Unfair choice?

[JRKH]

You have a friend who is critquing Church teaching. The problem is that you seem to want 1. to convince her that she is wrong, and 2. do it from her point of view.

But you can’t really do that… our teachings interlock, you might say, in such a way that you can’t take some of them out and prove them using other criteria, esp criteria which has been philosphically developed by people inimical to Church teaching if not the Church Herself.

So your friend will probably continue to think that Church teaching is unfair, but all you can really do is to explain the Church’s reasoning and then move on.

I used to try to convince people, but what I found was that generally they did not want to consider that maybe the Church was right. So I switched to just explaining Church teaching… not that I always remebered that, but I try to stick to that rule

Good advice…

Peace
James

 

[LilyM]

I’d question the stats about how many children a woman can expect if she doesn’t contracept.

How many modern Western couples get married at 18 or 20 for starters? Average marriage ages are probably late 20s or early 30s, so that’s a few kids less that they’re going to have, and as the 20s are a woman’s most fertile time, that delay makes a significant difference.

Then a woman’s fertility slows down dramatically as she ages. Chances of conception hit a very steep downward spiral once she hits her mid 30s, so it’s not like any woman will be regularly pumping out the baby every so many years even if she has regular sex and doesn’t contracept.

Then again, kids are without doubt a lot more expensive to raise these days than in times past, and we are more aware of the not-always-positive aspects of growing up in a very large family. Those considerations by themselves are legitimate considerations for parents when deciding how many children to have.

 

[carn]

Logic clearly needs to be a required course in schools.

Could you please point out the logical errors?

 

[carn]

I’d question the stats about how many children a woman can expect if she doesn’t contracept.

I mentioned that the choice is abstinence or marriage. If marriage is postponed it will of course reduce the number of children. But assuming marriage happens early i think the stats are not far of. 6-10 children is what a women has in countries, where there are no incentives to limit number of children (assuming the women does not die during child birth because of bad medical conditions).

How many modern Western couples get married at 18 or 20 for starters? Average marriage ages are probably late 20s or early 30s, so that’s a few kids less that they’re going to have, and as the 20s are a woman’s most fertile time, that delay makes a significant difference.

The vast majority of women marrying in their late 20s have sex beforehand. The reason people in former times got married much earlier is because people in former times started having sex about the same age as today. Only they had no or much less efficient contraception and therefore early marriage was encouraged, so out of wedlock children could be avoided.

Does not change that the choice would be abstinence or marriage with children, at least for all beneath 35.

Then again, kids are without doubt a lot more expensive to raise these days than in times past, and we are more aware of the not-always-positive aspects of growing up in a very large family. Those considerations by themselves are legitimate considerations for parents when deciding how many children to have.

As i said, financial resources and mental stability are a legitimate concern. But that also means that with surplus money and a family life with little strife, its more difficult to come up with just reasons.

 

[carn]

Yes there is an answer… The answer is that the Church offers certain guidelines and after that it is up God and the married partners…

But the married partners should make their decision not in violation of these guidelines. Therefore these guidelines limit the choice and together with economic, biological, medical and psychological factors will lead to a certain number of children.

In the individual case we cannot know these factors. But if we know these factors for example by looking at the average case, we can derive an estimate of the number of children couples will have on average, if they follow church teaching.

Its no rocket sciences, we have certain rules of behavior, certain known biological mechanisms and therefore can draw conclusions about the likely result in specific or general cases.

Oh I’m sure that it is not made up. But I’m not sure that this is actually your argument. It sounds more like something that someone else gave you and that you are having trouble refuting…

This detailed argument is mostly mine, but the general line of attack - women should either be nuns or stay at home mums according to church - does not come from someone specific. Its more that its hard to think of anyone i know, who does not have grudge against church along that lines.

The thing to realize is that Everything - From God’s creation, to Jesus incarnation, teaching, death and resurrection, to the written Scripture to the teachings of the Catholic Church ALL stem from the God who IS Love (1 John 4:8). Jesus says in Mt 22:36-40 that everything - all the law and prophets - are built on Love of God and Love of neighbor. St Paul tells us in 1 Cor 13 that all the rest is noisy gong and clanging cymbals without Love.
Remove Love from the equation of understanding these matters, and you are left with Pharasitic Legalism.

But what is the result of love+laws/rules?

Its sounds a bit like the method is:
Rule requires action A.
A has consequence B.
B is not compatible with love.
Therefore we do not need to follow the rule to the letter, because it would conlict with love.

I don’t know about it’s being a “back door” but these elements do exist and so are legitimate factors to be considered in a couple making an informed decision.

It would open up a third option between “nun” (meaning women is abstinent) and stay at hom mum, because if a women had some useful skills in certain areas, she could have less children to have time to further society by working in that field.

So the choice would not be
“nun” or stay-at-home-mum
but:
“nun” or stay-at-home-mum or have-some-children-and-work-in-a-job-you-are-good-at

 

[LilyM]

I mentioned that the choice is abstinence or marriage. If marriage is postponed it will of course reduce the number of children. But assuming marriage happens early i think the stats are not far of. 6-10 children is what a women has in countries, where there are no incentives to limit number of children (assuming the women does not die during child birth because of bad medical conditions).

Uh no - couples who see nothing wrong in premarital sex will certainly not care about the Church’s rules on contraception.

And of the half-dozen or so couples I know directly who were married in the last three generations and obedient to Church teaching, only one falls into your 6-10 children range, the rest being lower. So where are you getting your average from?

Yes, the couples I know who were married before then (great-grandparents and earlier) were more prolific, but there are many other explanations for that than Church teaching - not all of them were devout by any means, not all were even Catholic.

The explanations include very high child mortality, very young marriage (15 or 16 was about average for girls) and the fact that they were farmers who saw children as a source of unpaid labour for their properties - quite literally, like a slaveowner might encourage his slaves to have lots of children. Not pretty but true.

The same applies today in parts of Africa, Asia, the Middle East, India - places where large families are encouraged. The people in these places by and large are not Catholic, so they certainly are uninfluenced by Church teachings on contraception, and surprisingly few are from the one non-Christian faith that also strongly prohibits contraception, Islam. All of which points to the real motivation behind large families being the factors I’ve mentioned.

The vast majority of women marrying in their late 20s have sex beforehand. The reason people in former times got married much earlier is because people in former times started having sex about the same age as today. Only they had no or much less efficient contraception and therefore early marriage was encouraged, so out of wedlock children could be avoided.

Does not change that the choice would be abstinence or marriage with children, at least for all beneath 35.

As i said, financial resources and mental stability are a legitimate concern. But that also means that with surplus money and a family life with little strife, its more difficult to come up with just reasons.

 

[carn]

And of the half-dozen or so couples I know directly who were married in the last three generations and obedient to Church teaching, only one falls into your 6-10 children range, the rest being lower. So where are you getting your average from?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility#Prevalence
“Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. Most couples (about 84 out of every 100) who have regular sexual intercourse (that is, every 2 to 3 days) and who do not use contraception will get pregnant within a year. About 92 out of 100 couples who are trying to get pregnant do so within 2 years.[6]”

Read that at best twice. We know, that having sex every 2 or 3 days results in 84% of cases in pregnancy in the first year.

Therefore we know that is some moral guidelines suggest to have unprotected sex every 2 to 3 days, that of 100 women following these guidelines about 84 will become pregnant. (assuming we have an average sample of women between ~20 and ~40)

So if we know what sexual behavior pattern is suggested by some guidelines, we know (!) how many preganancies are to be expected if 100 women follow these guidelines.

Thats how the argument goes:

Try to derive from catholic teaching what sexual behavior a married women, without mental or health problems and with a well earning and healthy husband, should have according to that teaching.

After deriving this (where i might have made errors, especially i missed that interest of society might play a role) the expected number of children is given by the scientific knowledge about human fertility.

Then in a third step, this is judged as unfair, because the result look limiting for the freedom of women regarding occupation choices compared to what men experience. (This is criticed by Francis as being a completely wrong apporach to the whole issue)

Regarding individual cases:
This argument never allows to state anything about individual cases. At most one could conclude something like this:
There are 100 couples claiming to follow catholic teaching and have always followed it to the letter and claim that the husband is earning more than enough well and do not suffer any psychological or health problems and are married since lets say 20 and are now 40. Yet these 100 couples have only 300 children.
=>
Some of these couples are not telling the truth regarding some matter (e.g. following church teaching, financial situation, health issues).

(And of course that reasoning gets a lot more complicated if the issues of society play a role, as according to the part i missed.)

No conclusion about any individual couple is possible.

And for this reason one cannot see the consequences of following church teachingin the real world, because nearly no one is following it consequently:
livescience.com/13708-catholics-contraceptives.html

"Catholic women overwhelmingly use birth control, despite an official ban by the church, a new study finds.

The study, conducted by reproductive health institute Guttmacher, finds that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning. Only 2 percent of Catholic women have used natural family planning, which involves tracking the menstrual cycle to avoid sex during fertile periods."

But the OP argument is not about how the situation is, but what the situation would be, if church teachings regarding sexuality were followed. Therefore it is along the lines of deriving what behavior follows and what consequences this has. (Yes i know, it would also have vastly positive effects regarding criminality, wealth and diseases.)

 

[LilyM]

So why weren’t all of the couples I know of mine, my parents and grandparents’ generations, who I know were NOT engaging in contraception, popping out dozens of children? Your stats are flawed. I don’t see any indication that they take into account the sharp drop in fertility as women get older.

And I think the answer might also lie in the ‘sex two to three times a week’. A honeymooning couple, or one intent on conceiving, may have sex that often, or even more often, but not everyone does. Just under half of married couples have sex less often than twice a week, so that right there halves, at the very least, their chances of conceiving.

And this figure in itself, since it relies on self-reporting, is probably an overestimate, as people generally don’t want to be seen as lacking in any way in the bedroom department and so will tend to say sex is more frequent than it is in reality.

Now there’s certainly no church teaching stating that a married couple must have intercourse a certain number of times a week, or for that matter even once a year! So a couple who are not practicing contraception have every chance of naturally having a lot less sex during those demanding early childhood years, and certainly are entitled naturally to tone down the frequency when they’re not actively trying for a child.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infertility#Prevalence
“Fertility problems affect one in seven couples in the UK. Most couples (about 84 out of every 100) who have regular sexual intercourse (that is, every 2 to 3 days) and who do not use contraception will get pregnant within a year. About 92 out of 100 couples who are trying to get pregnant do so within 2 years.[6]”

Read that at best twice. We know, that having sex every 2 or 3 days results in 84% of cases in pregnancy in the first year.

Therefore we know that is some moral guidelines suggest to have unprotected sex every 2 to 3 days, that of 100 women following these guidelines about 84 will become pregnant. (assuming we have an average sample of women between ~20 and ~40)

So if we know what sexual behavior pattern is suggested by some guidelines, we know (!) how many preganancies are to be expected if 100 women follow these guidelines.

Thats how the argument goes:

Try to derive from catholic teaching what sexual behavior a married women, without mental or health problems and with a well earning and healthy husband, should have according to that teaching.

After deriving this (where i might have made errors, especially i missed that interest of society might play a role) the expected number of children is given by the scientific knowledge about human fertility.

Then in a third step, this is judged as unfair, because the result look limiting for the freedom of women regarding occupation choices compared to what men experience. (This is criticed by Francis as being a completely wrong apporach to the whole issue)

Regarding individual cases:
This argument never allows to state anything about individual cases. At most one could conclude something like this:
There are 100 couples claiming to follow catholic teaching and have always followed it to the letter and claim that the husband is earning more than enough well and do not suffer any psychological or health problems and are married since lets say 20 and are now 40. Yet these 100 couples have only 300 children.
=>
Some of these couples are not telling the truth regarding some matter (e.g. following church teaching, financial situation, health issues).

(And of course that reasoning gets a lot more complicated if the issues of society play a role, as according to the part i missed.)

No conclusion about any individual couple is possible.

And for this reason one cannot see the consequences of following church teachingin the real world, because nearly no one is following it consequently:
livescience.com/13708-catholics-contraceptives.html

"Catholic women overwhelmingly use birth control, despite an official ban by the church, a new study finds.

The study, conducted by reproductive health institute Guttmacher, finds that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use or have used birth control other than church-approved natural family planning. Only 2 percent of Catholic women have used natural family planning, which involves tracking the menstrual cycle to avoid sex during fertile periods."

But the OP argument is not about how the situation is, but what the situation would be, if church teachings regarding sexuality were followed. Therefore it is along the lines of deriving what behavior follows and what consequences this has. (Yes i know, it would also have vastly positive effects regarding criminality, wealth and diseases.)

 

[carn]

So why weren’t all of the couples I know of mine, my parents and grandparents’ generations, who I know were NOT engaging in contraception, popping out dozens of children? Your stats are flawed. I don’t see any indication that they take into account the sharp drop in fertility as women get older.

The sharp drop in fertility is compensated by the more fertile 20s. 6 children is realistic.
About any individual cases i do not want to state anything.
Some earlier generations were popping out dozens of children (early 19th century), if the material means were avaible. And often even if there weren’t then a lot children die young. If half the children die young 6 born children will mean 3 adult children, taking in infertile couples this allows for a small population growth.

Other generations didn’t,hard to tell whether they deliberately planned that or it happened due to circumstances, because that 6 is only realistic if conditions are good aka no starvation and few diseases (which today they are in industrilized countries).

And I think the answer might also lie in the ‘sex two to three times a week’. A honeymooning couple, or one intent on conceiving, may have sex that often, or even more often, but not everyone does. Just under half of married couples have sex less often than twice a week, so that right there halves, at the very least, their chances of conceiving.

And this figure in itself, since it relies on self-reporting, is probably an overestimate, as people generally don’t want to be seen as lacking in any way in the bedroom department and so will tend to say sex is more frequent than it is in reality.

These are valid arguments. Not having sex due to lack of interest would be an option to limit children number in line with church teaching even if there are no valid reasons against further children.

Now there’s certainly no church teaching stating that a married couple must have intercourse a certain number of times a week, or for that matter even once a year! So a couple who are not practicing contraception have every chance of naturally having a lot less sex during those demanding early childhood years, and certainly are entitled naturally to tone down the frequency when they’re not actively trying for a child.

Here you ignore something, its true, church does not require any amount of sexual activity. But church does require that any request for intercourse is not rejected unless for just reasons (and these just reasons sound rather similar to those allowing to abstain to avoid pregnancies).

So avoiding due to lack of interest is in my eyes unlikely, as one side being interested wouldbe enough. I suspect the lack of interest arises mostly not from true lack of sexual desires but mostly from not getting along well with one another.

But you are right, that is a weak part of the argument. If mens desires would not be what they are today due to sexualization of everything, things might be different.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that in terms of the discussion that Carn is having with his friend that the exact numbers are not all that important, since they are discussing the prinicples involved. It is quite likely that most couples who marry intending to not use birth control will have children, who will need to be cared for. Whether that happens or not or to what extent is irrelevant for the terms of Carn’s discussion.

 

[JRKH]

But the married partners should make their decision not in violation of these guidelines. Therefore these guidelines limit the choice and together with economic, biological, medical and psychological factors will lead to a certain number of children.

I would amend your opening statement to, “…the married partners should make their decision not in violation of the intent of these guidelines…” The guidelines do not limit choice so much as they offer insight into the proper manner in which things should be evaluated.
Look at the Gospels and how Jesus admonished the Pharisees for holding to the letter of the Law and ignoring the underlying principle of the Law (Mercy and Love). Was the Law Bad? Of course not…But there must be a recognition of the principle behind the “law” and the questions, concerns etc. that prompted the Law’s existence in the first place.
Perhaps this is part of the problem in your trying to understand how all of this works.
Perhaps you are looking too hard at the “Law”…The Guidelines…and not asking yourself, why these guidelines exist. What are the underlying reasons for these guidelines? What concerns of the faithful do these guidelines seek to answer?
I would suggest some meditation on this aspect. It might help.

In the individual case we cannot know these factors. But if we know these factors for example by looking at the average case, we can derive an estimate of the number of children couples will have on average, if they follow church teaching.

The only problem with this idea is that, given that these guidelines are designed for the universal Church - applicable to everyone from highly affluent to the deeply impoverished - from 1st world country to 3rd world country - and also given that there are a number of highly individual criteria (such as the psychological), I don’t know that one CAN derive an “average” case.
One might be able to derive an “average case” if one ignores the more subjective components and looks merely at things that are more quantifiable, but this average would frankly not serve very well. It would be an average that might not really be all that “average”…

Its no rocket sciences, we have certain rules of behavior, certain known biological mechanisms and therefore can draw conclusions about the likely result in specific or general cases.

Yes you can draw certain conclusions but it must be remembered that drawing these conclusions STILL require your making a number of assumptions on the subjective aspects of the criteria.

This detailed argument is mostly mine, but the general line of attack - women should either be nuns or stay at home mums according to church - does not come from someone specific. Its more that its hard to think of anyone i know, who does not have grudge against church along that lines.

I know of no Church teaching that says that, “women should either be nuns or stay at home mums”.
I am aware that there are those who “hold a grudge” against the Church and Church teaching along these lines, but - I wonder how many of these people have really sought to understand the teachings and the roots of the teachings…This begins to get back into the “Well formed conscience” aspect of such arguments. It’s easy for someone to attack Church teaching, it can be more difficult to humble ones self before God and the Church and seek, through prayer and through study, to understand why the Church teaches as it does.
This is why I am pointing you toward the “Love” aspect. All that is good comes from Love. The Church’s teachings, guided by the Holy Spirit, are based on, and spring from, Love. Leave the Love principle out of the equation and the “law”, the rules, dry up and blow away.

But what is the result of love+laws/rules?

Its sounds a bit like the method is:
Rule requires action A.
A has consequence B.
B is not compatible with love.
Therefore we do not need to follow the rule to the letter, because it would conflict with love.

I hesitate to give a yay-or-nay answer to your proposal above since I do not wish to give any false impression. But let’s expand it a bit and perhaps look at it from another angle where:
B = a normally good consequence.
A = a normally good action
Since both are normally good, then action A results in a good consequence B.
Now - There are times when even a normally good consequence should be avoided. Therefore, working backward, if Consequence B is to be avoided, then action A likewise needs to be avoided.
Avoiding “A” is the loving option in order to avoid consequence “B”. In such a case, Action A is not required.

It would open up a third option between “nun” (meaning women is abstinent) and stay at home mum, because if a women had some useful skills in certain areas, she could have less children to have time to further society by working in that field.

So the choice would not be
“nun” or stay-at-home-mum
but:
“nun” or stay-at-home-mum or have-some-children-and-work-in-a-job-you-are-good-at

I see nothing wrong with this so long as the decision is arrived at in a proper (Loving) manner and for the right reasons - something that only the couple can ascertain.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I think that in terms of the discussion that Carn is having with his friend that the exact numbers are not all that important, since they are discussing the prinicples involved. It is quite likely that most couples who marry intending to not use birth control will have children, who will need to be cared for. Whether that happens or not or to what extent is irrelevant for the terms of Carn’s discussion.

I agree. It seems to me that there does seem to be a problem in getting at the underlying principles involved.

One thing that I wonder about is whether those carn refers to as being hostile to Church teaching are actually Catholic. After all, being Catholic is a choice.

Peace
James

 

[jschutzm]

Therefore, if they have enough money and get along with each other, she will be a stay at home mum if adherent to church teaching, because she would not have valid reasons to abstain from having 5+ children.

But the POINT that everyone is making that you seem to be side stepping or ignoring is that this is an individual decision and the Church upholds this fact. It is NOT a back door, but intrinsic to the teaching. In the link to Catholic.com that you used the re-occurring theme was one of personal choice in cooperation with God’s plan…whatever you personally feel that is.

But you repeatedly try to disregard anything which seems to actually explain that the argument is flawed.

@JRKH

What number of children would fertile couples with enough financial resources and assuming absence of psychological and mental problems have, if following church teaching?
We might disagree what church teaching says in that matter, but if one knows what the church teaches, this question has an answer, because otherwise it just depends on biology.

You’ve been getting an answer all along, but one you keep disregarding… the answer is:
How many that couple “feels” they can handle and which they feel is part of God’s plan for them… in other wards… 1 or more.
THAT’S your answer. → 1 or more.

But you seem to not want to hear that and want the Church to give you a definitive number, which it can not for several reasons…

1. It does not know God’s individual plan for each individual couple.
2. It does not know what they can personally handle.
3. It does not know their financial status, their psychological makeup, their personality, their ability to cope with stress, etc. etc. etc.
4. It does not know their medical history, nor how that will change over time.

So the Church will NEVER issue that which you seem to want most… a FINITE NUMBER.

It won’t do it… it can not in good conscience come up with one.

"Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. "

This could be a backdoor. The well being of temporal society might profit from the couple limiting thenumber of children, so she can work. As some jobs beneficial for society (i do not mean bankers) are paid well or are at least more complex than cashier, this would allow carreer.

If by “back door” you mean an integral part of understanding the church’s teaching on the manner… then YES.

It is not a back door if the church openingly and repeatedly talks about it and allows for it and incorporates that and never creates a finite number.

I mean IF the church had a Matrix which showed varying income levels (adjusted for each region, country, etc.) and every medical issue, every level of personal maturity, patience, ability to handle stress, desire to have children, etc. and linked it to a corresponding number of children… THEN at the bottom of this matrix, listed a disclaimer that said: "Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. "

THEN you could call it a backdoor.

Otherwise, that term is insulting and again… misrepresents things.

@St Francis
While i cannot say your arguments are wrong, i can say that they lack a certain PR appeal.

Who the heck cares about THAT. When does TRUTH take a back seat to PR or political correctiveness?

To refute the OP argument this way, one has to convince the other side first that God exists, that the church is His legitimate “ground oranization” and that it did not err in these matters. That would not be something short.

I’d say NO, the OP argument is easily refuted by simply showing that this is NOT what the Church in fact teaches… DONE

 

[jschutzm]

It seems, in my opinion, that you assume that Psychological and Physiological issues only means severe medical and psychological problems.

Because in every attempt you seem to say that barring those… they should have like 6-10 kids.

But you over simplify the parameters and take them to an extreme.

I may be physically fit and free from any major psychological issues, however, I may only personally be able to handle 3 kids because of my personality, level of maturity, way in which I deal with stress, etc.

The church can’t possibly know how many children I, personally, can handle.

And so the Church creates guidelines that allows each individual to make that determination for them.

What you see as “Law” or “rule” is actually NOT that at all, but a guideline… a teaching.

Kind of like when a fitness instructor says “excercise and eat healthy” – What does that mean? It depends on each person to determine that.

You may say that the Fitness coach has a RULE that demands each person to eat healthily and exercise…but most people would say it is a guideline and THEY alone determine what that means for them.

Kind of like saying “Do as much as you can” – I may be able to do more then you…but that doesn’t matter, each determines what “as much as you can” means to them.

And so the OP’s argument fundamentally fails to take this into consideration at all, and therefore is at best a straw man argument and possibly completely fallacious

 

[carn]

But the POINT that everyone is making that you seem to be side stepping or ignoring is that this is an individual decision and the Church upholds this fact. It is NOT a back door, but intrinsic to the teaching. In the link to Catholic.com that you used the re-occurring theme was one of personal choice in cooperation with God’s plan…whatever you personally feel that is.

While the choice is personal, the reasons for the decision should be in line with church teaching. So not having more children out of egoistic reasons would not be allowed according to teaching.

While nobody can determine, whether some couple behaves in this respect egoistic, it does not change that a rule of behavior is given by church teaching and it should be followed. So it is no “whatever you personally feel that is”.

You’ve been getting an answer all along, but one you keep disregarding… the answer is:
How many that couple “feels” they can handle and which they feel is part of God’s plan for them… in other wards… 1 or more.
THAT’S your answer. → 1 or more.

But you seem to not want to hear that and want the Church to give you a definitive number, which it can not for several reasons…

1. It does not know God’s individual plan for each individual couple.
2. It does not know what they can personally handle.
3. It does not know their financial status, their psychological makeup, their personality, their ability to cope with stress, etc. etc. etc.
4. It does not know their medical history, nor how that will change over time.

So the Church will NEVER issue that which you seem to want most… a FINITE NUMBER.

It won’t do it… it can not in good conscience come up with one.

As described above, the inability to determine whether an individual couple is behaving according to church teaching does not change that an individual couple should behave according to church teaching.

Who the heck cares about THAT. When does TRUTH take a back seat to PR or political correctiveness?

If the alternative choices in refuting an argument the PR value is relevant.
If the OP argument can be refuted by “You are not in the position to decide whats wrong and right about Gods rules taught by the Church.” and also be refuted by:

I’d say NO, the OP argument is easily refuted by simply showing that this is NOT what the Church in fact teaches… DONE

i would choose the later, because its PR appeal is better.

Regarding this:

desire to have children,

Is lack of desire for further children a valid reason to abstain from having further?
Even if the lack of desire arises from hearing too much feministic propaganda about how bad being a stay-at-home-mum or even only skipping career for a few years is?

 

[jschutzm]

Is lack of desire for further children a valid reason to abstain from having further?
Even if the lack of desire arises from hearing too much feministic propaganda about how bad being a stay-at-home-mum or even only skipping career for a few years is?

Again… that’s something for the couple to discern. But I’d say YES. (my opinion and how I interpret the Church’s guidelines for myself) If they truly doubted their own ability to properly raise a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or whatever child… be it from secular or cultural influences… then I believe they should not. If they have reason to doubt that have another child is part of God’s plan for them… then they should not.

Now I think a couple in that circumstance… which are being influenced by “propaganda” as you put it… should pray about that and do some soul searching. But as long as they are doubting their abilities… they shouldn’t bring a child into the world simply to “test” if they are in fact not equipped to handle another child.

In either case, the Church would leave that to them.

Because if you have children that you are unable to care for… emotionally - they will suffer.

In an ideal world… we’d have infinite love and emotional resources, time, and patience to care for our own children and everyone else in the world. We’d all be like Mother Teresa ( or insert name of selfless person here)
But reality is that we are not.

Which is WHY the church has these guidelines but leaves the decision up to each person and is WHY the OP argument is at best… a misrepresentation of actual church teaching.

The Church will never say:
“If you make XYZ money each year and are overall, medically fit, then you MUST keep having children and therefore the Wife can not get a job or leave the home.”

That seems to be what the OP is trying to claim and why their argument is wrong.

 

[carn]

That seems to be what the OP is trying to claim and why their argument is wrong.

This first, as it is still a misunderstanding and i reword with a different example to hopefully make things clear:

Lets say organization X proclaims “Follow rule Y, but do not worry, we do not enforce it.”
The enforcing or non enforcing of rule Y does not change much about the moral character of the rule, either it is moral or it is not or some mix between (e.g. If Y is “Do not murder.” its a moral rule, if it is “Do murder as many as you can, specifically at least 10.” it is not a moral rule).
The enforcing or non-enforcing has its own although dependent moral quality (e.g. in the former the enforcing could be moral and the non-enforcing could be amoraldepending upon what the job of the organization is, in the later case non-enforcing would be morally neutral, enforcing would be evil).

But the enforcing aspect does often not change the moral quality of the rule (e.g. whether the police does try to stop murderers does not change that “Do not murder.” is moral and not enforcing “Do murder …” does not change that the rule is not moral).

Now if someone critized above organization with “X is immoral, because it proclaims the immoral rule Y.” one could not counter this by saying “But X does not enforce rule Y.”, because if Y is immoral the enforcing or non-enforcing normally does not change the moral quality of the rule. And suggesting a immoral rule and then let the people themselves decide whether to follow the immoral rule, would still be immoral.

Therefore all the arguments along the lines that the Church does no one tell to have X children is useless against the OP, because OP aims at attacking the guidelines on which the individual decision should be based.

And therefore this part is crucial

Again… that’s something for the couple to discern. But I’d say YES. (my opinion and how I interpret the Church’s guidelines for myself) If they truly doubted their own ability to properly raise a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or whatever child… be it from secular or cultural influences… then I believe they should not. If they have reason to doubt that have another child is part of God’s plan for them… then they should not.

Now I think a couple in that circumstance… which are being influenced by “propaganda” as you put it… should pray about that and do some soul searching. But as long as they are doubting their abilities… they shouldn’t bring a child into the world simply to “test” if they are in fact not equipped to handle another child.

because what the OP assumes is that the valid reasons for abstaining from further children should have a base in catholic teaching. And that would imply that reasons not based in catholic teaching (e.g. false notions and irrational fears stemming from feministic propaganda, false assesment of own capabilities because too much personal effort is wasted on egoistic activities and stopping this was so far not possible, fears one will not be able to manage another child stemming from a lack of trust in God) could not constitute valid reason, because they are “wrong” or at least “disordered” or even stemming from sin from a catholic viewpoint.

But if such reasons stemming from personal misconduct or misperceptions or sin are valid reasons at least until the underlying problem is solved, the whole argument falls apart. Since many/all people struggle with misconduct, misperceptions and sin, lots of couples would have valid reasons from abstaining to some extent and the 6+ children per couple would only be a yardstick for couples, who are saints, and do not lack resources and do not have other serious callings (which is probably a quite rare combination and therefore without practical effect).

 

[LilyM]

But the OP is criticizing a mistaken and wrong idea of what the rule is, a strawman. They are not actually criticising the rule.

The actual rule is NOT, as the OP thinks, ‘you must have as many children as you are physically, mentally and financially able’, it is ‘only use NFP if you have grave reason - by the way, we leave it entirely and utterly up to each couple to prayerfully and reflectively decide for themselves whether they have grave reason’. Any factor - be it medical, financial, psychological, social, educational or anything else that affects your ability to care for and raise a child - can potentially constitute ‘grave reason’

It’s as if you told me that your roadrules state ‘each driver can drive at whatever speed they think they can safely handle in the circumstances’ and I interpret that rule to be ‘you must drive as fast as you are physically capable’. Any argument I try to raise can and should be defeated simply by pointing out that my understanding of the rule is totally wrong.

 

[carn]

But the OP is criticizing a mistaken and wrong idea of what the rule is, a strawman. They are not actually criticising the rule.

Yes, but my point here was trying to understand exactly where it deviates from the actual rule.

The actual rule is NOT, as the OP thinks, ‘you must have as many children as you are physically, mentally and financially able’, it is ‘only use NFP if you have grave reason - by the way, we leave it entirely and utterly up to each couple to prayerfully and reflectively decide for themselves whether they have grave reason’.

The wrong depiction arises from the interpretation of grave reasons. Thats what the strawman argument is more precisely:
‘only use NFP if you have grave reason - by the way, we leave it entirely and utterly up to each couple to prayerfully and reflectively decide for themselves whether they have grave reason - by the way grave reasons are just serious things like poverty or serious physical or mental illness’

You see, it arises from the definition of grave reasons. Therefore if grave reasons can also include vague, non objective and/or personal issues, as long as the couple thinks they are grave and even if they make an honest mistake regarding their assesment of the graveness the OP argument falls apart.
On the other hand, if grave reasons would be interpreted in rather strict way (e.g. as long as you find time and motivation for sex, your life is obviously not so bad, that you cannot take care of another child) the argument of the OP would be less straw and more real in this respect.

Any factor - be it medical, financial, psychological, social, educational or anything else that affects your ability to care for and raise a child - can potentially constitute ‘grave reason’

Even if the factor is something the couple should be capable of changing if they try hard enough?

 

[jschutzm]

Lets say organization X proclaims “Follow rule Y, but do not worry, we do not enforce it.”

Already there is an error in that thinking, if you apply that legalistic view to Catholic teaching. Everyone is telling you that it is not a rule. Yet still you persist in arguing it as a rule. Please produce documentation to support this analogy that it is a rule.

The enforcing or non enforcing of rule Y does not change much about the moral character of the rule, either it is moral or it is not or some mix between (e.g. If Y is “Do not murder.” its a moral rule, if it is “Do murder as many as you can, specifically at least 10.” it is not a moral rule).

I agree…but it isn’t a rule. Hence the HUGE obvious error in the argument.

ugggh… Sorry, but in my opinion, You haven’t clarified anything… just re-stated the same tired misconception.

I really don’t know how else for me or any other Catholic to word it… It is a “princpile” not a “rule” – Rule implies rigid set, unchanging criteria. Again, as if you could create a matrix showing all the variations and the choices each Spouse has in that situation.

The overwhelming thrust of nearly ALL the responses has been that viewing it as a “rule” is precisely WHERE the misunderstanding comes in.

I’ll try again… so long as the OP’s argument, attempts to portray the number of children one should have, the roles that each married person should take as a RIGID rule – then the argument continues to fall apart and misrepresent.

If I were to make a claim that it is a RULE that every automobile MUST be services by B.F. GoodWrench mechanics according to the manufacturer… and someone who works for the Automobile manufacturer says “NO, it is a guideline or a recommendation, but owners may take their vehicle to any SAE certified mechanic of their choosing”
Then wouldn’t you say I am under SOME obligation to support my statement by showing WHERE I got this erroneous information from?

because what the OP assumes is that the valid reasons for abstaining from further children should have a base in catholic teaching. And that would imply that reasons not based in catholic teaching (e.g. false notions and irrational fears stemming from feministic propaganda, false assesment of own capabilities because too much personal effort is wasted on egoistic activities and stopping this was so far not possible, fears one will not be able to manage another child stemming from a lack of trust in God) could not constitute valid reason, because they are “wrong” or at least “disordered” or even stemming from sin from a catholic viewpoint.

I was speaking to the reality of the situation and my opinion… The Church DOES realize that mankind is in a fallen state, therefore, while it often times discusses ideals… it makes allowances for other states of being. Sometimes it can make those allowances without disrupting the fundamental truth of the teaching. Other times it must make allowance by talking specifically to disordered states and inviting people to try and resolve those conflicts. i.e. through prayer, penance, counseling, confession, the sacrements, bible study, etc. etc.

Secondly, there are 2 senses of talking about a teaching. 1 in the general sense and one specific to an individual.
IF I were a Financial consultant… I can talk generally about people saving money, putting away 6 months of income, Retirement planning, etc. But when talking to a specific client… I can apply those principles more specifically and talk to them in their specific situation.

At one point you mentioned a specific situation… so I responded to THAT hypothetical couple in that situation. What I would, as a Catholic laymen, advise them to do.
Another wards, I was speaking to those disordered states and saying that for practical purposes, an individual should focus on resolving those doubts FIRST, before bringing more children into their household. They should not have children out of a sense of obligation, when their hearts are not in it. – Because of their disordered state, they have a bigger problem to address and therefore, in a sense, have a valid reason to abstain from children… while they work out that disordered thinking.

So sometimes the church talks about ideals… trying to teach principles that we should all AIM for. Where each of us, personally, as individuals, exist on that continuum from 1 extreme to another… differs. The Church can not tell individuals where they lie on this continuum… so it talks and teaches about ideals. To teach the correct principles. So people have some guideline to go by when applying it to their own lives.

It is up to the individual to apply those concepts to their personal situation, much like a client applying the advise of their Financial consultant to their unique financial situation.

I see it similar to a Doctor, prescribing some guidelines to their patient.