What I learned about serious reasons and NFP

[svoboda]

Edit: A more accurate way of saying “means” here, would be scientific measuring of fertility and deliberate restriction of intercourse during the intfertile times.

I am editing this beacuse I realize that some people might use the same technology to have sex specifically during the fertile times in order to conceive.

But either way, the method is the means, the reason why the method is used is the ends.

**The means of measuring/abstaining etc. is amoral. Abstinence in itself is not immoral. Measuring in itself is not immoral. It’s pretty neutral

What determines the morality is why you are doing it. Are you doing it to have enough food for your kids, are you doing it to have time to use your talents to contribute to society, are you doing it to save money for a fancy car?**

 

[Kendy]

RyanL:

Largely, I agree; however, prayer is not necessarily the best or only tool to be used. Scriptures, priests, spiritual directors, a well formed conscience, the mind of the Church, financial and time limitations, and not least of all the husband must also play a role in discerning what God’s will for her life truly is. If it’s left entirely up to a “woman in prayer”, there’s a decent risk for spiritual self-deception. I have a hunch that’s more often the case than not.

God Bless,
RyanL

I agree with you that all these resources should be employed, but none of these resources can tell a particular woman how many children she should have. She must make that decision with her husband given what they know about their lives. And if they end up having just two children, we shouldn’t go around assuming that they are selfish.

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

In part, though we may be saying the same thing differently. II think the intent which is present during the means is a part of the means, in addition to the ultimate outcome. Example:
Ends: Death of another
Means: Knife with Malice aforethought
Alt. Means: Knife without Malice aforethought

Well, I can see how there are different ways of interpreting this.

This is how I see killing another human being in terms of ends and means:

Good ends:

1. Saving oneself from being raped or killed
2. Saving another from being raped or killed etc.

Bad ends:

1. Getting the inheritance they left to you or the insurance money
   you insured them with
2. Satisfying your hatred/anger etc.

Means:

1. gunshot, strangulation, stabbing, drowning, poison etc. or in other words KILLING A PERSON.

To me it is the ends that distinguish murder from justifiable homicide. The means for justifiable homicide and murder are the same, killing a person in one way or another.

I can think of an examle where the means is always evil:

1. Having sex with someone other than your spouse

Even if you are doing it to save a life, you are still commiting a sin.

Ok. If I’m correct above, we’re in agreement. Now the issue reduces to what is considered “frivolous”. I would assert that “frivolous” reasons are those which are self-serving and are not meant to help us grow spiritually, and which serve to deny the Scriptural teachings to be fruitful and multiply. Additionally, I would assert that “frivolous” reasons are those which do not help to teach us about love and self-sacrifice, and do not mirror the self-giving-and-life-creating-love which Christ has for the Church, which is His Bride.

I think it is very hard to quantify what is frivolous and what isn’t, and I think this is precisely why the Church leaves this matter up to the couples.

If a woman feels that she has been made by God with certain talents and thinks that she has been given these talents so that she might use them to help others, is she being frivolous in using NFP to have the number of children that will give her the time and energy to do this?

I don’t think so, neither do the priests I’ve talked to.

I think also it is a mistake to reduce things that make a person happy to evil self-serving motivations. God is good, God wants us to be happy. The fact that some women are happy having 10 kids and other women are happy having 2 kids and working is in my opinion a way to determine what God made you for.

In addition, happy people are more loving, more giving, more appreciative of life. Unhappy people are bitter, their spirituality is damaged etc. If a person is made unhappy by excessive NFP restrictions all that’ll lead to is resentment of God, of Catholicism, and a general unhappiness regarding life.

To me, avoding unhappiess is as good a reason as any to restrict sex to the infertile times. There is of course a duty to replace ourselves and prevent extinction, but this is not a danger now and shouldn’t be a consideration. People are already growing exponentially. If you want to do a really good thing, instead of having your own kids adopt from Africa. Those kids have no future and no hope, and they are growing exponentially. Abstain during the fertile times and give some of those people a life they otherwise would never have.

As a wise priest once said, to find God is to find out who you are. God made each and every one of us, by becoming who we are we become what God made us to be.

Some women are talented scientists, doctors etc. It’s who they are. I think it’s what God made them for and wants them to do.

In addition those same women are mothers and wives, that is their vocation and main focus, but it doesn’t mean that it is the only thing God made them for etc.

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

I think it is very hard to quantify what is frivolous and what isn’t, and I think this is precisely why the Church leaves this matter up to the couples.

Broadly, yes - narrowly, no. See my reply to Kendy above.

I think also it is a mistake to reduce things that make a person happy to evil self-serving motivations. God is good, God wants us to be happy. The fact that some women are happy having 10 kids and other women are happy having 2 kids and working is in my opinion a way to determine what God made you for.

Broadly, yes - narrowly, no. I want my son to be happy, but I will punish him if he thinks that drug use will make him happy (or even if it does make him “happy”). God is our Father, and would do likewise. God wants us to be happy, but not at the expense of our sanctity.

If a person is made unhappy by excessive NFP restrictions all that’ll lead to is resentment of God, of Catholicism, and a general unhappiness regarding life.

If a person is made unhappy by NFP, they’re not practicing it correctly. The proper practice includes the theology.

To me, avoding unhappiess is as good a reason as any to restrict sex to the infertile times.

This is the infamous “health of the mother” exception, which is how abortion on demand is provided in our country - just so you know.

There is of course a duty to replace ourselves and prevent extinction, but this is not a danger now and shouldn’t be a consideration.

I agree that this shouldn’t be a consideration.

People are already growing exponentially.

Yup - and the earth can support it. Technological advances (by women included) will help us continue to support it.

If you want to do a really good thing, instead of having your own kids adopt from Africa.

How about “in addition to having your own kids”? Why do you always place things at the expense of having children?

As a wise priest once said, to find God is to find out who you are.

This is either one of the most insightful or most foolish thing I have ever heard. Finding God means finding out who you are supposed to be; if this is taken as finding who you’re supposed to be is finding God, it is daft. We are created to know, love and serve God, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Him. Our purpose comes in knowing that we are created unto that end. Thinking that introspection will fulfill us, on the other hand, is quite absurd; because of the slight ambiguity, I’m not sure quite which one the priest meant. I’ll prefer to think the former.

Some women are talented scientists, doctors etc. It’s who they are. I think it’s what God made them for and wants them to do.

I would agree. We are many colors of the rainbow.

In addition those same women are mothers and wives, that is their vocation and main focus, but it doesn’t mean that it is the only thing God made them for etc.

Again, I agree.

I would not, however, agree that one must be sacrificed for the other. I don’t even think that I would agree that one must necessarily be at the expense of the other. You have put forth that having 2 children and stopping is fine because it allows women to focus on their career. I would put forth that it’s fine for a woman to have 2 children and stop, and focusing on her career is fine as well - I would not, however, agree that saying that stopping for the sole reason that she can now focus on her career is fine. It’s about vocational discernment and growing in holiness, not bottom line productivity. I think ending family life in order to “seek success” through your employment is self-serving and does nothing for your personal holiness, yet that appears to be what you’re advocating.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Kendy]

RyanL:

I would not, however, agree that one must be sacrificed for the other. I don’t even think that I would agree that one must necessarily be at the expense of the other. You have put forth that having 2 children and stopping is fine because it allows women to focus on their career. I would put forth that it’s fine for a woman to have 2 children and stop, and focusing on her career is fine as well - I would not, however, agree that saying that stopping for the sole reason that she can now focus on her career is fine. It’s about vocational discernment and growing in holiness, not bottom line productivity. I think ending family life in order to “seek success” through your employment is self-serving and does nothing for your personal holiness, yet that appears to be what you’re advocating.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

God Bless,
RyanL

But having more children is never self-serving? Does the person who wants more children and can afford it ever have to think about whether it is God’s will? Or bearing children so obviously superior that it provides a direct path to holiness?

I just don’t see how the woman who always wanted six children and wants nothing more in life than to mother her children is automatically more holy for doing exactly what she has always wanted to do.

I also think we should question whether this seeking success is always sinful. I own a business. Is it sinful to want to run a successful business? Is it sinful to want to be a good doctor? Is the writer sinful for wanting to sell books? Work, done with the right attiitude, is equally sanctifying. If I decide to stop having children so I can go back to school and become a college professor, am I sinful? What if that is my only reason? I have a burning desire to study and teach philosophy. Is it really sinful to want to help shape the lives of young adults?

All things can be sinful if you turn them into idols. But lots of parents turn their children into idols.

Whatever we do. we must to for the glory of God. If you raise up your children for the glory of God, it is good. If you pick up garbage with joy, it is good. If you nurse the sick to health with compassion, it is good.

Kendy

 

[svoboda]

Well, I think this conversation has been exhausted.

It is up to people to decide what they will make of the information I originally posted it and how they will use it in their lives.

Some people have thanked me for that information, and that made posting it all worthwhile.

 

[svoboda]

I will end with this fitting quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

As far as I’m concerned, happiness, doing what you love, using your God-given talents to contribute to society etc. are all a part of “good of the spouses.”

Even the Catechism places good of the spouses as an equal end to new life.

 

[svoboda]

Kendy:

But having more children is never self-serving? Does the person who wants more children and can afford it ever have to think about whether it is God’s will? Or bearing children so obviously superior that it provides a direct path to holiness?

I just don’t see how the woman who always wanted six children and wants nothing more in life than to mother her children is automatically more holy for doing exactly what she has always wanted to do.

She’s not. And I bet many women who have many kids are doing what they always wanted to do: have a lot of kids.

This of course is my pesonal opinion, but I think **militant stay-at-home moms who put down professional women and consider themselves holier ** are doing it to feel more secure and better about themselves.

Maybe they wanted to be successful academically but didn’t have it in them, maybe their way to feel good about it is to put down those who have been successful

Maybe they were pressured by culture to become stay at home moms, now they resent their state in life and don’t want others to be happy.

Stay at home moms who are happy doing it, who have been called to do it are too busy being happy to run around judging the lives of others. For them staying at home with many kids is a source of happiness and joy. Happy people tend to be peaceful and tend to want others to experience happiness.

As for men, maybe some men feel threatened by successful women, maybe they want obedient women who cook, clean, and have their babies.

As I see it, people who tend to put down happiness as self-serving are probably themselves unhappy. Somehow I highly doubt that God is about making people miserable. I don’t think God gave women the desire and ability to succeed professionally so that he could torture them by making it sinful to do that while being married as it would generally necessitate a small family.

And IF God is about that, then frankly I am not interested in that kind of a God. Who wants to spend an eternity with a being who deliberately gives women abilities and desires and then tells them that they must either be celibate all their lives (even though it is their desire to have children and husbands) or sacrifice doing what they love. That sounds more like sadism than love.

As they say, misery loves company. That’s all I have to say about the “happiness is selfishness” crowd. And my advice to all you guys is to go and do whatever it is that got taken away from you and made you miserable, enjoy life, and be thankful for it.

 

[maryceleste]

I will end with this fitting quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself:

…or maybe not.

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

Maybe they wanted to be successful academically but didn’t have it in them, maybe their way to feel good about it is to put down those who have been successful

This is a not-so-veiled-I’m-better-than-you comment. You’re not increasing everyone’s “happiness” with comments like that…

Maybe they were pressured by culture to become stay at home moms, now they resent their state in life and don’t want others to be happy.

More of the same…a little disappointing, really…

As for men, maybe some men feel threatened by successful women, maybe they want obedient women who cook, clean, and have their babies.

What…no alternate? Men who think women typically have a primary vocation as mothers and men typically have a primary vocation as fathers can’t be anything other than threatened? Seems a little narrow-minded…

As I see it, people who tend to put down happiness as self-serving are probably themselves unhappy.

I’m one of the happiest guys I know.
People who think that “whatever makes me feel good is what is morally right” are people who are morally bankrupt - it’s as simple as that. Anything-goes theology isn’t theology at all - it’s pride. It’s rewriting that which you have no place rewriting, and puts yourself on a par with God - quite frankly, I’m not that brave. I wouldn’t dare to tell God that something is sinful or something is not; I would prefer to submit myself to His will, without making snide comments about what I think about His law.

Somehow I highly doubt that God is about making people miserable…

Plenty of people make themselves miserable by rejecting the will of God, and that’s not God’s fault.

And IF God is about that, then frankly I am not interested in that kind of a God. Who wants to spend an eternity with a being who deliberately gives women abilities and desires and then tells them that they must either be celibate all their lives (even though it is their desire to have children and husbands) or sacrifice doing what they love. That sounds more like sadism than love.

See what I said earlier about judging God. Would you want to spend eternity with a God who deliberately gives people same sex attraction and then tells them to be celibate? What about a God who deliberately gives people sexual attraction to children? Are they to be celibates, too? What about God deliberately making those who are so confused that they think sex with animals makes them happy? Would you want to spend eternity with that God? What kind of God do you prefer? A cotton candy God, who won’t let anyone make tough choices? A God who will endorse your sin because it makes you feel good?

How old are you? I think it’s high time you take a long look at a crucifix and think about suffering and God.

That’s all I have to say about the “happiness is selfishness” crowd.

Straw man. Seeking your happiness by any means and at any costs is, in fact, selfish. Being happy is fine - that’s what God wants for us. However, we are not going to get to real happiness on our own - we need God for that, and you’re writing Him out of the picture with an “I’ll do what I want” mentality. Selfish? You bet.

And my advice to all you guys is to go and do whatever it is that got taken away from you and made you miserable, enjoy life, and be thankful for it.

And my advice to you is repent and believe. Trust in the promises of Christ, and beg His mercy - I assure you, none of us deserve it.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

maryceleste:

…or maybe not.

 

[maryceleste]

O Holy St. Gianna, wife, mother, and physician,

Help today’s married women to reconcile their professional talents with their vocation to serve their families.

Help today’s young women and girls to live their single lives in a way that will glorify God.

Help us to understand the concept of “just reasons,” as it applies to the regulation of births.

Help us to understand the true meaning of love, happiness, self-giving, and sacrifice.

Help us to communicate these ideas to one another with clarity and charity.

St. Gianna Molla, pray for us!

 

[svoboda]

RyanL:

This is a not-so-veiled-I’m-better-than-you comment. You’re not increasing everyone’s “happiness” with comments like that…

But I never said that academic success was better than being a stay at home mom. Throughout this debate I acknowleged that childrem are important and that people who have many children and dedicate their lives solely to raising them make a very important contribution.

What I said is that some women aren’t made to be stay at home moms, but love contributing to society via their professions. I am not putting anyone down in my fight for these women.

Some of the militant stay-at-home-moms however, do say that being a stay at home mom is better than academic success.

Who is putting what down, I wonder. And WHY? I am happy for women who have many kids, you know what? Good for them. Believe it or not, I want all human beings to be happy.

What I resent are people who want to force their way of life on everyone else, even when that position is completley unjustified, even in the context of Catholic teaching.

Tell me, why would these people walk around as though they are better than others because they have produced more babies? Anyone who looks down on someone else generally does it TO FEEL BETTER ABOUT THEMSELVES. In light of that, yes, I think that women who put down professional women are somehow insecure in their own lives and need to put others down to feel better. This tends to be the common thread among people who put others down.

I respect stay at home moms, I don’t think my female professors are better than they are, for example. I think they are DIFFERENT, they have different callings in life. They are all contributing to this wonderful world we’re in. The world needs both kinds. I’ve said this from the start.

I saw a program about Mrs. Duggar, the woman with 13 kids. I was amazed by her! I have nothing but the highest respect for her. I don’t think her achievements are less than that of professional women. She is doing what she is made for, what she is good at, what she loves.

Good for her!

Straw man. Seeking your happiness by any means and at any costs is, in fact, selfish.

I never said that. But using NFP to be able to contribute to society with God given talents is hardly “any means, any costs” Come on!

I initially commented on your other things, but then deleted it because it has nothing to do with this thread. I don’t want to detract from the focus on NFP.

 

[svoboda]

All I can say is that I hope you’re happy in your life and with the decisions you’ve made.

I hope your wife is happy.

 

[maryceleste]

svoboda:

Tell me, why would these people walk around as though they are better than others because they have produced more babies?

Nobody on this thread ever said she was “better than others” because she “produced more babies.” This is a straw man (or straw woman, if you will). What we are saying is that bearing children – and caring for them, and teaching them to know, love, and serve God – is the married woman’s greatest achievement. This isn’t just our personal opinion; it’s the constant teaching of the Catholic Church.

Vatican II

Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. (Gaudium et Spes, par. 50)

Pope John Paul II

In its most profound reality, love is essentially a gift; and conjugal love, while leading the spouses to the reciprocal “knowledge” which makes them “one flesh,” does not end with the couple, because it makes them capable of the greatest possible gift, the gift by which they become cooperators with God for giving life to a new human person. (Familiaris Consortio, par. 14)

Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the mother’s role, of the toil connected with it, and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother – without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as compared with other women – to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of the mission of a mother. (Laborem Exercens, par. 19)

Pontifical Council for the Family

We are troubled by the dramatic lack of esteem for motherhood in our societies. It would seem that the value and dignity of women is based on their paid profession and that otherwise they do not enjoy great social consideration. The role of mothers as such must be recognized because of the real and effective service they render to society. Motherhood is not just a job comparable to many other praiseworthy professions; it is much more: it is a life lived at the service of a vocational task of the greatest importance for individual persons, for the family and the whole of society. Recognition of women’s role in society should not be considered a conquest when it goes to the detriment of their maternal mission. (Children: Springtime of the Family and Society, par. III.3)

There’s a lot more where that came from, but I’ll stop there. Words can only take us so far. Sometimes we don’t see the wisdom and beauty of God’s ways until we stop fighting, submit to them, and start living them out.

No encyclical can ever express how a mother feels when she witnesses the love of God blossoming in a small child – a human person who wouldn’t have existed without her “Fiat” – and it hits home that “one more soul” is truly the greatest gift she and her husband can give… to each other, to their other children, to their society, and to their Creator.

 

[vluvski]

svoboda:

But I never said that academic success was better than being a stay at home mom. Throughout this debate I acknowleged that childrem are important and that people who have many children and dedicate their lives solely to raising them make a very important contribution.

The unfortunate reality is that many women who WANT to stay home and have many children cannot afford to do so because the two-income household has become the norm. Many more women in fulfilling careers are left wondering why they’re still not happy juggling a job and children. They want to be home when they’re at work, and worrying about work when they’re home.

I can respect that some women are just not suited to mothering large families and can make a more meaningful contribution as professionals. However, there is too much of the “you can have it both ways” attitude and too many who believe that any woman who chooses to stay at home with her children is doing so against her will.

I believe that if more people honored and respected the role of stay-at-home-mom and housewife, more women would choose that “career.” Society is wrong when it tells us (and it does tell us) that a professional career is more meaningful than a life at home.

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

What I resent are people who want to force their way of life on everyone else, even when that position is completley unjustified, even in the context of Catholic teaching.

Couple of points on this statement:

1. You are asserting that the position is completely unjustified. Many justifications have been shown to you, even if you don’t like them. Therefore, it is logically dishonest to state that this is completely unjustified - the most you can say is that you simply don’t agree with the justifications given.
2. You stop just short of saying that we “shouldn’t” force our “way of life on everyone else”, though you do state that you resent it. If you are merely making a statement about personal preference, that you prefer people not forcing their way of life on others in the same way that you prefer coke to pepsi, this statement is fine (though it carries very little weight).

If, however, you are saying that we “shouldn’t” force our way of life on everyone else, you have made a self-refuting statement. You are forcing your way of life (“not forcing a way of life on others”) on us. We say people are wrong, and you say it’s wrong for us to say. We are both advocates of a moral principle - it is intellectually dishonest to say that you are neutral, for you have indeed taken a side. Yours is the side that says “don’t push”, and you are simultaniously “pushing” that side on us. You are violating your own principles, like saying “there are no moral absolutes, and here’s one…”

Do you see how this is silly?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

svoboda:

RyanL:

svoboda:

That’s all I have to say about the “happiness is selfishness” crowd.

Straw man. Seeking your happiness by any means and at any costs is, in fact, selfish.
I never said that. But using NFP to be able to contribute to society with God given talents is hardly “any means, any costs” Come on!

It seemed quite inferrable from your quoted statement that you were stating my position as follows:
“All seeking of happiness is selfish”
I said that’s a straw man argument, and stated a case where seeking happiness is demonstrably selfish. I could also state a case where it’s not selfish: seeking happiness through complete self-giving and self-sacrifice (pehaps in marriage or child raising or even in complete submission to God). Therefore, you have misrepresented my position to make it look foolish and to then knock it down.

Can you see why I would say it’s a straw man?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[setter]

vluvski:

The unfortunate reality is that many women who WANT to stay home and have many children cannot afford to do so because the two-income household has become the norm. Many more women in fulfilling careers are left wondering why they’re still not happy juggling a job and children. They want to be home when they’re at work, and worrying about work when they’re home.

I can respect that some women are just not suited to mothering large families and can make a more meaningful contribution as professionals. However, there is too much of the “you can have it both ways” attitude and too many who believe that any woman who chooses to stay at home with her children is doing so against her will.

I believe that if more people honored and respected the role of stay-at-home-mom and housewife, more women would choose that “career.” Society is wrong when it tells us (and it does tell us) that a professional career is more meaningful than a life at home.

I second this observation that too many married women have been duped and pressured to seek personal fulfilment in the dual and often competing role identities of career woman and mother. Half measures yield half results and eventual frustration and ultimate disillusionment. There is a real social pressure that many women experience to carry career/professional success and make a show of the rewards (and validation) for contributing/participating in the marketplace. I suspect that the issue often comes down to discerning (allowing God to sort) needs from wants and listening to the desires that God wants to enkindle in our hearts.

 

[svoboda]

vluvski:

The unfortunate reality is that many women who WANT to stay home and have many children cannot afford to do so because the two-income household has become the norm.

It is true that most people don’t have fulfilling/interesting jobs, it is true that money is hard to come by for many and they have to work.

Too bad, believe me, I want all women who want to stay at home with the kids to be able to do so.

Many more women in fulfilling careers are left wondering why they’re still not happy juggling a job and children. They want to be home when they’re at work, and worrying about work when they’re home

How on earth can you know what they’re thinking?

I can respect that some women are just not suited to mothering large families and can make a more meaningful contribution as professionals. However, there is too much of the “you can have it both ways” attitude and too many who believe that any woman who chooses to stay at home with her children is doing so against her will.

I don’t believe this, my own mother chose to stay at home. She wanted to do this. I’m sure many women as well as some men feel best when they are at home with the kids. Great for them. I support them.

I believe that if more people honored and respected the role of stay-at-home-mom and housewife, more women would choose that “career.” Society is wrong when it tells us (and it does tell us) that a professional career is more meaningful than a life at home.

I don’t think it has anything to do with society. Did you become an engineer because society told you to? Anyone who does something because society says so is immature, and I doubt most people are immature. I think most people do what makes them happy, what they’re made for/driven to do.

It’s true that many women who work do so because they have to to have enough money, and their jobs aren’t really fun/fulfilling. That’s really too bad.

Who knows, I can’t wait until all the menial work is done by robots and human beings are involved in itellectual/creative work.