What I learned about serious reasons and NFP

[Scott_Waddell]

It’s not war and it’s not a train wreck - it’s a family, and we’ve been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure women as a whole are strong enough to handle the “mental effects” - do you think they’re not?

Great point. It reminds me of P.J. O’Rourke’s comment on zero-population growth types who want to sterilize third-world countries–its a convenient subtle way for progressives to be racists.

Scott

 

[setter]

Ahimsa:

Correct. I think the key word here is “selfish.” One can decide to limit one’s children, for non-selfish reasons (e.g., occupational dedication).

I found these comments (book excerpt) by a Catholic priest insightful and pertinent to this NFP thread and the personal challenge confronting married couples to build and grow their marriages on the foundation of Jesus Christ, and societal divorce rate is the indisputable symptom of selfishness:

The Joys, Sorrows and Glories of Married Life
By Father Paul A. Wickens

God is the author of marriage. He made the rules governing this sacred institution. Chief among these rules is the fact that marriage is indissoluble; that is, it is unbreakable. It lasts until the death of one of the partners. But, there has been a rise of secular humanism, selfishness, loss of faith and lessening of prayer life. In movies, on television and in the secular media, there is generally a harmful message, one that is repeated often—and often in a subtle, predigested manner: “Divorce is commonplace; everyone is doing it; there is nothing morally wrong with it. Do your own thing. You have to be fulfilled! God understands.” (In other words, “Seek your own happiness without adhering to Divine Law.”) (1)

Footnote 1. There is scarcely anything worse for a child than the divorce of his parents. Divorce is an act of selfishness. One’s own happiness is selfishly preferred to the child’s welfare. All psychiatrists agree that children need primary caretakers, i.e., parents who take care of them on a daily basis.

g. Conclusion
The chief cause of marital breakup, or unhappiness in marriage, is selfishness—which is really a disguised form of childishness. Sometimes marriage problems are not truly marriage problems. The fault often lies with the individual, who puts himself first . . . before God, before his spouse and before his children. This selfishness is most evident in the husband who wants to achieve his own satisfaction and his own happiness first, or in the woman who puts her own happiness, her own “fulfillment,” before that of her husband and her children. Only God can correctly teach us and demand the sublimation of ourselves and of our individual lives in the interest of that deeper and wider life that we have in common in marriage. Only God can instruct us, and only Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother and St. Joseph can give us the example of how we should work this out in our daily lives. Selfishness can be converted to unselfishness, if we focus our attention upon God, our Creator, and upon the Holy Family and firmly resolve to keep God’s laws and follow the example of the Holy Family. If married couples work toward this beautiful unselfishness in which they think first not of themselves, but rather of God, their spouse and their children, they will not only be sanctified, but will find the greatest degree of happiness that may be allotted to man in this “valley of tears.” It is the great irony of life that unselfishness leads to a greater degree of happiness than selfishness. The secular world views things differently. The more we pursue our own gratification, says the world, the happier we will be. Just the reverse is true! The more we seek our own gratification at the expense of others, the unhappier we become and, paradoxically, the less complete and fulfilled as a human being. Good moral principles always win out in the end. Selfish human whims lead to a psychological wrecking ground. Some people hop from one garden to another, trying to find the elusive bird of happiness, while as always, it can be found in one’s own backyard, in the presence of God and in following the virtuous behavior displayed by each member of the Holy Family.

tanbooks.com/doct/husband_wife.htm

 

[setter]

RyanL:

So what makes you happy is necessarily what is “right”? Tell that to Christ on the cross. True love (and true Christianity) involves sacrafice.

I do, in fact, both understand and value the happiness of the woman. I do not, however, place children on the alter of sacrifice for the sake of a woman’s (or man’s) personal happiness. Important, yes. Determinative, no. Has God given us commands to be fruitful? Has God given us commands to seek self-fulfillment through gainful employment?

I found this father’s testimony on growing in the self-sacrifice encumbent with fatherhood embraced compelling as he discovered the relevency of C.S. Lewis’ quote, “Experience is a brutal teacher.”:

What Marriage and Parenthood Teach Us About Selfishness

As a father and a husband, if there is anything I have learned about myself it is that I am selfish. As a single, unattached man I often thought of myself as being very generous. I tithed, I helped out at the local parish, and I was always willing to help others in need.

Then, one fine August day, I got married… I quickly realized that I wasn’t as “selfless” as I thought. Little things began to side swipe me… Letting my wife know where I was going…lending a helping hand with things like dishes, the laundry, vacuuming, etc. Things that as a single man I could do whenever I pleased. Now, as a married man, I had to realize that there was someone else in the house. Spending Sunday afternoons watching football suddenly became a big deal. Yet, marrying a wonderful, God-loving woman who was equally committed to “dying to self”, we quickly developed a healthy compromise. We split choirs, I got to watch “a” football game and she got to watch her favorite show. After about a year, we thought we had put all selfishness behind us…

Then our son showed up Having a child meant giving up even more. My wife and I used to enjoy several “date nights” a month. We would go to a movie and/or out to dinner. We would go on weekend trips. We would have book nights, where we would just read our favorite books. All of that changed with the arrival of our son. I should state here that we knew a lot of these things would come to an end with the arrival of our first-born and we were willingly ready for it…but being ready for it and experiencing the reality of such events are two different things. As I once read in one of C.S. Lewis’ books, “Experience is a brutal teacher.” Dirty diapers don’t wait until Halftime. Vigilance becomes a family motto…especially when breakables are within reach. Sure I still get to watch my “1” football game…sure my wife still gets her occasional bath, yet our little one is always there.

Having a child is demanding…it continually requires one to “die to self” and live for another. This is all a part of God’s design. Marriage and parenthood enable us to live more fully Christ’s command:

If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. - Matthew 16:24-25

In living out, selflessly, our vocation as spouses and as parents we become more like Christ. The same can be said for those who have been called to the priesthood and/or religious life. So maybe we don’t get to do all of those things we used to…what’s important is that we are growing closer to Christ and fulfilling His plan for our lives.

In Christ,
Joe

livingcatholicism.com/archives/2005/10/what_parenthood.html

 

[migurl]

The biggest problem is that women are looking for excuses not to have kids so that they don’t have to feel guilty about it and way too many priests are going along with relativism and saying “yeah, that’s ok, whatever makes you happy” THat is wrong. The point of marriage is procreation and education of children. Marriage is the institution in which new life is created and shaped into a Catholic person. THAT is the meaning of a parents life. If it is physically possible (i.e. not steril) you are obligated to try to ave kids. It is true, God may not bless a couple with children, but we cannot decide for ourselves that we aren’t going to have kinds because it would be inconvienent. Love is sacrifice, sure, a couple may have to do witout their big screen TV or that vacation to Hawaii, but they will be rewarded in Heaven for putting God’s will ahead of their own. God will not give anyone more than they can handle. If it is difficult it is a blessing, an oppertunity to achieve Grace and become more like Christ. Look at the Saints. Many died terrible deaths after much suffering, and yet they found joy in ther pain because they knew that one day they would see God. So, which is worse, haveing tuberculosis, getting burned at the stake or having 7 kids and not being able to afford the latest technology or fashions? Oh, let’s not forget that giving birth is painful and it is hard to get 7 kids off to school or to the doctor. Oh and as far as the point that the mother is not able to work…big deal When her kids are older she can go back to work if she wants. Again, God’s will is infinitly more important than that of one woman or a million women. People are so selfish. “I want to have my time to work and be financially successful by the worlds standards instead of creating life, a life or lives that will look up to me and cherish every game we play, every cookie I bake every frisbee I free from the tree in the backyard. Oh, and let’s not forget how I don’t want to spend the time helping that life learn of God and of the world He created. Oh yes, having money and worldly success is ever so important, so much more than the laugh of a child as he or she runs to me with open arms crying ‘Mommy, look what I made for you’” Yeah, those women are great examples of an unselfish, Christ-like person. Please note the very heavy sarcasm.

 

[svoboda]

setter:

This really does depend on how one defines and what measures for “success” that the married couple determines for the woman.

Matter of language, in the context I was talking about professional success.

But would she “die” to her felt desires for self-fulfilment, happiness and quality of life for the betterment (along the lines of graduated developmental needs) of her children? This is sometimes more exacting a price of self-sacrifice than acting on the moment impulse to put ourselves in harms way protect our children at all costs.

She loves her children very much and gave them a wonderful life. Her happiness and the well being of her children (who are very well off) doesn’t have to oppose the contribution she makes to society through her profession.

By having 2 children instead of 5 or 10 she was able to give a wonderful life to the children she had and help others through her profession.

Does having fewer children make her less of a mother? I don’t think so.

 

[migurl]

svoboda:

setter:

Matter of language, in the context I was talking about professional success.

She loves her children very much and gave them a wonderful life. Her happiness and the well being of her children (who are very well off) doesn’t have to oppose the contribution she makes to society through her profession.

By having 2 children instead of 5 or 10 she was able to give a wonderful life to the children she had and help others through her profession.

Does having fewer children make her less of a mother? I don’t think so.

But that is for God to decide. If He knows that by having 8 kids she will be miserable and will not fulfill her purpose in life, He won’t burden her with more than what she has. But, if her purpose is to have 8 kids then by preventing that from happening she is denying herself true happiness, for one cannot be truly happy unless they are fulfilling God’s will. The basic point is that it should be put in God’s hands, not hers. And yes, NFP still allows for God’s will to occur. He could decide to have her fertile without outward signs OR He could create in her and her spouse a desire to make love that neither can find a reason to fight. He works in mysterious ways, but the point is HE WORKS!!

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

By having 2 children instead of 5 or 10 she was able to give a wonderful life to the children she had and help others through her profession.

You seem to have a problem with non sequitor arguments. Could she have helped others through her profession with more than 2 children? Would she have helped her ‘more than 2’ children more than she helped others through her profession? Could she have helped even more through her profession by having no children? By what criteria are you judging her to have done the ‘right’ thing? Is it merely ‘happiness’?

It simply doesn’t follow that she has committed the greater good by having only 2 children. Many have had more and done more (examples given).

Finally, what impact does this have on her spiritual life? Isn’t that the more important question?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

Nope. See Mother Theresa and Marie Curie above.
This is not necessarily a causal relationship, therefore this is a non sequitor argument.

I agree that it’s not necessarily a causal relationship, but since it is unethical to conduct studies that would isolate the number of children as a causal factor (just as for example it would be unethical to conduct studies to isolate smoking as a cause of cancer by having a control group and a smoking group), it is necessary to approach causation in this case from a different perspective.

Smoking is associated with a higher risk of cancer, but how do we know that smoking actually causes it? There is a mechanism for how the poisons found in smoke will damage the body and cause cancer. It makes sense that consuming those poisons will increase your chance of getting cancer etc.

Similarly there is a very obvious mechanism for how having many children would destroy a woman’s chance of professional success.

For many women pregnancy is a tough physical ordeal. Can a woman be at her best intellectually and in terms of time if the physical demands of pregnancy are straining her?

Can a woman be at her best intellectually and give so much of herself to an extremely demanding field when she is not getting enough sleep due to night time feedings and when she is perhaps affected by post-partum depression?

Can a woman be professionally successful and compete with men who never have to sacrifice this way to have children if she has 10 children? 10 children means 10 years spent this way. 5 children means 5 years spent this way.

Those may be crucial years when the woman has to establish herself in her field.

It’s not war and it’s not a train wreck - it’s a family, and we’ve been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years. I’m sure women as a whole are strong enough to handle the “mental effects” - do you think they’re not?

Until very recently there were no effective birth control methods and sex made baby after baby after baby. Women never had a choice.

As for how they are able to handle it, go to Africa, women lived that way for most of history. You tell me how great their quality of life is.

Do you know who Hans Kung is? Do you know what he contributed to V2, or why he was invited to attend? Orthodoxy does not necessarily follow.

No, but I’m sure you’ll tell me. Anyway, since Fr. Zimmerman’s expertise on NFP was acknowledged by Pope John Paul II, since is is a professor emeritus of moral theology and has taught in seminaries,

I think he is far better equipped to determine what is a serious reason and what’s not than you or I. His views in general are orthodox.

So what makes you happy is necessarily what is “right”? Tell that to Christ on the cross. True love (and true Christianity) involves sacrafice.

Sure, but Christ sacrificed for a purpose: to save humanity. Maybe if human beings were dying out now it would make sense for women to sacrifice and have 10 kids each to prevent the extinction of our species.

As it stands, human beings are by no means running out and are in fact growing exponentially. I don’t see the need to sacrifice to have 6 kids instead of 1 or 2 or 3. In fact, even if everyone has 3 kids there’ll still be tremendous growth overtime.

I do, in fact, both understand and value the happiness of the woman. I do not, however, place children on the alter of sacrifice for the sake of a woman’s (or man’s) personal happiness. Important, yes. Determinative, no. Has God given us commands to be fruitful? Has God given us commands to seek self-fulfillment through gainful employment?

But you don’t seem to understand that by having a small family a woman can give everything to her children and still be happy and contribute to society by doing what she loves.

I am not suggesting that children not be a priority, I am saying that having a small number of children allows women to put their children first and still use their talents to contribute to society professionally.

 

[migurl]

Children don’t destroy anything, except maybe carpets and curtains. My mother is a doctor who owns her own practice. Since she opened she has had 4 more kids. I now have, aside from my 16 yr old brother, sisters who are 8 and 4, and two other brothers who are 2 and 2 weeks. Work is imortant to her. She went to school for years and payed a lot of money to do so. BUT she loves kids and would never wish she hadn’t had them. She also had a miscarriage, that child would have been 13 I believe. Her job makes her happy, but her kids make her happier. She is stressed and tired ,but she loves God and she doesn’t question His decision to bless her with 6 children. Money is tight, life is hard, but God is good and heaven is our reward for doing God’s will when it is inconvientent and difficult. Women need to get over themselves and do what God made them for.

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

You seem to have a problem with non sequitor arguments.

I responded to your objections in my previous post.

Finally, what impact does this have on her spiritual life? Isn’t that the more important question?

Isn’t it, look at how many people are leaving the Church over things like this, especially young people. Catholics in general have 2 kids on average and use birth control.

Excessively restrictive requirements only leads to rebellion and perhaps a complete renunciation of the faith.

Since the orthodox priests I’ve spoken to agree with the far more lenient requirements presented in my original post, I don’t see why you see the need to argue the opposite point. All it can do is turn people off from Catholicism as a whole.

If the women I know from university read what you said, they’d laugh, say this argument is ridiculous, and label Catholicism as a sexist religion that doesn’t value women’s talents or professional contributions to society. They’d see Catholicism as not much different from Islam that doesn’t respect women’s rights.

And you know what, if the Church taught that only “grave” reasons (i.e. not enough money to feed the kids/ woman will die if pregnant) allowed NFP, they’d be right.

I recently saw a program about Mormon polygamy where women left it fully believing they’d go to hell for it. They said they no longer cared if they went to hell.

I think that’s the kind of thing you’d get from many women, they’d say they’d rather go to hell than give themselves to a sexist religion.

 

[setter]

migurl:

The point of marriage is procreation and education of children. Marriage is the institution in which new life is created and shaped into a Catholic person. THAT is the meaning of a parents life. … Love is sacrifice, sure, a couple may have to do witout their big screen TV or that vacation to Hawaii, but they will be rewarded in Heaven for putting God’s will ahead of their own. God will not give anyone more than they can handle. If it is difficult it is a blessing, an oppertunity to achieve Grace and become more like Christ. … Oh and as far as the point that the mother is not able to work…big deal When her kids are older she can go back to work if she wants. …People are so selfish. "I want to have my time to work and be financially successful by the worlds standards instead of creating life, a life or lives that will look up to me and cherish every game we play, every cookie I bake every frisbee I free from the tree in the backyard…

This has become a politically uncorrect position that will cause tension in many Catholic circles.

How many folks are commended by society for the stretch marks, driving an outdated vehicle, that extra graying and waistline, chronic fatigue, worn clothing, …all represent the badges of courage often associated with generous Catholic couples.

 

[migurl]

svoboda:

I responded to your objections in my previous post.

Isn’t it, look at how many people are leaving the Church over things like this, especially young people. Catholics in general have 2 kids on average and use birth control.

Excessively restrictive requirements only leads to rebellion and perhaps a complete renunciation of the faith.

Since the orthodox priests I’ve spoken to agree with the far more lenient requirements presented in my original post, I don’t see why you see the need to argue the opposite point. All it can do is turn people off from Catholicism as a whole.

If the women I know from university read what you said, they’d laugh, say this argument is ridiculous, and label Catholicism as a sexist religion that doesn’t value women’s talents or professional contributions to society. They’d see Catholicism as not much different from Islam that doesn’t respect women’s rights.

1. Don’t use bad behavior as an example as to why rules should be changed. Look at crime in this country, people kill, steal, rape etc, should we relax the rules so people don’t rebel? No. Rebellion is WHY the church has to stand up for the truth. The Church cannot change what is right in God’s eyes. The church does not change because people want it to so that their lives can be easier.
   2.Catholism isn’t sexist, the world is. The world is what brought forth pornography, prostitution, drugs and physical standards that women hate so much. The church doesn’t say that women must have tiny waits, slim legs, tan skin, long hair, large breasts and perfect skin, the world does. the church says that women have teh gift to bring life into this world and they should chersih and respect that more than the ability to solve mathamatical equations. Men can become lawyers, doctors etc, but they cannot carry a child inside of themselves. This is our gift and so many women deny that aspet of themselves, the thing that really seperates them from men, in favor of things that any man can do at any time. Women should embrace wht makes them female, not conver it up with worldy sucess and a big paycheck. Women today are becoming men, they are the sexist ones saying that motherhood is less than having a job and that being like a man is better than being a woman.

 

[svoboda]

migurl:

Children don’t destroy anything, except maybe carpets and curtains. My mother is a doctor who owns her own practice. Since she opened she has had 4 more kids. I now have, aside from my 16 yr old brother, sisters who are 8 and 4, and two other brothers who are 2 and 2 weeks. Work is imortant to her. She went to school for years and payed a lot of money to do so. BUT she loves kids and would never wish she hadn’t had them. She also had a miscarriage, that child would have been 13 I believe. Her job makes her happy, but her kids make her happier. She is stressed and tired ,but she loves God and she doesn’t question His decision to bless her with 6 children. Money is tight, life is hard, but God is good and heaven is our reward for doing God’s will when it is inconvientent and difficult. Women need to get over themselves and do what God made them for.

Not all people can handle that much. If you can handle it, fine. But what about women who can’t handle it? My own mom was a stay at home mom, wanted 5 kids, but only had 2 because she couldn’t handle more. And she was not a selfish mom, she spent all of her time taking care of us, teaching us, taking us places etc.

It’s great that your mom can do it all. But you have to realize that not every single woman can, and those women who can’t DON"T HAVE TO.

 

[migurl]

setter:

This has become a politically uncorrect position that will cause tension in many Catholic circles.

How many folks are commended by society for the stretch marks, driving an outdated vehicle, that extra graying and waistline, chronic fatigue, worn clothing, …all represent the badges of courage often associated with generous Catholic couples.

Who cares what society thinks? Can society grant you access to Heaven? can society give you eternal life and peace? Did society die for your sins that you may have access to HEaven? NO. SO why should I or any catholic give a damn about what society thinks. Society promotes casual sex, pornography, drinking and other sinful and irresponsible activites. I choose Christ over society thank you.

 

[migurl]

svoboda:

Not all people can handle that much. If you can handle it, fine. But what about women who can’t handle it? My own mom was a stay at home mom, wanted 5 kids, but only had 2 because she couldn’t handle more. And she was not a selfish mom, she spent all of her time taking care of us, teaching us, taking us places etc.

It’s great that your mom can do it all. But you have to realize that not every single woman can, and those women who can’t DON"T HAVE TO.

GOD KNOWS WHAT WE CAN HANDLE. IF WE LEAVE IT TO HIM WE WILL PERSERVERE. MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CANNOT DO THINGS, BUT THEY SAY THAT OUT OF WEAKNESS, FEAR AND DOUBT. WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, HE GIVES US THE STRENGTH TO DO WHAT WE MUST. PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BEING DOUBTFUL OF THESELVES AND FEARFUL OF WHAT ANOTHER CHILD WILL BRING. AGAIN I SAY, GET OVER YOURSELVES. STOP THINKING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU BETTER THAN GOD DOES. HE SEES THE FUTURE, WE DO NOT. PEOPLE NEED TO STOP PRETENDING THAT THEY CAN.

 

[Kendy]

setter:

This has become a politically uncorrect position that will cause tension in many Catholic circles.

How many folks are commended by society for the stretch marks, driving an outdated vehicle, that extra graying and waistline, chronic fatigue, worn clothing, …all represent the badges of courage often associated with generous Catholic couples.

Having children is not the only way to live generously.

 

[svoboda]

1. Don’t use bad behavior as an example as to why rules should be changed. Look at crime in this country, people kill, steal, rape etc, should we relax the rules so people don’t rebel? No. Rebellion is WHY the church has to stand up for the truth. The Church cannot change what is right in God’s eyes. The church does not change because people want it to so that their lives can be easier.

Rules shouldn’t be changed. THE RULES ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE SMALL FAMILIES IN ORDER TO CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY VIA THEIR PROFESSION. That’s my point.

Good people aren’t going to rebell in order to walk around killing and raping, but many good people will rebel if talented women are denied the opportunity to contribute to society or forced to remain celibate in order to do so. Good people can and do rebel against insjustices.

2.Catholism isn’t sexist

It’s not because orthodox theologians such as Fr. Zimmerman are embracing talented women and the value of their contributions via professions.

Women should embrace wht makes them female, not conver it up with worldy sucess and a big paycheck. Women today are becoming men, they are the sexist ones saying that motherhood is less than having a job and that being like a man is better than being a woman.

I agree, but a part of what makes us female are our God-given talents that we can use to better society. Being a woman doesn’t mean that all you’re made of is as many kids as you can bear. This is what rejects what being a woman truly means.

 

[svoboda]

migurl:

GOD KNOWS WHAT WE CAN HANDLE. IF WE LEAVE IT TO HIM WE WILL PERSERVERE. MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT THEY CANNOT DO THINGS, BUT THEY SAY THAT OUT OF WEAKNESS, FEAR AND DOUBT. WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, HE GIVES US THE STRENGTH TO DO WHAT WE MUST. PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BEING DOUBTFUL OF THESELVES AND FEARFUL OF WHAT ANOTHER CHILD WILL BRING. AGAIN I SAY, GET OVER YOURSELVES. STOP THINKING THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU BETTER THAN GOD DOES. HE SEES THE FUTURE, WE DO NOT. PEOPLE NEED TO STOP PRETENDING THAT THEY CAN.

I don’t know what you mean. If you have sex during fertile times you’ll get pregnant, if you don’t you won’t. It’s as simple as that. God has places us in complete control over how many children we have, and it is up to us to discern this.

God is not going to come and tell us how many children to have. This is why NFP exists: for us to discern and determine whether to have a child.

Apparently God thinks that we should determine whether to get pregnant or not. And an orthodox Catholic moral theologians and other educated orthodox priests have told me that contributing to society via profession is a good reason to postpone or indefinitely delay additional pregnancies.

What makes you think that God wants those women to have more than 1 or 2? Maybe he is pleased with their decision to have 1 or 2.

 

[setter]

Kendy:

Having children is not the only way to live generously.

*Married couples * having children is the normal consequence of being generous and having “large families” is a symptom of unfettered generosity.

Having more than two or three children (“large families”) is the oft source of PC comments, even amongst Catholics.

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

I responded to your objections in my previous post.

You didn’t respond to my question of whether or not she could have achieved more professional success by having zero children. How does it follow that because she had 2 children that she therefore was “right” to refuse any more? Should she not have had zero? Should she not have refused marriage in order to achieve more professional success? Why do you draw your line where you do? It appears very arbitrary and capricious…relativistic in fact.

Isn’t it, look at how many people are leaving the Church over things like this, especially young people. Catholics in general have 2 kids on average and use birth control. Excessively restrictive requirements only leads to rebellion and perhaps a complete renunciation of the faith.

People not following the rules is not a good argument that the rules are wrong. You are not the judge as to whether rules are “excessively” restrictive or not, nor am I. By your logic, are we now to change God’s teachings regarding “adultery of the eyes” because people now feel free to lust? After all, studies show that most people lust, Catholics included. Should we now deem divorce consistant with the will of God because it happens often, even in Catholic circles? Most American Catholics feel that homosexuality is not inherently sinful, despite the clear Scriptural teachings to the contrary - should we change that as well? What about transubstantiation? Most Catholics don’t understand it, and are far from believing it the way the Church teaches - should we do away with that?

What you are failing to realize is that we do not have author’s rights on the Gospel - we are letter carriers at best. What you are advocating is revolt against God’s revealed truth, and that is ultimately an untenable position. Either the Church is right about this or the Church is wrong about everything - there is no middle ground. If the Church is fallible in matters of faith and morals, then the promises of Christ are to no avail. If the promises of Christ are to no avail, He is not God. If He is not God, He is either a liar or a lunatic and the Jews and Muslims are correct in saying that we are fools for believing. I can elaborate more if you desire, but it would probably be best left to a different thread.

Since the orthodox priests I’ve spoken to agree with the far more lenient requirements presented in my original post, I don’t see why you see the need to argue the opposite point. All it can do is turn people off from Catholicism as a whole.

Who says they’re “orthodox”? Are you judging them against the Magisterial teachings of the Church? If not, there is hardly a standard for orthodoxy, and anyone may be claimed to be “orthodox”.

If the women I know from university read what you said, they’d laugh, say this argument is ridiculous, and label Catholicism as a sexist religion that doesn’t value women’s talents or professional contributions to society. They’d see Catholicism as not much different from Islam that doesn’t respect women’s rights.

The women you know must be quite narrow minded and ignorant of history. Please see posts 7 and 8 of this thread.

And you know what, if the Church taught that only “grave” reasons (i.e. not enough money to feed the kids/ woman will die if pregnant) allowed NFP, they’d be right.

Um…no?

I recently saw a program about Mormon polygamy…

I’m not Mormon.

I think that’s the kind of thing you’d get from many women, they’d say they’d rather go to hell than give themselves to a sexist religion.

That would be a poor choice if the “sexist religion” happened to be true. It would be an even poorer choice if they were mistaken about it being “sexist” in the first place.

God Bless,
RyanL