When did children become an inconveniece?

[ac_claire]

Serap;6791038:

You haven’t noticed the bashing towards NFP’ers that are stopping at 2 or 3 children b/c you are still on #1 (congratulations btw!!!) and it doesn’t really hit you personally yet.

You may find after 2 or 3 that you will change your mind and discern that you too have been called to have 2 or 3 and not a big family and when someone challenges you by saying you are selfish, etc.; you too will get a little offended and will feel judged.

Perhaps so. I definitely can’t predict right now how exactly how I’d take something under different circumstances.

Yep, I’m gonna reply to myself here lol. This was bothering me, and I wanted to clarify what I meant above. I can’t know what the future will bring at all. I may be so burned out and overwhelmed with 1 child, (or 2, or 3) that I can’t handle the thought of having any more, ever. But I don’t believe that I will ever know that we have “been called” to only have that number of children, except in retrospect.

Far in the future when we’re past our child-bearing years, I can see looking back at our (for example) two kids and thinking, “two was definitely enough!” But I don’t know how I could know this beforehand, you know what I mean? My husband and I just look at the issue, philosophically, in a different way. As long as we are able to conceive, it’s not just up to us to determine when we’re completely “done” having children. It’s not over until it’s over.

 

[ac_claire]

When did children become an inconvenience? after the invention of the Pill

Before that, people enjoyed intimacy = had large families = struggled = parents and kids learned strength, fortitude, patience, delayed gratificaition = learned to appreciate the little things and the depth of personal sacrifices for each other (True Love) and Faith.

But with the Pill, free will, and the media fantasies, we learned to dream and lust for the easy life. Birth control = less or no kids = more for me = more selfishness = less tolerance for the things I don’t want, which leads some people to the extremes of:

1.: “Let the kids do whatever they want (become unruly) because I just don’t feel like putting any more effort into it because it’s more work for me,” or

2A.: “I’m going to make sure these kids turn out exactly as I want them to turn out, because I went through great pains to plan this predictable, well-designed life for us,” where the parent is too scared, too tightly wrapped to let go enough to acknowledge that life is a gamble and that they must learn to make their own decisions and mistakes, so they can learn how to make their own decisions and get themselves out of trouble as adults.

2B.: “My goal as a parent is to always see the kids smiling and having fun.” Well, that’s not adulthood. If they don’t learn to occasionally struggle as kids, they’ll be perpetual adult children who never grow up, and don’t want to surrender their lives for a spouse and kids.

Something to chew on. A mini-lesson in sacrificial love is the answer, imo.

Interesting.

This sounds like a critique of modern parenting ideals. You so you think that these ideals came about (or came to popularity/widespread belief) as a result of the widespread use of birth control? Or maybe it was vice versa, or both? I’ve never made that connection before, but it has a ring of truth to it. How do you think that NFP plays into this, if at all?

 

[mini_me640]

When did children become an inconvenience? after the invention of the Pill

Before that, people enjoyed intimacy = had large families = struggled = parents and kids learned strength, fortitude, patience, delayed gratificaition = learned to appreciate the little things and the depth of personal sacrifices for each other (True Love) and Faith.

But with the Pill, free will, and the media fantasies, we learned to dream and lust for the easy life. Birth control = less or no kids = more for me = more selfishness = less tolerance for the things I don’t want, which leads some people to the extremes of:

1.: “Let the kids do whatever they want (become unruly) because I just don’t feel like putting any more effort into it because it’s more work for me,” or

2A.: “I’m going to make sure these kids turn out exactly as I want them to turn out, because I went through great pains to plan this predictable, well-designed life for us,” where the parent is too scared, too tightly wrapped to let go enough to acknowledge that life is a gamble and that they must learn to make their own decisions and mistakes, so they can learn how to make their own decisions and get themselves out of trouble as adults.

2B.: “My goal as a parent is to always see the kids smiling and having fun.” Well, that’s not adulthood. If they don’t learn to occasionally struggle as kids, they’ll be perpetual adult children who never grow up, and don’t want to surrender their lives for a spouse and kids.

Something to chew on. A mini-lesson in sacrificial love is the answer, imo.

The Pill was created because there was a demand for it. Obviously everyone wasn’t so delighted to have enormous families, or there would have been no demand for artificial birth control. I agree that the Pill is bad, but I don’t think that we should kid ourselves into thinking that people in the past were so much more selfless and morally superior to today’s people Past generations of parents had plenty of their own shortcomings.

 

[Serap]

The Pill was created because there was a demand for it. Obviously everyone wasn’t so delighted to have enormous families, or there would have been no demand for artificial birth control. I agree that the Pill is bad, but I don’t think that we should kid ourselves into thinking that people in the past were so much more selfless and morally superior to today’s people.

I’d like a pill that stops me from losing it with my husband and kids. I’m sure there’s a demand for that!

 

[Rach620]

I kind of see “non-negotiable priority” and “unavoidable reality” as being not that seperate from eachother. Birth control was used even 100 years ago. If not ABC, which I know wasn’t so widespread as today, then there was abstinence and I think even an early form of the calender/rhythm methdod, altho I culd be wrong on the timing…not sure when that became public knowledge or allowed by the Church. (Might have been a bit more recent than 100 years ago.) Ultimately, if a Catholic family had children as God sent them without using any kind of birth control to space them or prevent birth, then they were trusting God, as I see it. Even if it was through gritted teeth because they feared the sin of using birth control and didn’t see any other option. Either way, they were obedient. That doesn’t mean that a modern couples can’t use NFP and still trust God.

I guess we are understanding “trust” differently. I am defining it as something that comes from the heart and is borne out in our behavior. I’m not sure that I agree that someone 100 years ago who grudgingly had a bunch of kids just because there was nothing they could do about it was “trusting God”. Sure, in their behavior they were obedient to Church teaching, but following the letter of the law doesn’t necessarily mean that one is following the spirit of the law and growing closer to Christ. I’m not sure if that’s what you mean, but to me it just smacks of pharisaism.

Clearly, NFP is allowed by the Church. Not arguing that it’s not, or that using NFP precludes trusting God. If that were true then this would be an entirely different conversation. My issue is this: I just look at the difference between the culture 60+ years ago and the way it is now as regards welcoming children into marriages. And I look at the way the Church *used *to talk about birth control (read any encyclical on the matter prior to 1960 for instance) and the way the Church does now (Humanae Vitae; CCC). It troubles me. Some couples right here on CAF, for instance, have no problem with saying that a serious or grave reason to use NFP is any reason that they can come up with. Just in the 3 or so years I’ve been on CAF, there’s even been a shift in those threads. More people give a thumbs up to the “a serious reason is whatever we think it is” position than have a problem with it. That’s all. The older documents (I’m thinking Pius XII in particluar) have no hesitation about spelling out what constitutes a grave reason. The newer ones, and the CCC, simply leave it to the individual couple’s discernment. But both the older documents and HV are infallible.

I guess I’d need to do a study comparing Casti Connubii and the address to midwives and some other pre-Vatican II documents on birth control to sort of see what you’re saying. I don’t think that what the Church has taught on the matter has substantially changed, although it is clear that the language used to explain and promulgate Church teaching has changed (in almost every area, not just contraception/birth control). One of the positive legacies of Vatican II, IMO, has been a different approach to teaching moral theology to the faithful, one that explains the beauty and truth of the Church’s teachings instead of reducing morality to a list of “thou shall nots”. Though I do understand that in some ways and in some areas this can be perceived as a lack of clarity.

As I’ve said in other threads about this…I don’t think that the Church is wrong and I don’t see any other way at the moment that it could be changed. The troubling part, I think, isn’t in what the Church has put out (because the basic teaching hasn’t changed), but in how I see many modern Catholic couples interpreting the language that the Church uses. There might be a benefit to couples reading the newer documents in the context of the older. Since they don’t contradict eachother, all this could do would be to increase wisdom on the subject IMO. That’s just one idea.

Sure, any increase in wisdom should be welcomed. The problem is just that no one really even bothers to read the newer documents, much less follow the Church’s teachings on NFP (as has been pointed out on this thread). We’re talking about a very select few people here, honestly. Of course I’m not advocating condoning sin, if that is the case, but what I’m trying to say is that we should try to encourage faithfulness to the Church’s teachings on the spacing/postponing of pregnancy–nothing more, nothing less. I don’t mean to sound defensive (and I’m not taking this thread personally, at all), but just trying to get us to acknowledge that this discernment process by NFP using Catholic couples as to whether they are going to try to achieve or avoid pregnancy is typically one made thoughtfully and with prayer, and it’s one that takes place in as many different messy circumstances as there are people. “Serious” just doesn’t look the same across the board, though of course we can all learn from one another…

I fear I’m lacking eloquence today. I hope some of it made sense…

 

[Contarini]

But now, people have built up a society based on material need. People need to keep up with the Joneses as the saying goes, and that means fancy TVs, new cars every few years a big house, fancy clothes. And often, they are trying to live like a King on a Pauper’s salary. So, people have to decide do they want 5 kids or a plasma screen TV. And you look at what kids these days have, so much junk, I grew up in the 80s with hand me down clothes, simple toys, I had one Barbie that lasted me my child hood, (even when I went through my Inquisition burning at the stake stage!) and we had a small black and white TV for most of it. And we turned out just fine. My parents would have had more kids if not for my mum being rendered infertile by illness.

I’m single, 29, and childless (having never been married, you see) and it seems to me from what I see of my friends’ and family’s kids that they’re not interested in getting outside climbing tress and God forbid if you do have a black and white small TV. They want the best, playstations, computers, toys that are really just junk. I mean, the new Transformers toys? What a pile of rubbish! The dicast were so much sturdier!

I know what you mean. I grew up with almost no TV and no movies and almost never ate out–we always shopped for stuff that was “On Sale” and grew a lot of our own vegetables (plus I raised goats for the milk). I feel like my daughter is growing up in luxury in comparison, but compared to some of her friends she’s positively ascetic!

Edwin

 

[Serap]

Am I mistaken, but didn’t Pope JP II say that NFP was a very acceptable way to space children and NFP could be used to discern the desire for more children? That in each cycle they were always open to more children even if NFP was used to avoid?

 

[ManOnFire]

The divorce of sexuality from parenthood was not something that could be realized in the past as it has been since the invention of the Pill, but if there had never been people who saw children as less than a blessing, the Pill would never have been invented. It would be more believable to blame Social Security…that is, the idea that you don’t need a family to take care of you in your old age.

Even in the Bible, the blessing of children was expressed at least partly in terms of enlightened self-interest:
Children too are a gift from the LORD, the fruit of the womb, a reward.
Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children born in one’s youth.
Blessed are they whose quivers are full. They will never be shamed contending with foes at the gate. Psalm 127: 3-5

Until these times of fame, children were also the only means most people could hope for in order to not be forgotten in death. By children, people’s lives did not end with their own death. Now the ancestors are forgotten in many families, and people see widespread fame as their way to live on. There are many societal changes like this that have nothing to do with the Pill.

We could go on all day about what got us to where we are, but perhaps a better question is this: where do we go now? What does God want from me?

Matthew Kelly brought up an interesting way of looking at this. He said we never ask children what God is saying to them. Instead, we ask them what they want to do with their lives. What do you want to be when you grow up? What do you want to do in college? What do you want to do when you graduate? Then, because that is the question they’ve been asked their whole lives, they grow up and do what they want, and it doesn’t make them either happy or good, and they can’t figure out why. No one realizes that since our answers come from the questions we ask, the problem is a lifetime of asking the wrong questions.

Maybe that is what needs to change?

I agree with most of what you are saying. Before the pill, the choice was either surrender to passion and have large families, use condoms (which must not have been too popular), or delay the gratification. Now, with the pill, the other extreme is popular: people can choose the passion AND choose to have no kids, which allows people to spend their time and money on themselves.

 

[ManOnFire]

We are using NFP What does the pill have to do with an NFP argument?

You are on the wrong thread with that message.

I comprehended the OP to be a societal concern.

 

[Serap]

I comprehended the OP to be a societal concern.

I see your point about the pill. The OP was referring to practicing Catholics who use NFP and that we use NFP to limit family size as we see them as an inconience. That was her underlying message.

I think you are right about the pill though if you are talking about society in general. 98% of catholics use ABC, and your arguement could apply to them.

 

[mini_me640]

I comprehended the OP to be a societal concern.

If the OP had been focused on the overall societal concern, I’m willing to bet this thread wouldn’t have gotten so heated. However, the OP specifically said she that she was troubled by the NFP threads on CAF and basically questioned whether Catholics using NFP felt children were inconvenient and if they had their priorities out of order. So unfortunately the thread was not addressing society at large, but instead the small number of people approaching spacing children the Church- approved way.

 

[Julianna]

I’d like a pill that stops me from losing it with my husband and kids. I’m sure there’s a demand for that!

yes there is. It’s called Xanax or Cymbalta, Zoloft, Paxil. After reading between the lines in this thread…I get the feeling you are scared as heck you will have more kids.

I had two. Two was enough for me.

 

[ManOnFire]

yes there is. It’s called Xanax or Cymbalta, Zoloft, Paxil. After reading between the lines in this thread…I get the feeling you are scared as heck you will have more kids.

I had two. Two was enough for me.

We have 5. The first 2 were almost like a warm-up. After being children ourselves, where our parents took care of us, it’s only natural to feel selfish and not want to “hand over our lives” for our spouses and children. We’ve simply made the free will choice to do it. I don’t think there are too many people who believe they were born to handle a large family. They just do it. When husband and wife are committed to the task, the depth of having a large family is mind blowing. Sure, there will be days, but ultimately these days will stretch you into something greater and deeper than you ever thought possible.

 

[Serap]

We have 5. The first 2 were almost like a warm-up. After being children ourselves, where our parents took care of us, it’s only natural to feel selfish and not want to “hand over our lives” for our spouses and children. We’ve simply made the free will choice to do it. I don’t think there are too many people who believe they were born to handle a large family. They just do it. When husband and wife are committed to the task, the depth of having a large family is mind blowing. Sure, there will be days, but ultimately these days will stretch you into something greater and deeper than you ever thought possible.

It’s great that you could do that. Juliana and I feel maxed out at 2.

Some marriages cannot withstand big families. It’s too much for the marriage. Your marriage must be more stable than mine b/c having many kids would push my marriage into a very dysfunctional zone. I don’t want to raise my kids like that.

 

[Sierrah]

I see your point about the pill. The OP was referring to practicing Catholics who use NFP and that we use NFP to limit family size as we see them as an inconience. That was her underlying message.

I

Yes exactly that was my message.

 

[mini_me640]

Yes exactly that was my message.

It’s a shame you feel so proud of judging the motivations of fellow Catholics who are using a Church-approved method of child spacing, especially as someone who has no children and so has no idea what raising children entails. Nice.

 

[Julianna]

It’s great that you could do that. Juliana and I feel maxed out at 2.

Some marriages cannot withstand big families. It’s too much for the marriage. Your marriage must be more stable than mine b/c having many kids would push my marriage into a very dysfunctional zone. I don’t want to raise my kids like that.

My kids are 21 months apart. I had two in diapers. My MIL had 4 cribs in one room! My DH is one of 9. I will admit, there is no way I could handle it. I worked full time and so did my DH. My kids are now 26 and 24. Son is in college and daughter is working. They are the loves of my life and I was blessed with 2. We didn’t live in a palace, or have fancy cars or a pool in the backyard. We had enough to get by.

I thought I was having a 3rd at the age of 31. Turns out it was a fibroid and I had a hysterectomy. I never looked back and I certainly don’t miss my monthly gift.

My DH and I are enjoying our pre-retirement and the fact that our two kids got equal amounts of attention and moved into adulthood.

I would also check with your ob/gyn. It is entirely possible that hormones are out of whack. You need some you and hubby time. When the kids were little, every 6 months we would plan a weekend away and my parents would watch the kids. That little mini-getaway was no more than 50 miles from home…but we felt like we were on the other side of the world. We got in a rut, work, school, home, kids, dinner, diapers, doctor, dentist…and we were ships passing in the night. We forgot we were a “couple”. Imagine that with a dozen kids. I wouldn’t know my name.

I agree with you that some people can’t handle a large family especially in this economy. It takes every penny to make ends meet. I went to work back in the day so we could “buy” a home.

You and hubby need to discuss what is best for “your” family…and not be concerned about being “bullied” into having more children that you cannot give emotionally and financially your full attention.

 

[dontknow]

It’s great that you could do that. Juliana and I feel maxed out at 2.

Some marriages cannot withstand big families. It’s too much for the marriage. Your marriage must be more stable than mine b/c having many kids would push my marriage into a very dysfunctional zone. I don’t want to raise my kids like that.

Our very dysfunctional zone would begin at 2 so 1 it is for us.

Now, let all the flamers flame me.

 

[Serap]

Our very dysfunctional zone would begin at 2 so 1 it is for us.

Now, let all the flamers flame me.

no flames here. You have to do what is best for your existing family. If you change your mind as #1 gets older, that’s another bridge to cross later.

Not every person is equipped emotionally to have a big family. Why have more children if you know you are not equipped to handle it? Why put future children through that?

 

[Julianna]

Our very dysfunctional zone would begin at 2 so 1 it is for us.

Now, let all the flamers flame me.

Count on it

Rest assured I would have taken any monatary contributions from anyone to handle the expenses required with more children or a job offer of CEO for hubby with full benefits and bonuses. Didn’t see anyone coming forth to contribute.

Is it a sad state of affairs that it should come to this? Sure, however…a thriving child needs emotional and somewhat financially stable parents. Americans live in the “burbs” not on a farm. Farming is a very expensive undertaking now…more rules and regulations just to grow corn…never mind a full working farm.

I believe it is the “children” that are inconvenienced when their parents have no foresight into how much time, attention and emotion can be focused, one on one.