Where are all the large Catholic families?

[moon1234]

The questions are:

What is the serious or grave reason and fair that can justify the NFP.? What can be the nature of this reason? Why and what for, how many time, which method?

By nature, the direct and voluntary contraception is wrong, per se. The question is: what is the direct and voluntary contraception?
By nature NFP is neutral, per se.

You speak only from a mechanical point of view though. Eating certain foods has the same effect. Should we then avoid those foods?

Love and being open to God’s will comes from the heart, not the mechanics of how babies are made. If you are closed to God’s will by actively using means to avoid your potentially having a child, then you are using whatever method with a contraceptive mentality.

The Church allows ABC chemicals when the reason for them is not birth control. If you are a woman with a whacked cycles or other problems and need to take a drug that has a side effect of causing sterility or other birth control effect, then it is allowed.

Isn’t it convenient then that NFP IS allowed, or so some claim, when people want to actively avoid having a child. SO ABC is BAD when used for birth control, but GOOD when used for treating illness.

The only difference is the MENTAL reasons for using such method and processes.

 

[moon1234]

I should also add that charting is often done by a couple, or an individual, purely for the sake of gaining more knowledge about a womans fertility, which knowledge is very good to have even if you aren’t planing on trying to eitther acheive or avoid. The charting is simply an action to gain more knowledge about ones feritlity. Charting, in and of itself is absolutely 100% useless for avoiding conception. The only “action” towards preventing conception in NFP to avoid is abstinance.

Correct, which is a MENTAL choice. It is a mentality in which NFP is used. It is CHOOSING to avoid having children.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think you read my previous posts in this thread where I said otherwise. NFP used with a contraceptive mentality is wrong. NFP used to help conceive a child is quite good. I have two friends with irregular cycles who used it to have their first child.

I think the current “teaching” that you see in most diocese is a perversion. It expounds how you can use NFP to avoid children until it is the right time. To me, this will ALWAYS be wrong. It places sex for pleasure/bonding above the primary end of marraige which is to have children.

We want sex, but with the lowest possible risk of having a child. What kind of being open to God’s will is that?

No, I read what you said elsewhere, but there are certain principle mixed in with what you are saying which, if you follow them out to their conclusions, say that NFP is never ok for avoiding. And seeing as all the method of avoiding in NFP is simply abstinance, that is rather a ridiculous conclusion.

I have to ask. If your wife were told that getting pregnant would endanger her life, would you believe it is wrong to use NFP to avoid conception in such a case?

 

[fpt]

No, to be honest I do not understand. Why in the world do you think that anything that I said reduces us to an animalistic level? I am **not **belittling or setting aside the importance of the unitive aspect of marital relations. It is unbelievably important, and it is very wrong to act as though the unitive aspect doesn’t matter so long as you end up having kids. But I do not see at all how what I am saying comes anywhere close to implying anything like that.

I do not like the terms (species).

I am not sure than " the good of the species is more important than the good of an individual " …etc with corollaries.

 

[thewanderer]

Correct, which is a MENTAL choice. It is a mentality in which NFP is used. It is CHOOSING to avoid having children.

This is incorrect. Abstaining is simply inaction. The mental choice that goes on can be either simply the choice to avoid having children because you just don’t want to or it could be that you recognize that it would be extremely imprudent, and sometimes outright selfish and irresponsible, to have a child at the present time. While married couples should not avoid children without good reason, it is not necessary for a married couple to have children (think the sterile, infertile, post-menopausal, women whose lives are in danger from childbirth etc), prudently choosing to refrain from a pleasurable and good action because you know that you are not currently capable of accepting one of its possible consequences is a **good **thing.

 

[fpt]

I still don’t understand. None of those quotes even implies, let alone necessitates, that the dual ends of marital relations are equal. I would just like to point out that claiming there is a hierarchy does not belittle the one that is placed lower on the hierarchy. I think a lot of people dislike the idea of the primary end of sex being children because they think that means that the unitive aspect is not important, which it obviously is, very much so, but that doesn’t mean that in the natural order of things the ends don’t have some sort of hierarchy. I think it makes sense to think of a hierarchy in the ntural order of thingss with respect to these ends. The good of the species is more important than the good of an individual, so the end of sex which is ordered towards the good of the species as a whole has a higher place on the hierarchy than the end which is only ordered towards the good of a particular couple. Does that make sense?

Where do you find the hierarchy of the ends of marriage, except between 1917 to Vatican the Second? Before 1917? After Vatican the Second?

The continuity of doctrine means equal, mutual and reciprocal. Cumulative conditions.

What is the moral natural order of the marital act in its two dimensions (materiality and intentionality from the contractual obligations and from the institutional duties of the state of marriage)?

 

[thewanderer]

I do not like the terms (species).

I am not sure than " the good of the species is more important than the good of an individual " …etc with corollaries.

Ah, I am sorry if you associate some other connotation with the word ‘species’. I was not using it in a way that equates men with animals, so if because of the language barrier you have misunderstood then I hope that helps clarify.

As for the idea that “the good of the species is more important than the good of an individual” I have to admit that I hesitated before writing that down because I knew it could be misinterpreted to mean that the it is ok to deliberately act against the good of the individual so long as you are acting for the good of the whole, which of course is never ok.

This might be a better way of explaining what I was trying to get at. Say the human race is being invaded and attacked. The invaders pick some world leader and demand that he decide between himself and the rest of the human race, they will either let him live, or the rest of humanity. Now, in this situation, which is more important, the life of the one individual or that of the whole race? Clearly that of the enitre race. This is not because the individuals life is not important, but just that there is something greater about the race as a whole than an individual. Again, please don’t misunderstand this to mean that I think the individuals aren’t important. I think they are all of the utmost importance, but that doesn’t mean that there is no philosophical order between the importance of the individual and the race itself.

 

[moon1234]

No, I read what you said elsewhere, but there are certain principle mixed in with what you are saying which, if you follow them out to their conclusions, say that NFP is never ok for avoiding. And seeing as all the method of avoiding in NFP is simply abstinance, that is rather a ridiculous conclusion.

I have to ask. If your wife were told that getting pregnant would endanger her life, would you believe it is wrong to use NFP to avoid conception in such a case?

 

[thewanderer]

Where do you find the hierarchy of the ends of marriage, except between 1917 to Vatican the Second? Before 1917? After Vatican the Second?

The continuity of doctrine means equal, mutual and reciprocal. Cumulative conditions.

What is the moral natural order of the marital act in its two dimensions (materiality and intentionality from the contractual obligations and from the institutional duties of the state of marriage)?

Can you please either give me a quote that actually says that the ends are equal or explain your reasoning as to why you believe the Church documents imply equality because I honstly see absolutely no implication in said documents that the ends are entirely and in all respects on an equal plane.

 

[fpt]

By the natural law, each couple has the right to space children or to avoid children for fair and grave (serious) reason if and only if each one is okay: it is from a bilateral agreement or unilateral in special situations (see the good motives for refusing marital act without the agreement of the other)

 

[fpt]

Can you please either give me a quote that actually says that the ends are equal or explain your reasoning as to why you believe the Church documents imply equality because I honstly see absolutely no implication in said documents that the ends are entirely and in all respects on an equal plane.

Okay I will explain my reasoning next time, when I find again the documents.

see you nest time on CAF.

 

[thewanderer]

Okay I will explain my reasoning next time, when I find again the documents.

see you nest time on CAF.

 

[fpt]

Do you believe that the Pope can publish a canon law with wrong rules concerning the marriage? Do you believe that the Vatican II can write wrong doctrines concerning the conjugal moral?

According to the Vatican the I st, in moral there is infallibility of the catholic church in council with Pope or of Pope Only . Conjugal moral is a part of the moral, thus the pope can not give us wrong doctrine concerning the sexual ethic in the marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

Do you believe that the Pope can publish a canon law with wrong rules concerning the marriage? Do you believe that the Vatican II can write wrong doctrines concerning the conjugal moral?

According to the Vatican the I st, in moral there is infallibility of the catholic church in council with Pope or of Pope Only . Conjugal moral is a part of the moral, thus the pope can not give us wrong doctrine concerning the sexual ethic in the marriage.

Well, Canon Law is disciplinary… so its not the kind of subject that can be infallible, but, besides that, I think you misunderstand me.

I have read, and entirely agree with all of the quotes you have brought up in this thread. I just honestly don’t see how saying there is a hierarchy between the two ends contradicts anything the Church has said, which is why I asked you to explain why you think it does.

 

[fpt]

Well, Canon Law is disciplinary… so its not the kind of subject that can be infallible, but, besides that, I think you misunderstand me.

In reality in the canon law there are different parts and about marriage the hard core is in link with the moral, thus the conjugal moral is not wrong, is not sinful. How can you imagine that the Pope can publish a bad conjugal moral, in the canon law? it is infallible by the nature of the subject: marital moral about sex and marriage.

I have read, and entirely agree with all of the quotes you have brought up in this thread. I just honestly don’t see how saying there is a hierarchy between the two ends contradicts anything the Church has said, which is why I asked you to explain why you think it does.

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

 

[Cable]

The Holy Family is 3.

We’ve seen that the bigger families are home schoolers, but not all of them. Some of the large families go to TLM and the rest go to the new Mass.

BTW, someone mentioned earlier that as an SSPX, they’ve gotten the “cold shoulder” from Catholics. One reason may be because the SSPX says they’re Catholic, yet the group isn’t reconciled with the Holy See regarding doctrines.

 

[adopted_heir]

I think that right there’s what they usually mean by ‘cold shoulder.’ I mean, they continue doing things as have been done by Catholics for 1,950–odd years and suddenly they have to stop because they’re not Catholic anymore? That’s totally off the topic of the post, but so was the assertion… As far as not being reconciled regarding certain doctrines, those are documents that are purposefully vague and have still not shown any kind of clarification. You can’t really demand someone abide by doctrines that, for all their wording, are inconclusive bordering on nonsensical. All of which is irrelevant to where large Catholic families are.

We’re not obliged to have huge families; we’re obliged to be open to life and not hinder it without grave cause. Why don’t we have huge families anymore? Perhaps better survival rates, industrialized society, and a utilitarian/budgetary attitude toward human life. I’d say, anyway.

 

[fpt]

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

I. All the documents without concept of the hierarchy of the ends of marriage:

. Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566):
But why marriage was instituted is a subject which demands exposition The first reason of its institution is because nature instinctively tends to such a union ; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. Another is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.

. The Little Catechism of Saint Pius X for children (14 June 1905):
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

. The Great Catechism of Saint Pius X (14 June 1905):
What is the sacrament of Matrimony?
A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

. Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965):
48. “The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them.

1. 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. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.
   ……etc.
   Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.

 

[fpt]

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

again

. Code of Canon Law of 1983:
Can. 1055 §1. " The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized ".

. Catechism of the Catholic Church (11 October 1992):
1601. “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”

Marriage in the order of creation:
1604. “God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.
1605. “Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh “.

. Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (28 June 2005):
337. What is the plan of God regarding man and woman?
God who is love and who created man and woman for love has called them to love. By creating man and woman he called them to an intimate communion of life and of love in marriage: “So that they are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6). God said to them in blessing “Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).
338. For what ends has God instituted Matrimony?
The marital union of man and woman, which is founded and endowed with its own proper laws by the Creator, is by its very nature ordered to the communion and good of the couple and to the generation and education of children. According to the original divine plan this conjugal union is indissoluble, as Jesus Christ affirmed: “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mark 10:9).
344. What is matrimonial consent?
Matrimonial consent is given when a man and a woman manifest the will to give themselves to each other irrevocably in order to live a covenant of faithful and fruitful love. Since consent constitutes Matrimony, it is indispensable and irreplaceable. For a valid marriage the consent must have as its object true Matrimony, and be a human act which is conscious and free and not determined by duress or coercion.

 

[fpt]

For the rest, next time, I need to go to bed. See you on the web.

In order to be sure to know the true and the real the doctrine, it is easier to use the documents from the Holy See between Vatican the First to now (The pope Benedict XVI). Why this period? Because before all things, there was the proclamation of the Dogma of the infallibleness, indeed, according to the Vatican the First, in moral there is infallibility of the Catholic Church in council with Pope or of Pope Only. Conjugal moral is a part of the moral, “thus the pope can not give us wrong doctrine concerning the sexual ethic in the marriage”. Thereby, all the documents about this topic (even the canon law) from the Holy See about sexual ethic are not bad, not full of wrong things. Therefore, it is very important to have a global view of all documents in the respect of catholic method of interpretation. We have to avoid some wrong intellectual approaches like: the manicheism, the catharism, the jansenism, the fideism, the victorianism, the puritanism, the theoretical providentialism, the moralism, the rigorism, the dolorism, the prudism (the prudishness), the scrupulism, the absolute rationalism, the anti-rationalism, the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the absurdism (absurdity or absurdisness), the gender theory, the relativism, the modernism…etc. In the catholic doxa about the marriage, there is a global logic that each member of Church has to understand and has to be okay with: there is an unity between all the documents.