Where are all the large Catholic families?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonslayer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
just in case you were wondering, fpt, no I do not agree with said statements about NFP.

As to the idea that there can be debate about the hierarchy… I really am not sure if there can be. For now I will not come down and say that I am absolutely right in saying that there can’t be debate, but from everything I have read it does seem pretty settled. Even the quote from JPII’s Love and Responsibility which moon1234 brought up earlier seems to point to itt as a settled issue.
**From Pope John Paul II’s Book Love and Responsibility
**As we come to the end of this part of the discussion, which was intended to give a correct interpretation of the sexual urge, in part by eliminating incorrect interpretation, some conclusions connected with the traditional teaching on the ends of marriage ask to be drawn. The Church, as has been mentioned previously, teaches, and has always taught, that the primary end of marriage is procreatio, but that it has a secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium. Apart from these, a tertiary aim is mentioned – remedium concupiscentiae. Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire. Could you explain, please? The ends of marriage in the order mentioned are incompatible with any subjectivist interpretation of the sexual urge, and therefore demand from man, as a person, objectivity in his thinking on sexual matters, and above all in his behavior. This objectivity is the foundation of conjugal morality
Click to expand...
Note that here JPII is not only saying that it is his opinion that there is a hierarchy, but that the fact that there is a hierarchy is something which **has always been taught **by the Church. That, to me, makes it sound like settled issue. 🤷
 
thewanderer said:
just in case you were wondering, fpt, no I do not agree with said statements about NFP.

As to the idea that there can be debate about the hierarchy… I really am not sure if there can be. For now I will not come down and say that I am absolutely right in saying that there can’t be debate, but from everything I have read it does seem pretty settled. Even the quote from JPII’s Love and Responsibility which moon1234 brought up earlier seems to point to itt as a settled issue.

Note that here JPII is not only saying that it is his opinion that there is a hierarchy, but that the fact that there is a hierarchy is something which **has always been taught **by the Church. That, to me, makes it sound like settled issue. 🤷
Click to expand...
" Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire. "

Could you explain, please?
 
fpt said:
" Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal life for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire. "

Could you explain, please?
Click to expand...
I guess:

" Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence of humanity, procreation???]

secondly a conjugal life for man and woman (mutuum adiutorium. conjugal love, unity, for helping to vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support, physical love??? )

and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire (the remedium concupiscentiae???),. "
 
fpt said:
I guess:

" Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence of humanity, procreation???]

secondly a conjugal life for man and woman (mutuum adiutorium. conjugal love, unity, for helping to vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support, physical love??? )

and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire (the remedium concupiscentiae???),. "
Click to expand...
Thats how I understand it.
 
Also note, that by saying ‘objectively considered’ this is not speaking of every particular instance. It is perfectly legitimate for a sterile couple to marry and not have children, so long as their marriage remains ordered towards the procreation of children (ie they don’t take action to render an otherwise fertile act infertile).
 
thewanderer said:
just in case you were wondering, fpt, no I do not agree with said statements about NFP.

As to the idea that there can be debate about the hierarchy… I really am not sure if there can be. For now I will not come down and say that I am absolutely right in saying that there can’t be debate, but from everything I have read it does seem pretty settled. Even the quote from JPII’s Love and Responsibility which moon1234 brought up earlier seems to point to itt as a settled issue.

Note that here JPII is not only saying that it is his opinion that there is a hierarchy, but that the fact that there is a hierarchy is something which **has always been taught **by the Church. That, to me, makes it sound like settled issue. 🤷
Click to expand...
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.

These three catechisms can be troubling!!!
 
thewanderer said:
just in case you were wondering, fpt, no I do not agree with said statements about NFP.

As to the idea that there can be debate about the hierarchy… I really am not sure if there can be. For now I will not come down and say that I am absolutely right in saying that there can’t be debate, but from everything I have read it does seem pretty settled. Even the quote from JPII’s Love and Responsibility which moon1234 brought up earlier seems to point to itt as a settled issue.

Note that here JPII is not only saying that it is his opinion that there is a hierarchy, but that the fact that there is a hierarchy is something which **has always been taught **by the Church. That, to me, makes it sound like settled issue. 🤷
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I am a little confused by the last document from the JP II. What is the value of this speech, this book. What is the authority of this book of JP II?

Other questions, what is the hierarchy of norms of the catholic church on this topic? How to be sure that such deeds is superior, has a higher force, is on the top of all on this topic?
 
fpt said:
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.

These three catechisms can be troubling!!!
Click to expand...
At least the last two, not at all. 🤷 All they are doing is pointing out the importance of the unitive aspect. They are not comparing the unitive to the procreative and concluding that the unitive is prior with respect to matrimony.

The first could be read as troubling, but without understanding the full context of this text and so understanding exactly in what respect the natural inclination is said to be first, one cannot say for sure that it contradicts the other places where the Church has explicitly spoken about this hierarchy.

As to the level of authority of Love and Responsibility, yes, it is not official Church teaching. My point was more so the fact that JPII clearly believes that the Church has always taught that this hierarchy exists. I find it difficult to believe that a man so versed in Theology and Church teaching as JPII would be mistaken on a point such as this.
 
thewanderer said:
At least the last two, not at all. 🤷 All they are doing is pointing out the importance of the unitive aspect. They are not comparing the unitive to the procreative and concluding that the unitive is prior with respect to matrimony.

The first could be read as troubling, but without understanding the full context of this text and so understanding exactly in what respect the natural inclination is said to be first, one cannot say for sure that it contradicts the other places where the Church has explicitly spoken about this hierarchy.

As to the level of authority of Love and Responsibility, yes, it is not official Church teaching. My point was more so the fact that JPII clearly believes that the Church has always taught that this hierarchy exists. I find it difficult to believe that a man so versed in Theology and Church teaching as JPII would be mistaken on a point such as this.
Click to expand...
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 marital act, the fact of making one flesh, copula carnalis, making love, sexual carnal love, bonding of love by sexual intercourse];???

; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. [no problem]

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 [no problem].
 
fpt said:
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 marital act, the fact of making one flesh, copula carnalis, making love, sexual carnal love, bonding of love by sexual intercourse];???

; and under the vicissitudes of life and the infirmities of old age, this union is a source of mutual assistance and support. [no problem]

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 [no problem].
Click to expand...
As I noted, ‘prior’ or ‘first’ can be said in many different ways. It is quite possible that even this quote is talking about a different order of priority than is talked about when the Church teaches that there is a hierarchy between them. Without further context it is impossible to tell.
 
thewanderer said:
As I noted, ‘prior’ or ‘first’ can be said in many different ways. It is quite possible that even this quote is talking about a different order of priority than is talked about when the Church teaches that there is a hierarchy between them. Without further context it is impossible to tell.
Click to expand...
It was a pleasure to have a very nice debate and some exchanges of information on this controversial topic.

For me, nothing is very clear about the certainty of the hierarchy among the ends of marriage. I need to improve again my research on this topic. Your point of view and the documents were very useful. Thank a lot for this good thread.
 
fpt said:
By nature, NFP is only a method for practicing the responsible procreation, thus it is neutral, per se. Only a bad circuntance, in this case a wrong reason that is not fair and is not serious can change this neutral behaviour in immoral action.
Click to expand...
Ladies and Gentlemen:

I wanted to chime in a little about NFP. It is more scientific than the old rhythm method, and couples have used it successfully for charting and achieving pregnancy. It is also healthy, low cost, and men feel closer to their wives.

In addition, a few weeks ago, I listened to a discussion on Catholic Radio where a couple was using it for health reasons (primarily diabetes and poly cystic ovarian syndrome - I won’t elaborate further, but I think you understand) and it is effective and safer than ABC. I brought this up here because health reasons was mentioned earlier in this thread.

I also know of a guy whose wife had at least 3 C-Sections. This couple practices NFP primarily because of the risks of having another child. I met another couple who stopped after 3 children because the doctor told him and his wife that if they had another child (his wife is petite) she would probably fracture some critical bones during labor.

I’m told through much of the 1970’s and 1980’s, women would go to confession and confess that they were on ABC. Some priests would say “oh, you don’t have to follow Humanae Vitae” and others would say, “well, you have had 3,4, or 5 children, you have done your duty.” I think the tables are turning in a good way with the JPII generation and the Theology of the Body. Young adults note that 1/3 of their generation is not around, and some of those 55+ are saying they wish they had more children.***

Another thing I hope is changing is that I’ve heard stories of engaged couples going to a Pre-Cana weekend and being told that ABC was OK. I’ve actually heard that more from those who attended 20+ years ago, and my opinion is that it varied from diocese to diocese. ***

As far as pro-life preaching, when I have seen priests do this, I have never seen anyone walk out. Reactions I see is, “I never knew that”, “I wish I would of heard that sooner”, and “thank you”. The times my pastor has preached on these issues, I have always thanked him afterwards for standing up, and I tell him not to be afraid.

That’s the box today.

***P.S. If anyone reading this is from Canada, feel free to share something on the impact of the Winnepeg Statement.
 
Direct and voluntary contraception is so wrong because it is against the natural moral law (against potential fecundation);
Direct and voluntary abortion is so awful because oit is against the natural moral law (homocide, assassination, genocide);
Indirect and involuntary contraception is not immoral and thus, it is moral (great issue of the definition, i know the debate);
Indirect and involuntary abortion is not immoral and thus it is moral (great issue of the definition, i know the debate);
The fact of practicing the marital act during the different times of the cycle of the wife, is per se, moral (infertile time, fertile time, pregnancy, menstruations, breastfeeding, just before menaupose, menaupose, after the menaupose);
The fact of practicing the marital act if husband is naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act if wife is naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act if the wife and the husband are naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally okay , it is moral.
The fact of practicing the marital act with the intention and the wiil to want a baby is okay, it is moral;

By nature, the NFP is not contraception.
The practice of NFP in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because there is:
a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), economical reason is okay and moral if the two members of couple are okay together and its reason is objective and real and true and is not unfair (fair);

The contraceptive mentality is wrong;
The absolute procreationism is also wrong,
 
fpt said:
Direct and voluntary contraception is so wrong because it is against the natural moral law (against potential fecundation);
Direct and voluntary abortion is so awful because it is against the natural moral law (homocide, assassination, genocide);
Indirect and involuntary contraception is not immoral and thus, it is moral (great issue of the definition, i know the debate);
Indirect and involuntary abortion is not immoral and thus it is moral (great issue of the definition, i know the debate);
The fact of practicing the marital act during the different times of the cycle of the wife, is per se, moral (infertile time, fertile time, pregnancy, menstruations, breastfeeding, just before menaupose, menaupose, after the menaupose);
The fact of practicing the marital act if husband is naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act if wife is naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act if the wife and the husband are naturally sterile is okay, it is moral;
The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally okay , it is moral.
The fact of practicing the marital act with the intention and the will to want a baby is okay, it is moral;

By nature, the NFP is not contraception.
The practice of NFP in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because there is:
a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), economical reason is okay and moral if the two members of couple are okay together and its reason is objective and real and true and is not unfair (fair);

The contraceptive mentality is wrong;
The absolute procreationism is also wrong,
Click to expand...
The fact of having a large family is not a dogma or a moral obligation (a end of marriage who is compulsary), per se;
The fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;
he fact of having a large family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;
The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the unholiness of couple;
The fact of having a small family is not, per se, a sign of the holiness of couple;
The fact of wanting a baby can be irrresponsable in special cases;
The fact of not wanting a baby can be selfish, and that is not okay.
The contraceptive mentality is wrong;
The absolute natalism and the absolute procreationism are wrong;
The irresponsible paternity is wrong,the irresponsible maternity is wrong, the irresponsible procreation is wrong;
 
If there is an hierarchy among the ends of marriage:

What are the implications of this hierarchy ? What are the consequences of this hierarchy?

and

Can I doubt this special topic? Is it a bad intellectual approach to doubt on it? Is it a bad mentality? Am I wrong? Is it so bad? Is it dangerous for my catholic mind?
 
Your observation is correct, and your on the right track, congratulations. 🙂 The Catholic family is getting smaller in a time of abundance where we should see the opposite.

This is one problem of many serious questions the Family faces now. Probably the most heavily attacked Institution of all, the Family Institution is the foundational teaching environment of our Church, and is the prerequisite of the curriculum of Life. It is here, even prior to Catholic school that the child learns about traditions and customs, about saints and sacraments. He learns what is the proper conduct of life in an increasingly none receptive secular world, prayer, tact and the proper way to behave with others. He learns social skills formed on Catholic principles. A good portion of the effects we see today and what we try to address in this forum have a cause that can be traced to the family.

We should all pray for the Family who needs protection and for parents who need all the help they can get in this decadent world.
 
And as far as the very strict applications and scrupulosity over NFP and just how hard you have to try to have a baby, or what you can and can’t do between husband and wife, I am reminded of the answer given by our priest (SSPX): “Do (just about) whatever you want, as long as it ends the right way.”
 
What is a large catholic family according to your understanding of the " traditional catholic teaching " ?

What is a large catholic family according to you? In your point of view, how do you define a large catholic family? What are your references?
 
fpt said:
NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING
IS IT REALY AN ALTERNATIVE TO CONTRACEPTION?
By Father Gerard Rusak

catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/natural.htm

As catholic lay person, are you okay with this type of article?
And as traditional catholic, are you okay with this type of article?
Click to expand...
Other articles from that site;

“Problems with EWTN”
“Charismatic Movement Not From GOD”
“Opus Dei - Sectarians in disguise?”
“The differences between the True Mass and the New Mass”
“The Novus Ordo and Heresy”
“Is the New Mass Valid or Pleasing to God?”

I’d take some of what they say with a grain of salt.

Hard to take the site seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top