person empathetic to another’s hardships, there will always be another someone who will be uncharitable to throw confusion in the mix.