Where did the anti-family vibe come from?

[Jeremiah1278]

And that is why I am glad to live in this day and age. Driving from Iowa to Tampa and back earlier this year was one of the best experiences of my life. I don’t ever want to – and I’m not ever going to – stop traveling.

I’m not arguing that we should have less freedom or that we are somehow cursed by all the things we can do. I’m simply saying that we have a different set of diversions that cause us to lose sight of our purpose in creation. I’m happy that we have more freedom and more options, but I’m guessing that one such side-effect is that people are pushing having babies further down the bucket list.

I don’t know how “good” that is. It’s one thing to not feel called to be a parent. It’s just another thing to be diverted from your calling to be a parent by things that are self-fulfilling. It feels self-centered when we aren’t really called to be that self-centered in the Gospel. I don’t recall much, “Go out and have lots of fun. Educate yourself such that you can attain resources sufficient to live in relative luxury without worry. When you have fulfilled the bucket list of things thou hast wanted to do. And when thou has attained enough pieces of gold that thou is comfortable enough—because I totally understand if you don’t want to put faith in Me such that you don’t worry about those things—at that point, feel free to bring another soul into the world and to God. Feel contempt for those river people who have no time to see Dark Night Rises on opening night because they have all those kids. They should have planned better.”

I think the message of the prodigal son parable was just about the opposite of that. I’m not anti-freedom and anti-options. I’m anti-self-centered because it diverts one from his purpose.

 

[Nabooru]

Are children invariably a lay person’s purpose?

 

[Jeremiah1278]

Are children invariably a lay person’s purpose?

Nope.

 

[Jeremiah1278]

Nope.

Sorry. That was quick and thoughtless. I’m at work

No, and it’s a good question. I think your question helps to draw out what I’m saying. I’m saying people who would otherwise have been open to more life/kids in a different setting are less open to life/kids in today’s. We let other things (that in the grand scheme are not that important to one’s relationship with God and therefore not that important to their existence) push that part of their life’s work down the list. Which is a shame, because creating life is inherently good and likely provides the person with truths about their existence and about God to which they would otherwise have more difficulty accessing.

I lack access to the benefits of being a Priest or a single person with no intention of having a family. Those folks probably have access to truths about creation that I will likely never understand in this life. But we aren’t talking about people who have examined their consciences and have concluded that God has other plans for them. We are talking about people being anti-family because family is burdensome.

A laity that is directionally anti-family because self-fulfillment is paramount in our culture is a laity that is a bit prodigal. I also think about the rich fella who asked Jesus how to get to heaven and Jesus tells him to get rid of all his possessions. Jesus knew that the guy was serving two masters—his wealth and his God. That guy needed to let go of those diversions to see the truth. We are easily the rich fella. For some of us it’s difficult to turn toward God every day when it’s so easy in our culture to serve a second master.

 

[The_Bucket]

I believe the Lord’s will is for me to do exactly what I plan to do. I believe that the Lord wants us to be happy, which is why He has provided me with a woman who is also against having children and has made it possible for us to enter a loving relationship without the burden of children.

I am a practicing Catholic, no matter how much you try to claim I am not. Refusing to subscribe to one archaic teaching does not cancel out all of one’s faith. I know in my heart that I’m doing the right thing.

You do realize that you will have to lie when the priest asks you if you are open to life, right? I mean, that’s one of the chief impediments to Catholic marriage besides blood relationship and existing marital relationship. I daresay you’d at least agree that lying is wrong, right?

No matter what you say, you won’t be validly married if you publicly and privately profess a total lack of openness to life. Sad that you’ll be starting what is supposed to be a sacred and lifelong bond based on a lie to the chief witness to this attempted sacrament.

The Lord wants us to be happy, very true. But the way to happiness is to abandon self-love and our own plans and to follow His way. That includes His Church and all its “archaic teaching,” especially those as it pertains to something as immensely important as the family unit and the purpose of sexuality. Congrats on publicly spitting on His design.

 

[GWright]

There is such a strong anti-family sentiment especially amongst younger people and intellectual types.

Great post.

For me the fundamental change is that which has taken western nations from being “pro-society” to “pro-individual”.

In the past, Governments made social policy based on what was good for society. Nowadays all the emphasis is on the rights of the individual, even when these “rights” are actually to the overall detriment of society.

In the past, societies had ideals. Having ideals was seen as a good thing, as was striving to achieve them. Marriages were important, children having both biological parents were important, commitment was important, stability was important.

But due to negative social change - due to a host of reasons - individual rights have replaced ideals. As divorce, single parents, promiscuity, homosexuality etc lost their social stigma and became commonplace, then people whose lifestyle did not adhere to ideals (for whatever reason), resented the stigma they felt and so it became taboo to even discuss ideals. “Discriminatory”, even.

Governments now have to treat all circumstances as equal, even though they are - demonstrably - not all good for society, some having obvious negative effects. Hence social decline.

Often, being pro-family is bizarrely interpreted as being judgemental, reactionary, homophobic, sexist or whatever. This is due to the loss of ideals. I agree that these confused, selfish sentiments are more common among young people - as to them, having no ideals is the norm (depending on when they were born).

Examples of the loss of values and associated negative social consequences are:

People demand the right to divorce, but this harms families and sends the message that commitment is disposable. It leads to single parent families, with less stability and poorer conditions for both the child and remaining parent.

People demand the right to have homosexual sex. But male homosexuality is by far the main driver for HIV-AIDs proliferation in western societies (causing some two thirds of all new cases). This damages lives and causes long term financial burdens for healthcare services.

People demand the right to sleep around. But this cheapens sex in society’s view, and causes STD proliferation and unwanted pregnancies and so abortion. Medical services have to pick up the tab for dealing with STDs. Abortion cheapens and destroys life and helps cause a low birthrate, which in turn causes issues with ageing societies.

All of society has to accept these negative consequences due to individuals putting themselves first. They do not care about overall society, only themselves. As increasing amount of people think in this fashion, then naturally Governments abandon ideals and pander to the new circumstances to attract votes.

The great irony is that its through living for others that we really achieve fulfillment. Whereas always putting ourselves first only leads to ever more selfish wants and demands, as we gradually become obsessed with ourselves and our personal satisfaction.

 

[lerapt78]

Good post GWright, and I agree with much of it. What do you (or anyone else on this thread) think that we could do to change this attitude without changing legislation? Is it possible to change it? Or do you think that we as a society will just have to wait another 30-40 years to see the damage that has been done before people finally wake up and decide to change themselves and the way they raise their children?

It seems all we can do in order to promote healthy values but still retain individual liberty is live by example and try to teach others. It has to be done, but it seems futile at times.

 

[NightHawk2005]

You do realize that you will have to lie when the priest asks you if you are open to life, right? I mean, that’s one of the chief impediments to Catholic marriage besides blood relationship and existing marital relationship. I daresay you’d at least agree that lying is wrong, right?

No matter what you say, you won’t be validly married if you publicly and privately profess a total lack of openness to life. Sad that you’ll be starting what is supposed to be a sacred and lifelong bond based on a lie to the chief witness to this attempted sacrament.

The Lord wants us to be happy, very true. But the way to happiness is to abandon self-love and our own plans and to follow His way. That includes His Church and all its “archaic teaching,” especially those as it pertains to something as immensely important as the family unit and the purpose of sexuality. Congrats on publicly spitting on His design.

I actually won’t have to lie at all. The Church will not refuse marriage to someone who has had a vasectomy, and I will be doing that long before I marry. Prior to my wedding, I will be able to honestly tell the priest that I am sterile.

 

[The_Bucket]

I actually won’t have to lie at all. The Church will not refuse marriage to someone who has had a vasectomy, and I will be doing that long before I marry. Prior to my wedding, I will be able to honestly tell the priest that I am sterile.

You would have had to go to confession and repent of that. Which means you will have to genuinely have remorse for that sin and all that it entails. You can’t just be sorry for doing it but relieved about the practical consequences of sterility.

Considering that you have been admonished about the gravity of this behavior, you are being obstinate in your sin… so your marriage will be invalid even though you’ll go through the motions.

So like I said, congrats on starting a lifelong bond with a lie. And on the awesome trolling job.

 

[NightHawk2005]

You would have had to go to confession and repent of that. Which means you will have to genuinely have remorse for that sin and all that it entails. You can’t just be sorry for doing it but relieved about the practical consequences of sterility.

Considering that you have been admonished about the gravity of this behavior, you are being obstinate in your sin… so your marriage will be invalid even though you’ll go through the motions.

So like I said, congrats on starting a lifelong bond with a lie. And on the awesome trolling job.

I’m not trolling at all. That’s the second time I’ve been accused on this, and yet, if I was saying how I couldn’t wait to have kids, you wouldn’t say a word.

I don’t post my feelings on this on topics where having children is not discussed. Every post I make is on topic. So the only reason you have to call it trolling is that I happen to believe something different from you. I’m sorry, but that is not trolling. I’m allowed to have different beliefs than you. I’m also allowed to post in support of those beliefs.

 

[estesbob]

I believe the Lord’s will is for me to do exactly what I plan to do. I believe that the Lord wants us to be happy, which is why He has provided me with a woman who is also against having children and has made it possible for us to enter a loving relationship without the burden of children.

I am a practicing Catholic, no matter how much you try to claim I am not. Refusing to subscribe to one archaic teaching does not cancel out all of one’s faith. I know in my heart that I’m doing the right thing.

So you believe that your finding a women who likewise rejects Church teaching on marriage is proof it is OK? You will have to admit this is very strange theology, to say the least , and has no basis in the teachings of the Church. Obviously you have convinced yourself it is OK to reject Church teachings that interfere with the way you want to live your life but you should not be surprised when fellow Catholics disagree and try to point out what the Church really teaches.

 

[The_Bucket]

I’m not trolling at all. That’s the second time I’ve been accused on this, and yet, if I was saying how I couldn’t wait to have kids, you wouldn’t say a word.

I don’t post my feelings on this on topics where having children is not discussed. Every post I make is on topic. So the only reason you have to call it trolling is that I happen to believe something different from you. I’m sorry, but that is not trolling. I’m allowed to have different beliefs than you. I’m also allowed to post in support of those beliefs.

You are certainly entitled to not want to have kids. As a single person I would never begrudge you of that. Some people just are not called to be parents and have a different vocation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever! And in fact we’re in dire need of more people in the priesthood and religious life; I’d totally encourage my own children as they get older to consider such a vocation or even celibate single life.

But what you’re talking about is basically intentionally entering into an invalid marriage and professing pride about it. It’s extraordinarily bizarre and that’s why I use the troll card.

It’s right there in black and white man:

A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister.

By sterilizing yourself and making these public proclamations before marriage you are straight up saying you are not open to life. That right there is evidence enough that you are to enter into an invalid marriage. And the priest will ask you if you are open to children; you will have to lie about that, as will your future spouse, unless your mind is changed.

If you want to enter into an invalid marriage, I can’t stop you. You are quite free to spit on the Church as you see fit. Personally I’d rather you just leave the Church because you do not subscribe to Her doctrine and find a religion where you can do as you please. We all commit sin friend. We all fail. I am no better than you or anyone else. But I truly believe in the Church’s teachings and acknowledge that it is not the Church that must change, but I must change and amend my life when I fail.

 

[NightHawk2005]

So you believe that your finding a women who likewise rejects Church teaching on marriage is proof it is OK? You will have to admit this is very strange theology, to say the least , and has no basis in the teachings of the Church. Obviously you have convinced yourself it is OK to reject Church teachings that interfere with the way you want to live your life but you should not be surprised when fellow Catholics disagree and try to point out what the Church really teaches.

I don’t find it strange at all. If you want to disagree, go ahead, but I don’t see anything strange about my position. I believe the Lord would not have led me to this woman if He did not want me to have a life with her. All things happen for a reason.

You are certainly entitled to not want to have kids. As a single person I would never begrudge you of that. Some people just are not called to be parents and have a different vocation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever! And in fact we’re in dire need of more people in the priesthood and religious life; I’d totally encourage my own children as they get older to consider such a vocation or even celibate single life.

But what you’re talking about is basically intentionally entering into an invalid marriage and professing pride about it. It’s extraordinarily bizarre and that’s why I use the troll card.

It’s right there in black and white man:

By sterilizing yourself and making these public proclamations before marriage you are straight up saying you are not open to life. That right there is evidence enough that you are to enter into an invalid marriage. And the priest will ask you if you are open to children; you will have to lie about that, as will your future spouse, unless your mind is changed.

If you want to enter into an invalid marriage, I can’t stop you. You are quite free to spit on the Church as you see fit. Personally I’d rather you just leave the Church because you do not subscribe to Her doctrine and find a religion where you can do as you please. We all commit sin friend. We all fail. I am no better than you or anyone else. But I truly believe in the Church’s teachings and acknowledge that it is not the Church that must change, but I must change and amend my life when I fail.

That’s still saying I’m trolling for nothing other than taking a different position, and that is not what trolling is. Trolling is posting for attention, trying to rile people up, trying to be a negative presence. I have not done this. I have explained a position that I genuinely believe, and I have done so in a respectful fashion. Your troll card has no basis whatsoever.

When I get married, I can honestly look the priest in the eye and say, “Father, I’m sterile”. I don’t have to lie at all. I believe in most of the Church’s teachings, but this one makes no sense to me. In this case, I believe it is the Church that must change, and I will express that opinion.

 

[faithsmind]

Pornography - has always been around. In fact bawdy bars and prostitution were a LOT more common in the past than they are now. It was widely assumed that most men would have affairs. What modern monarch has appointed a woman as his official court mistress without shame?

Divorce - admittedly grown, but that has nothing to do with contraception. To claim would be the equivalent of saying that Christianity brought down the Roman Empire because the two coincided. Besides, again, it wasn’t unusual in the past for men to just walk away from their families.

Violence against women - again, you’re making a correlation that isn’t there. Women were viewed as objects for making babies throughout history until very, very recently. Wife beating wasn’t illegal in the US until 1882, and even then was rarely prosecuted. The reason violence against women wasn’t reported so often in the past is because it wasn’t viewed as a vice or crime.

Unplanned pregnancy - peaked in the 1950s and later in the early 90s. The decrease since then has been due to, guess what, contraception. The only reason it’s more visible now is that it’s become more acceptable in society in the past few years (thanks, MTV). Would you say that people now glorify teen pregnancy because of contraception?

The one thing I can say is, the world hasn’t changed that much, outside of much that was in the closet before has now been released to the public. If you really look at day-to-day life in history, things weren’t much different in terms of morals and often much worse. Study the past to see it as it really was, when every town had its brothel, boys would be boys by indulging in affairs, beating one’s wife and children was viewed as a man’s God-given right, babies and even older children were abandoned in the wilderness or down wells when their impoverished parents couldn’t care for them anymore or their single servant girl mothers couldn’t live with the shame.

OK?
I guess my whole point was that I’d like to see these types of all-knowing arguments backed up with a bit of reputable fact. It’s unwise and naive to make vast assumptions and huge life decisions based on bits of experience and fluffy articles on MTV, or even the local news, for that matter.

If you’ve noticed, I’ve only made one conclusion on this entire thread. It is the conclusion that it is wise to trust in the Church and in Jesus Christ’s self-giving love.

And, while it’s interesting and good to learn about and draw conclusions from studies and socio-economic phenomena, such as wars and significant technological developments, it still can be precarious, too.

 

[faithsmind]

I guess that last sentence was kinda awkward… I’m just saying that there’s a fine line between human brilliance and human idiocy when God hears human thoughts.

 

[faithsmind]

I want to answer the question the OP has asked, now, since I believe sufficient evidence has accumulated on this thread to demonstrate my answer. Why the anti-family vibe??

It is because it is impossible to explain the beauty of a cathedral’s stained glass windows to someone who refuses to enter it’s structure.

 

[Sneaux]

I want to answer the question the OP has asked, now, since I believe sufficient evidence has accumulated on this thread to demonstrate my answer. Why the anti-family vibe??

It is because it is impossible to explain the beauty of a cathedral’s stained glass windows to someone who refuses to enter it’s structure.

But then everyone has their own take on beauty.

 

[faithsmind]

But then everyone has their own take on beauty.

LOL!
Yes, I suppose that’s true. But how can you argue on something you’ve never experienced as it was meant to be experienced? Arguing on whether the stained glass windows are beautiful from the outside of the cathedral versus the inside… well, there’s a big difference.

cheers!
(clink)

 

[CAJD]

I actually won’t have to lie at all. The Church will not refuse marriage to someone who has had a vasectomy, and I will be doing that long before I marry. Prior to my wedding, I will be able to honestly tell the priest that I am sterile.

You do realize that the church actually WILL refuse marriage to someone who openly states their opposition to life right? Because what would be the point if the marriage was invalid from the start?

TheBucket was trying to make clear to you that it actually IS considered an “impediment”, that is to say, a reason why the church will not go forward with witnessing and blessing the marriage. Just FYI. Don’t want you to be surprised when your priest follows the law of the church.

And btw, part of being a practicing Catholic is actually practicing the faith, which includes holding the faith (which is one cohesive belief, not pieces you can pick and choose) and then acting in accordance with that faith. But we all know this, we just don’t like to hear it sometimes.

 

[NightHawk2005]

You do realize that the church actually WILL refuse marriage to someone who openly states their opposition to life right? Because what would be the point if the marriage was invalid from the start?

TheBucket was trying to make clear to you that it actually IS considered an “impediment”, that is to say, a reason why the church will not go forward with witnessing and blessing the marriage. Just FYI. Don’t want you to be surprised when your priest follows the law of the church.

And btw, part of being a practicing Catholic is actually practicing the faith, which includes holding the faith (which is one cohesive belief, not pieces you can pick and choose) and then acting in accordance with that faith. But we all know this, we just don’t like to hear it sometimes.

But I don’t have to say that. All I have to say is that I’m sterile. I don’t have to give a reason why I’m sterile. The Church will not refuse to marry someone who cannot have kids.