What I learned about serious reasons and NFP

[Tantum_ergo]

So you tell me what’s important, having a few more brothers and sisters or medicine, education, technology, literature, arts etc.?

Isn’t this a false dichotomy here? Having more children doesn’t mean that advances in medicine, education, technology, literature, and arts won’t happen. . .or how do you explain the fact that all those categories, and more, have seen constant advancements throughout all the millennia where no such thing as ABC (or, to be even more technical, since the post 1960s “available and reliable” ABC) existed?

In fact, with more use of ABC, and fewer children being born, where are all the doctors, teachers, scientists, artists, writers, etc. going to come from?

 

[svoboda]

Tantum ergo:

Isn’t this a false dichotomy here? Having more children doesn’t mean that advances in medicine, education, technology, literature, and arts won’t happen. . .or how do you explain the fact that all those categories, and more, have seen constant advancements throughout all the millennia where no such thing as ABC (or, to be even more technical, since the post 1960s “available and reliable” ABC) existed?

In fact, with more use of ABC, and fewer children being born, where are all the doctors, teachers, scientists, artists, writers, etc. going to come from?

It is a false dichotomy because most people can have both and do have both. But can people have something like 10 children and be seriously involved in science or medicine or writing? Women definitely can’t, and that’s half of human talent right there.

To know what happened in the past we’d need to look at how many children the great thinkers had. How many children did Newton and Einstein have? How many children did Marie Curie have etc. Maybe it is very hard to raise a large family and at once dedicate oneself to something as demanding as scientific research. Chances are that either the children will rarely see their parent or the parent will rarely work in his/her field and fail to achieve anything.

Right now people in academics tend to have very small families. Women who are in the high positions of academics tend to have no children or have children born late. Women who have a child early on tend to be in lower positions, and it’s understandable because those professions require complete dedication from which pregnancy and a young child would take away.

Should talented women be required to be celibate for life in order to use their talents to serve society? All this will do is throw away a lot of talent, because most people would not be willing to be celibate for life for the sake of a career. Most people fall in love, most people want to have a family.

Plus, everyone seems to be ignoring the very important quality of life factor. Why on earth would God want these people to be miserable? And chances are they would be miserable if forced to quit the professions they love and have as many children as they can. Let people who are called to have large families have large families, and people who are called to other pursuits be involved in those pursuits.

Plus, even you succeed in forcing those women to have many children, they will probably hate their state in life and hate their children, wish they never married etc. Who is going to suffer? The children. Why would God want that?

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

But can people have something like 10 children and be seriously involved in science or medicine or writing?

Johann Sebastian Bach had 20 children.
Leo Tolstoy had 13.
Niels Bohr had 6. So did Thomas Edison.
Johannes Kepler had 9.

How many children did Newton and Einstein have?

Newton never married; he “dedicated himself to his work.” Same with Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, and Tesla, among many others.

Einstein married a fellow mathematician, and they had three children… but he walked out on them. I guess even a small family was too much for him. Maybe he should have “dedicated himself to his work,” too.

Maybe it is very hard to raise a large family and at once dedicate oneself to something as demanding as scientific research. Chances are that either the children will rarely see their parent or the parent will rarely work in his/her field and fail to achieve anything.

You’re making a good case for celibacy. If someone doesn’t have time for his children, he’s not going to have time for his wife, either.

Should talented women be required to be celibate for life in order to use their talents to serve society?

Hmm. Well, first, I’ll overlook the implication that the mother of a large family isn’t using her talents to serve society…

Anyway, many talented Catholic women do choose to remain celibate, either as consecrate religious, or as lay women. But, if they choose to marry, then they accept that being a wife and mother is their primary vocation. Any other achievements they might strive for are secondary to that.

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

Johann Sebastian Bach had 20 children.
Leo Tolstoy had 13.
Niels Bohr had 6. So did Thomas Edison.
Johannes Kepler had 9.

How about naming a few female scientists, mathematicians, historians, artists etc. who had that many children?

Men have no problem doing whatever they want no matter how many children they have. They don’t have to deal with the physical or psychological effects of pregnancy. They can go out and work without spending much time with either the kids or the wife.

Hmm. Well, first, I’ll overlook the implication that the mother of a large family isn’t using her talents to serve society…

I never said that. In fact, if you read what I have been saying I acknowlged the great contributions that people who have many children make.

You make too many assumptions about me.

By using talents I meant academic or artistic etc. It is a matter of language.

Anyway, many talented Catholic women do choose to remain celibate, either as consecrate religious, or as lay women. But, if they choose to marry, then they accept that being a wife and mother is their primary vocation. Any other achievements they might strive for are secondary to that.

Yes, those women can have one or two or three children and focus primarily on them and secondarily on their work. But since they will have a small number of children they will be able to do both successfully.

I agree that wife and mother comes before career, but by having a small family talented women can do this and still use their non-motherhood-related-abilities to contribute to society.

And this is perfectly acceptable in the minds of Fr. Zimmerman, the highly educated priest I know who studied under Ratzinger, and some others I’ve discussed this with.

There is no need for talented women to choose celibacy to contribute to society through their professions, they can do both. And in fact society will be all the better for it.

In addition, the women will be happier, they will love the children they have and treat them well. Force those women to have large families and stay at home and they’ll despise the kids, wish they never married, and the kids will be harmed by it.

–

Is it your position that God wants all married people to have as many children as they physically and financially are able to have?

Or do you think that God might want some women to have smaller families and serve him and society through their talents in the sciences or the arts?

After all, God made those women, he gave them those talents, he gave them those desires, he is also the one who gave them the marriage vocation. Hmm. I wonder.

I’ll stick with this understanding and the opinion of Fr. Zimmerman, a professor emeritus of MORAL THEOLOGY, who focuses specifically on fighting birth control, promoting NFP, so much so that POPE JOHN PAUL II asked him to contribute to the NFP discussion. Adding to this the opinion of the very educated and very God-centered priest I’ve had the opportunity to ask this question, and another priest who is also highly educated and orthodox.

If you don’t agree with this, fine. It’s your life. But it seems to me that Catholics who want to take the position I outlined in my original post have orthodox educated priests on their side.

 

[Kendy]

maryceleste:

Johann Sebastian Bach had 20 children.
Leo Tolstoy had 13.
Niels Bohr had 6. So did Thomas Edison.
Johannes Kepler had 9.

I don’t know about the rest, but Tolstoy and Edison were not exactly involved fathers.

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

Kendy:

I don’t know about the rest, but Tolstoy and Edison were not exactly involved fathers.

Kendy

It’s hard to imagine how they could be if they had that many children and accomplished so much in their work.

I guess they could have invented time machines or something…

 

[Flopfoot]

Mary, I don’t understand why you’re getting so uptight about this. In these threads I’ve mostly been opposing svoboda, as I am a fairly conservative Catholic and to me a rule is a rule, that NFP can be okay and ABC never is, and too bad if that’s not ‘convenient’ for someone. But if the Church, if Pius XII, says that generally most uses of NFP are legitimate, as long as a married couple is not trying to avoid children entirely, then why do you want to make the rule stricter than what the Church is trying to make it?

True, if someone really wants to dedicate themselves to their work 100%, they should probably remain celibate - as you say, just avoiding children isn’t enough, you in fact should avoid marriage altogether, like Newton. But there are so many other cases, because after all we are all individual. What about those who would be too lonely, who even though they are called to concentrate on their work, also feel called to love in a family context? Too many children would get in the way of their work but 1 or 2 children would be just right for them. Or what about people with small families and lots of other small commitments - maybe teaching CCD, helping out at the church, or even just a regular part time job that leaves little time to care for 5 children.
Or what about those who suffer from stresses and / or mental problems, or for some other reason wouldn’t be able to handle a large family? I know that God didn’t give them those problems but He certainly doesn’t expect them to just ignore the problems and try to raise a family too large for them to handle. I could go on forever but fact is we are all different and so we all raise different sized families.

 

[maryceleste]

Flopfoot:

But if the Church, if Pius XII, says that generally most uses of NFP are legitimate, as long as a married couple is not trying to avoid children entirely, then why do you want to make the rule stricter than what the Church is trying to make it?

Within the Church, there are different interpretations of what Pius XII was saying. There are the “Fr. Zimmermans” at one end, the “Msgr. McCarthys” at the other, and probably a lot more in between. As I said before, we don’t know which of them, if any, is correct, because the Vatican hasn’t issued any definitive statements. So, each of us will have to make up his own mind.

I personally tend more towards the stricter interpretation – not because I’m some sort of rigorist by nature (I’m not! ), but because I find the argments on that side more convincing. But I didn’t say that couples who follow the less strict interpretation are “wrong,” let alone “sinning.” If that’s what their well-formed conscience leads them to do, then that’s what they should do – and it’s between them and God.

What about those who would be too lonely, who even though they are called to concentrate on their work, also feel called to love in a family context?

Historically speaking, this is why religious communities were created in the first place. They provide a “family-like” environment for those who choose to remain single, in order to devote themselves to an important vocation (prayer, scholarship, nursing, teaching, etc.). There are also lay organizations, such as Regnum Christi and Opus Dei, which provide a community life for their celibate single members.

I’m not saying that this is the only option… but, again, I wonder: if someone is truly called to “concentrate on his work” above all other considerations, then how is he going to find enough time to spend with even a small family? It’s not as if having “just a wife and two children” leaves a man with a lot of time to go the extra mile at the office (as my own husband can attest ). The bulk of the time most men spend with their families consists of regular shared activities – meals, outings, movie nights, bedtime stories, vacations, etc. – and the amount of time these activities take up doesn’t increase that much as the family gets bigger.

Not too long ago, successful doctors, businessmen, professors, etc. tended to have unusually large families, simply because they could afford them. Having many children was seen as a sign of wealth, and of God’s abundant blessings. I find it sad that so few modern couples view a large family as a sign of “success” and “abundance.”

Psalm 127:

*Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. *

Psalm 128:

*Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways! You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. *

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

Within the Church, there are different interpretations of what Pius XII was saying. There are the “Fr. Zimmermans” at one end, the “Msgr. McCarthys” at the other, and probably a lot more in between. As I said before, we don’t know which of them, if any, is correct, because the Vatican hasn’t issued any definitive statements. So, each of us will have to make up his own mind.

But Fr. Zimmerman is by no means a liberal. I had one easy-going priest priest tell me that I could have one child and not worry about it. Even if say I wanted to have some time to go dancing (I gave him a selfish-looking example of a woman who liked dancing).

Contributing to society with your God-given talents (non-mothering ones) is not a trivial or selfish thing. It is what many of us have been built for.

All I can say is that I hope your interpretation of the whole thing will not hurt your quality of life.

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

How about naming a few female scientists, mathematicians, historians, artists etc. who had that many children?

Frankly, I can’t name a few female scientists, mathematicians, historians, or artists who had any children. In fact, I can’t think of a single one offhand.

I know a little bit about this myself, since I started college as a physics major. There were about 200 students in the program, but only a handful of women. Nearly all of the women switched to a different major before graduation, because we realized that physics required more of a total life commitment than we were willing to make. I do recall hearing about one who made it to graduation, then left physics for another field that was more “family friendly.” Her male professors and fellow students thought it was a terrible shame, but she seemed happy with her decision.

Keep in mind that these women (including me, at the time) weren’t practicing Catholics, and would have had no qualms about using birth control to limit their family size. But they still didn’t think they could combine a satisfying personal life with a demanding career in science. That should tell you something right there.

svoboda:

Men have no problem doing whatever they want no matter how many children they have. They don’t have to deal with the physical or psychological effects of pregnancy. They can go out and work without spending much time with either the kids or the wife.

Wow, you should tell that to my husband. He’d be surprised to hear it.

If you don’t agree with this, fine. It’s your life. But it seems to me that Catholics who want to take the position I outlined in my original post have orthodox educated priests on their side.

And so do Catholics who share my position – which I’ve mentioned in more detail in a different thread in “Family Life.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=100585

So, we both have moral theologians on our side. All I can say is, “Hooray for us!” :whacky:

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

How about naming a few female scientists, mathematicians, historians, artists etc. who had that many children?

Read: You’ve destroyed my point using men…can you do it with women?

It’s a far smaller lot from which to gather data, being that women have only been accepted in the scientific and mathematics communities for a relatively short period of time (largely due to chauvanist oppression), but here are a few:

Cathleen Morawetz - 4 children
Mary Fairfax Somerville - 4 children
Winifred Edgerton - 4 children
Mary Ellen Rudin - 4 children

It seems as though 4 is a quite manageable number while still having a successful career, though there are a ton with 2 or 3. Interestingly, many of the women on the site I link to are *from *families with 7+ children. The argument for small families doesn’t seem to hold water here.

Oh, and as far as your “orthodoxy meter” being strictly tied to whether or not a Pope acknowledged a theologian, might I remind you that Hans Kung was the youngest theologian to participate in Vatican II? Orthodoxy does not necessarily follow.

As far as “your contribution to society” vs. children, you had better be certain that what you’re contributing is more than what your potential children and your potential children’s children contribute - in cases like Marie Curie and Mother Theresa, it’s probably justified. In other cases…probably less so.

Finally, please don’t start the “quality of life” game; as if Paris Hilton has a better quality of life than any of the Duggar children. Financial well-being has extraordinarily little to do with love and mental health, as anyone who grew up in the Nintendo/ADHD/TV generation can tell you. Stuff doesn’t equal love, and it never will. Our current inability to recognize that is the main reason Bratz are so successful.

Your solution - not love more and work less, but work more and love less. Can you see how that might raise the hairs of some Christians?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Flopfoot]

RyanL:

Your solution - not love more and work less, but work more and love less. Can you see how that might raise the hairs of some Christians?

God Bless,
RyanL

Ryan, how does working more mean loving less? I’m pretty sure that our love is shown through our works. What’s more, loving many children is not necessarily more love than loving one or two, as love isn’t that easily quantifyable - but more importantly and relevantly, we are not only supposed to love our family, we are supposed to love everyone. An academic, artist or just regular hard working person shows their love for their community, perhaps even the whole human race, by using their talents to serve and to give to other people. No vocation involves more or less love than any other. So don’t try and say that those who concentrate on work and don’t have as much time for their family (but are still able to adequately provide for their family in terms of material, emotional and spiritual needs) are loving less.

 

[RyanL]

Flopfoot:

So don’t try and say that those who concentrate on work and don’t have as much time for their family (but are still able to adequately provide for their family in terms of material, emotional and spiritual needs) are loving less.

I’m not trying to say that those who work more are loving less. What I’m trying to illustrate is that the answer provided here is as follows:

1. Have less children, in order that you can
2. Devote more time to your source of employment

Both can be done, and done well (just ask Opus Dei); it’s not an either/or, though it is being painted as one. Additionally, I’m trying to show that certain things have priority. If you find that your employment is keeping you from loving your family as you ought or being open to God’s will as you ought, work less and love more. Gainful employment doesn’t get to trump family in all circumstances (or even most, from what I can tell).

If your source of employment is placing burdens on you that you cannot do what you ought, perhaps you should seek an alternate source of employment. It’s vocational discernment with family as a priority (‘be fruitful and multiply’, not ‘grow produce and do math’), and I don’t think it’s done very often in our modern culture - all the more reason for the Church to oppose ABC. More often, I think, people take the position that if it’s inconvenient to a career, it must be sacraficed. Frankly, that seems anti-biblical and wrong-headed.

No vocation involves more or less love than any other.

Really? Charity worker doesn’t involve more love than abortion provider? Counseling doesn’t involve more love than prostitution? News to me…

we are not only supposed to love our family, we are supposed to love everyone.

True enough, and I agree with what follows. However, biblical love starts at home - we’re a family, and we’re called to family love. The best way to know how to do that is through family love in the narrower context.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[svoboda]

maryceleste:

Frankly, I can’t name a few female scientists, mathematicians, historians, or artists who had any children. In fact, I can’t think of a single one offhand.

I know a little bit about this myself, since I started college as a physics major. There were about 200 students in the program, but only a handful of women. Nearly all of the women switched to a different major before graduation, because we realized that physics required more of a total life commitment than we were willing to make. I do recall hearing about one who made it to graduation, then left physics for another field that was more “family friendly.” Her male professors and fellow students thought it was a terrible shame, but she seemed happy with her decision.

I’m glad it worked out for you and them. I am studying math and computer science myself, and nowadays about a third of students in mathematics are female as are some of the faculty. Times are a-changing. Many of the top students are also female.

Only 50 years ago this kind of participation by women was unheard of. Who knows what’ll happen in another 50 years?

 

[svoboda]

Read: You’ve destroyed my point using men…can you do it with women?

It’s a far smaller lot from which to gather data, being that women have only been accepted in the scientific and mathematics communities for a relatively short period of time (largely due to chauvanist oppression), but here are a few:

Cathleen Morawetz - 4 children
Mary Fairfax Somerville - 4 children
Winifred Edgerton - 4 children
Mary Ellen Rudin - 4 children

It seems as though 4 is a quite manageable number while still having a successful career, though there are a ton with 2 or 3. Interestingly, many of the women on the site I link to are *from *families with 7+ children. The argument for small families doesn’t seem to hold water here.
[/quote]

It’s good to hear that it worked for them. Can it work for everyone? Well consider the fact that women who are “high up” in academic fields now tend to have small families and tend to have children late in life. And since women started having fewer children so many more women have been successful in sciences and related fields. Back when everyone was having large families women in professions were an oddity, not the norm.

Maybe most women can’t be successful if they have 4 kids. Maybe 4 years of pregnancy and more of mental effects of pregnancy is too hard a hit for most.

Chances are that if women were still having large families they’d still be staying in the home for the most part, as happens in modern societies where women have many children.

Oh, and as far as your “orthodoxy meter” being strictly tied to whether or not a Pope acknowledged a theologian, might I remind you that Hans Kung was the youngest theologian to participate in Vatican II? Orthodoxy does not necessarily follow.

I think when a Pope acknowledges a theologians work in NFP related matters and asks him to participate in a synod devoted to it, yeah, I think he is acknowledging his VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT.

As far as “your contribution to society” vs. children, you had better be certain that what you’re contributing is more than what your potential children and your potential children’s children contribute - in cases like Marie Curie and Mother Theresa, it’s probably justified. In other cases…probably less so.

This is impossible to measure, your potential children might be Einsteins or serial killers. You can never know.

Happiness and quality of life are important too, and in my opinion and the opinion of priest a just reason to use NFP.

Guess what, happiness and fulfillment are important, good reasons to use NFP!

And no one is talking about Paris Hilton. I know incredible professional women who are professors at my university. Somehow I don’t equate them with Paris Hilton and think they’d be miserable if instead of doing what they love they were at home with 10 kids.

Maybe Mrs. Duggar is happier in her state of life than Paris Hilton is in hers. Maybe the reason she had that many kids is because that’s what makes her happy and fulfilled.

Maybe forcing her to become a professional woman would harm her as much as forcing some of my professors to become stay at home moms would.

Your solution - not love more and work less, but work more and love less. Can you see how that might raise the hairs of some Christians?

God Bless,
RyanL

My solution: love the woman as well as the children. Her life is no less important, her happiness and quality of life just as important as that of the kids. This is something you don’t seem to understand or value.

Plus, the fact that a woman works doesn’t mean she doesn’t love her kids. One of the best mothers I know had two kids and worked full time all her life. She would die for her kids

 

[Kendy]

maryceleste:

Historically speaking, this is why religious communities were created in the first place. They provide a “family-like” environment for those who choose to remain single, in order to devote themselves to an important vocation (prayer, scholarship, nursing, teaching, etc.). There are also lay organizations, such as Regnum Christi and Opus Dei, which provide a community life for their celibate single members.

None of these things can compare to having a spouse. I sometimes wonder why is it so hard to image that someone can desire a spouse independently of having children. If I found I could never have children, I would be ok without. But if I never got married, that would be a really heavy cross to bear.

maryceleste:

I’m not saying that this is the only option… but, again, I wonder: if someone is truly called to “concentrate on his work” above all other considerations, then how is he going to find enough time to spend with even a small family? It’s not as if having “just a wife and two children” leaves a man with a lot of time to go the extra mile at the office (as my own husband can attest ). The bulk of the time most men spend with their families consists of regular shared activities – meals, outings, movie nights, bedtime stories, vacations, etc. – and the amount of time these activities take up doesn’t increase that much as the family gets bigger.

For women, who tend to be the primary caretakers, having fewer children makes a huge difference. The more children a woman has the longer she has to stay out of her professional life. The longer she does that, the harder it is to get back in.

maryceleste:

Not too long ago, successful doctors, businessmen, professors, etc. tended to have unusually large families, simply because they could afford them. Having many children was seen as a sign of wealth, and of God’s abundant blessings. I find it sad that so few modern couples view a large family as a sign of “success” and “abundance.”

Psalm 127:

*Lo, sons are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the sons of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. *

Psalm 128:

*Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, who walks in his ways! You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table. *

Not too long ago, people could use their children as labors. It didn’t take 21 years to get them to be independent and they can help you on the farm. Hunter and gather communities had smaller familes than sedentary families because more children made less economic sense.

Modern families don’t see children as a sign of wealth because they are costly, and since modern people equate success with having surplus income, children take away from that. Furthermore, previous generations depended more directly on their children for financial support so it was a “good investment.” Now, western societies don’t depend so much on their children (which I think is tragic but that’s another topic).

But lastly, previous generations didn’t have as many options. In addition to not having effective forms of ABC, they also didn’t understand as much about a woman’s cycle. It was a lot harder to control how many children you have. So, what’s the point of lamenting something that seems so complete beyond your control. I suspect a lot more women would have had smaller families if they could.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

svoboda:

I’m glad it worked out for you and them. I am studying math and computer science myself, and nowadays about a third of students in mathematics are female as are some of the faculty. Times are a-changing. Many of the top students are also female.

Only 50 years ago this kind of participation by women was unheard of. Who knows what’ll happen in another 50 years?

Keep in mind that more women than men have been getting college degrees in recent years. Women get more law degrees and they get as many medical dregrees.

Kendy

 

[setter]

Alterum:

The most important things here are openness to life, generosity with regard to fertility, and prayer in order to discern God’s will for your family. The use of NFP is in large part a matter of personal discernment, but using it for selfish reasons is clearly not right.

I agree that generosity based on a trusting and growing faith is key to fully embracing, living and honoring responsible parenthood. This is a challenge that I believe most married couples never outgrow, as this NFP testimony excerpt attests to:

Man to Man

From a brochure printed by: Couple to Couple League

We might say that we are “open to life” over the course of marriage, that the children we do allow to be conceived and corn are sufficient evidence of generosity. We may have noble intentions, but reality betrays them. Let’s face it, our estimate of our future wealth and capabilities tends to be much more pessimistic than God’s. Faith tells us that God can do anything; His power is limitless. If we take absolute control over determining family size through contraception, we will tend to limit our children to a “comfortable” number. Faith just doesn’t come into it.

The same could happen with NFP, but more often couples who practice NFP have larger than average families. This is not because their method of birth control failed. Our experience at the Couple to Couple League is that using NFP coaxed people into a greater generosity when it comes to having children. They commonly start using NFP to avoid conception, but soon they lose their fears about pregnancy. Having worked with God to postpone pregnancy, they are more receptive to His prompting when He wants to bless them with children.

Conscious of their children as true gifts of the Lord, perhaps they are also better able to experience joy in the company of their children.

NFP generosity – CLC testimony

In the same vein from Fr. Anthony Zimmerman, SVD, STD:

Natural family planning should be seen primarily in the context of conjugal love and family life, not simply as another method of fertility control. For, as numerous couples have told us, NFP is not simply another birth control technique. It involves a fundamental approach to human sexuality that places conjugal intimacy in the larger context of marital rights and responsibilities. It fosters marital intimacy and sexual self-mastery. It preserves an openness to life and a willingness on the part of the couple to share life and love with their own children and with generations yet to come, and it prepares a couple for the generosity and self-sacrifice that are necessary in so many other areas of married life.

NFP generosity – Fr. Zimmerman

Additionally, from a most credible shepherd of the Church in America:

Natural Family Planning: service of life and love ~ by Archbishop Raymond L. Burke

Natural Family Planning (NFP) assists couples to be responsible parents by respecting fully God’s plan for the conjugal union. Through NFP, couples come to know more deeply the full meaning of their sexual union and of their mission of procreation. Understanding more fully how God has made them to share with Him in the creation of new human life, they cooperate with their God-given nature to conceive children and to space the conception of their children, so that they may fulfill their responsibilities for the upbringing of the children God gives them. At the foundation of NFP is a generosity of cooperation with God in the conception and birth of children made in His own image and likeness.

NFP generosity – ArchBsp Raymond Burke

 

[setter]

Maybe most women can’t be successful if they have 4 kids.

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

Happiness and quality of life are important too, and in my opinion and the opinion of priest a just reason to use NFP.

Guess what, happiness and fulfillment are important, good reasons to use NFP!

Again, it depends on how a married couple defines “happiness and fulfilment” and how they/one arrives at such a determination.

My solution: love the woman as well as the children. Her life is no less important, her happiness and quality of life just as important as that of the kids. This is something you don’t seem to understand or value.

Plus, the fact that a woman works doesn’t mean she doesn’t love her kids. One of the best mothers I know had two kids and worked full time all her life. She would die for her kids

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.

BTW – “She would die for her kids” correctly communicates that yes indeed, in the parenthood facet of the marriage vocation the “life, happiness and quality of life” of the children is necessarily more important that that of the parents. This goes to the heart of the vocation of motherhood and fatherhood as God the Father and Jesus the Son gave to us as a shining example.

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

It’s good to hear that it worked for them. Can it work for everyone?

Nope. See Mother Theresa and Marie Curie above.

Well consider the fact that women who are “high up” in academic fields now tend to have small families and tend to have children late in life. And since women started having fewer children so many more women have been successful in sciences and related fields.

This is not necessarily a causal relationship, therefore this is a non sequitor argument.

Maybe most women can’t be successful if they have 4 kids. Maybe 4 years of pregnancy and more of mental effects of pregnancy is too hard a hit for most.

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?

Chances are that if women were still having large families they’d still be staying in the home for the most part, as happens in modern societies where women have many children.

Perhaps. And perhaps that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps more children need at least one parent at home with them providing guidance. Again, see Nintendo generation.

I think when a Pope acknowledges a theologians work in NFP related matters and asks him to participate in a synod devoted to it, yeah, I think he is acknowledging his VIEWS ON THE SUBJECT.

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.

This is impossible to measure, your potential children might be Einsteins or serial killers. You can never know.

True enough, but even you must concede that you will never know if they aren’t given life.

Happiness and quality of life are important too, and in my opinion and the opinion of priest a just reason to use NFP.

Important, yes. Determinative, no.

I don’t equate them with Paris Hilton and think they’d be miserable if instead of doing what they love they were at home with 10 kids.

I’m not saying that they are comparable - I’m saying that selfish self-fulfillment seeking is a denial of who we are called to be as Christians. Also, it’s a non sequitor to say that (1) they must have 10 kids, (2) they must ignore their studies while raising them, and (3) they must be miserable if they are not doing what they’re doing, and cannot also find fulfillment in the family context.

Maybe Mrs. Duggar is happier in her state of life than Paris Hilton is in hers.

Not my argument.

Maybe the reason she had that many kids is because that’s what makes her happy and fulfilled.

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

Maybe forcing her to become a professional woman would harm her as much as forcing some of my professors to become stay at home moms would.

Force? Yup. Encourage proper spiritual and vocational discernment contrasted against Biblical teaching? Nope.

My solution: love the woman as well as the children. Her life is no less important, her happiness and quality of life just as important as that of the kids. This is something you don’t seem to understand or value.

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?

Plus, the fact that a woman works doesn’t mean she doesn’t love her kids.

Straw man. Have I ever even hinted that a woman who works doesn’t love her kids?

God Bless,
RyanL