Why do most people ignore the Church's teaching on contraception?

[pensmama87]

NFP does require mortification as part of its practice. Abstaining is not nothing (well, you know what I mean. )

And as I said before, sometimes that’s to give yourself time to adjust your circumstances to accept another child. Sometimes people have to abstain even when they really, really, really want another child.

Postponing another child is not an avoidance of a cross. It’s a (very possibly temporary) acceptance of a different one. It took a little time, but my husband and I have become very open to having a large family. And now we are hearing, “wait.” This is hard for us. We’ve never really had to wait before. We’ve never had to say “no” to the marital embrace when we both really wanted it. This is an opportunity for us to learn and practice temperance in a way that we haven’t had to before. And I don’t like it, one bit. But I think it’s what we’re being called to at the moment.

But I really hope three isn’t it for us. Frankly, I would have a very hard time accepting that. I am hoping “no” means “not right now” or “no for a longer period than you’ve gone before.” But we’re continuing to work on it and figure it out, and believe me we spend a lot of time in prayer about it.

 

[Rico_S]

What size is the necessary level?

That is different for every couple. And it is between them and God. Fortunately, they don’t have to run it by the CAF gatekeepers to ensure they are pushing their “comfort level” the appropriate amount.

 

[MomaMary8]

That is different for every couple. And it is between them and God. Fortunately, they don’t have to run it by the** CAF gatekeepers to ensure they are pushing their “comfort level” the appropriate amoun**t.

Please don’t be snarky. I was pointing out the use of the word “necessary” and how some us do not approach the subject with that mind frame. To me a gift is not necessary…my large family is not “necessary.” My children are not considered as a “necessary” object in my life, but rather a gift granted to me. Others have a different mind frame, but we all have different personalities. Different approaches. As we try to understand each other’s point of view, we need to see what other perspectives are. Xantippe is a planner… I can be rather orderly, but I am very “easy going” in the planning or lack of planning department.

Peace

 

[Rico_S]

Please don’t be snarky. I was pointing out the use of the word “necessary” and how some us do not approach the subject with that mind frame. To me a gift is not necessary…my large family is not “necessary.” My children are not considered as a “necessary” object in my life, but rather a gift granted to me. Others have a different mind frame, but we all have different personalities. Different approaches. As we try to understand each other’s point of view, we need to see what other perspectives are. Xantippe is a planner… I can be rather orderly, but I am very “easy going” in the planning or lack of planning department.

Peace

No problem with that. We are all different in perspective, abilities, temperment, expectations, faith journey, etc. That is why decisions on family planning (or not planning) are specific to each family.

The whole "comfort zone"offered by another poster basically feels like an unwarranted shot at Xantippe and couples discerning to delay or limit family size to me.

But you can accuse and deflect if you want. I asked a question regarding “comfort zones”–are we called to live in them. Your free to dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. I have no issue with “serious reasons” – it seems, however, that you are always resistant to the idea that anyone should ever reevaluate their reasons or check them to make sure they are indeed serious or are still serious - given possible changes in our circumstances or in our understanding. You seem to resist the idea that we may be called to change–I don’ t see how we can grow in holiness if we don’t change.

Should large families who have become comfortable with their decision to accept as many kids as god gives them look to move outside of their comfort zone and perhaps limit family size so that more resources can go toward those in need? I think if this was offered, it would feel like an attack on large families…no?

 

[Xantippe]

so are any children necessary? What size is the necessary level?

I think this may highlight a difference between our approaches in life. I see children as a gift granted to me and lovingly accept them into my life and home, dedicating my time to raising future saints. I don’t count, I don’t chart, I just accept one when they come. You seem (forgive me if I’m wrong) take an approach that focuses on your personal actions …how much you give …how much time your read …how much kindness you show …how many times you allow yourself to get pregnant. There really is a fundamental difference in the way we approach our lives. I guess I could be called more passive in my approach, accepting what may come. You are more of a planner, planning your responses…how much, when, etc. You aren’t by chance the oldest in your family?

Now for your later responses, in reality I saw no one slamming smaller families and it becomes quite difficult to post on this board as a large family mom because of the defensive nature of those whith less children. My brother who is very tall often had snide remarks thrown at him by smaller stature men. He termed their response “short-man complex.” When someone asks if we are called to come out of our “comfort zone” it is not a slam against small families and a victory dance for large families. It is an honest theological question, to which the answer is YES. Now how do we respond to the call out of our comfort zone? That is an individual matter, and one that should be examined frequently. Did I do “enough” today or did I do more?

One thing I have found helpful in life is regular mortifications. I try to make small sacrifices through out the day. By doing this, I found my spritiual strength increasing and it readies me to take on more and more difficult things in life. Some one told me me life is like playing catch…a baseball (difficulty) is thrown at you and you have to catch it. You don’t hold onto the ball, but throw it back. But then comes the next throw and you do it again. And again. Sometimes the throws are challenging to catch and I have to catch my breath before throwing the ball back, but sometimes it is a gentle toss that I smile when I toss it back to God. But every time, I throw it back and get ready for the next difficulty that comes my way. Pushing ourselves out of our “comfort zone” prepares us for the big game, for the big crosses that may come. Each of us needs to examine ourselves and ask if we are players in the game or just bench warmers. Are we pushing ourselves out of the comfort zone…what ever they may be in our life, helping the grumpy neighbors, tutoring kids in middle school, accepting a new life when things just seemed set. It’s amazing what joy we can have when we accept a challenge from God.

1. When I said “more children than necessary”–I meant whatever number is called for by one’s station in life (whatever number that might be) plus more than that. THAT is superogatory–doing one’s basic duty, plus something extra.

As I mentioned upthread, there seems to be a big push on CAF to make the superogatory in family size the basic minimum for everybody. I find that unreasonable.

1. Yes, I am a planner. And I am an oldest child and the child of two oldest children. And my husband is also an oldest child. And I did some teaching pre-kids. So even though I’m “only” 40, I have several decades of experience of taking care of other people and thinking hard about their needs.

That’s my nature and one of my particular gifts.

 

[Xantippe]

NFP does require mortification as part of its practice. Abstaining is not nothing (well, you know what I mean. )

And as I said before, sometimes that’s to give yourself time to adjust your circumstances to accept another child. Sometimes people have to abstain even when they really, really, really want another child.

Postponing another child is not an avoidance of a cross. It’s a (very possibly temporary) acceptance of a different one.

Yes.

 

[Xantippe]

Should large families who have become comfortable with their decision to accept as many kids as god gives them look to move outside of their comfort zone and perhaps limit family size so that more resources can go toward those in need? I think if this was offered, it would feel like an attack on large families…no?

Yes.

 

[MomaMary8]

No problem with that. We are all different in perspective, abilities, temperment, expectations, faith journey, etc. That is why decisions on family planning (or not planning) are specific to each family.

The whole "comfort zone"offered by another poster basically feels like an unwarranted shot at Xantippe and couples discerning to delay or limit family size to me.

Should large families who have become comfortable with their decision to accept as many kids as God gives them look to move outside of their comfort zone and perhaps limit family size so that more resources can go toward those in need? I think if this was offered, it would feel like an attack on large families…no?

I did not see the post that posed the “comfort zone” question as a shot at Xiantippe. I saw it as an extension of the questions of why people ignore the teaching’s of the Church. We all fail to push ourselves in some way or another. There is a general sensitivity that comes about when we are challenged on our choices. But that is good, and we should not react defensively. We should examine if our motives are True.

BTW Your above scenario seems illogical. Why would I have to say no to more children in order to give more to the poor?? I don’t feel attacked by that question, but confused as to why you think it might even be considered a logical question to ask The more kids I have, the more helpers I can take to the food pantry to sort food

 

[MomaMary8]

Yes.

No

 

[Polluted]

There are lots of reasons. But like all sins, in the long run whatever our reason is for sinning…there is often a huge practical downside that smacks us in the face in the long run.

 

[pensmama87]

No

So the practice of NFP cannot constitute a hardship whatsoever?

Abstinence is not hard?

 

[Rico_S]

BTW Your above scenario seems illogical. Why would I have to say no to more children in order to give more to the poor??

Only illogical if resources–time, money, and energy–are unlimited and that additional children to don’t use any additional family resources.

 

[MomaMary8]

1. When I said “more children than necessary”–I meant whatever number is called for by one’s station in life (whatever number that might be) plus more than that. THAT is superogatory–doing one’s basic duty, plus something extra.

As I mentioned upthread, there seems to be a big push on CAF to make the superogatory in family size the basic minimum for everybody. I find that unreasonable.

1. Yes, I am a planner. And I am an oldest child and the child of two oldest children. And my husband is also an oldest child. And I did some teaching pre-kids. So even though I’m “only” 40, I have several decades of experience of taking care of other people and thinking hard about their needs.

That’s my nature and one of my particular gifts.

Again, a different perspective. One’s “station in life” is often very fluid and I do not see class, income, education as the determining factor as to the number of children one should have. The word choice of necessary lends to the idea that there is a set number that one should have. Class, education, income, etc may be factors that influence one’s ability or willingness to be open to children, but that doesn’t make their station the determining factor of what a base number should be.

For me, my basic duty is to accept children as they come. There is no “set” number to achieve and then exceed in superogatory actions. A gift is not necessary. I see children as a blessing and a gift, and so the word necessary would never fit. One or ten, each is a gift…

You can really tell you are the oldest. My SIL has a much similar approach in life…plan, plan, plan. I am just a couple of years older than you and have quite a few years taking care of others, but I think by being the youngest in my family and the child doctors told my mother not to have, I have a very different outlook than you. Life is a gift. I am blessed to be here! I figure I may have 40 years more of it, so I will take care of it while I can. Can you tell I’m the youngest?

 

[MomaMary8]

So the practice of NFP cannot constitute a hardship whatsoever?

Abstinence is not hard?

Didn’t reply to that. I replied to the assumption that Rico’s question would be seen as an attack on large families. As a mother to a large family, I don’t feel attacked.

Ahh…now I see. I replied to #669, not #668

 

[MomaMary8]

Only illogical if resources–time, money, and energy–are unlimited and that additional children to don’t use any additional family resources.

Mother’s are masters at using their resources well…Besides, openness in one area of spiritual life tends to open up other areas of spiritual life. Funny how that works. I think the more children we have had , the more generous we have been to others. We see our blessings, know how little we actually need, and share our extras gladly.

 

[pianistclare]

Again, a different perspective. One’s “station in life” is often very fluid and I do not see class, income, education as the determining factor as to the number of children one should have. The word choice of necessary lends to the idea that there is a set number that one should have. Class, education, income, etc may be factors that influence one’s ability or willingness to be open to children, but that doesn’t make their station the determining factor of what a base number should be.

For me, my basic duty is to accept children as they come. There is no “set” number to achieve and then exceed in superogatory actions. A gift is not necessary. I see children as a blessing and a gift, and so the word necessary would never fit. One or ten, each is a gift…

You can really tell you are the oldest. My SIL has a much similar approach in life…plan, plan, plan. I am just a couple of years older than you and have quite a few years taking care of others, but I think by being the youngest in my family and the child doctors told my mother not to have, I have a very different outlook than you. Life is a gift. I am blessed to be here! I figure I may have 40 years more of it, so I will take care of it while I can. Can you tell I’m the youngest?

I think everyone “gets” why you are proponent of big families; because you have one. Fair play to you.
But insisting that those without big families are “less” is the issue, and that’s the way it comes across online, even if you and others don’t think it does or don’t intend it to.

I had two kids, didn’t “try” to do anything either way. Just gave God the reins. And that’s what we got.
I’m sure He’s not disappointed in me. on any level. He knew what we could manage. As it was, we lost daddy. It would have been even more traumatic if I had had many mouths to feed. It was all I could to keep the house and pay utilities.
Why would anyone even begin to think that the only path to heaven is as many children as possible. Sounds like a Mormon way of thinking to me.
Pity the poor infertile. Now THAT’s a cross.
:twocents:

 

[pianistclare]

Mother’s are masters at using their resources well…Besides, openness in one area of spiritual life tends to open up other areas of spiritual life. Funny how that works. I think the more children we have had , the more generous we have been to others. We see our blessings, know how little we actually need, and share our extras gladly.

I don’t think anyone is advocating NOT being open to life. That’s a big stretch.

 

[MomaMary8]

I think everyone “gets” why you are proponent of big families; because you have one. Fair play to you.
But insisting that those without big families are “less” is the issue, and that’s the way it comes across online, even if you and others don’t think it does or don’t intend it to.

I had two kids, didn’t “try” to do anything either way. Just gave God the reins. And that’s what we got.
I’m sure He’s not disappointed in me. on any level. He knew what we could manage. As it was, we lost daddy. It would have been even more traumatic if I had had many mouths to feed. It was all I could to keep the house and pay utilities.
Why would anyone even begin to think that the only path to heaven is as many children as possible. Sounds like a Mormon way of thinking to me.
Pity the poor infertile. Now THAT’s a cross.
:twocents:

To be totally honest your post is rather confusing. What do you mean by saying that I am insisting that big families are “less” in this issue???

We shouldn’t compare crosses. That’s just nonsense.

I don’t think anyone is advocating NOT being open to life. That’s a big stretch.

That’ a big stretch to say I said open to life…I said “spiritual life.” Please re-read before jumping on me. I then gave a personal example of how our spiritual openness in children lead us to be open in other spiritual matters.

 

[Xantippe]

Again, a different perspective. One’s “station in life” is often very fluid and I do not see class, income, education as the determining factor as to the number of children one should have. The word choice of necessary lends to the idea that there is a set number that one should have. Class, education, income, etc may be factors that influence one’s ability or willingness to be open to children, but that doesn’t make their station the determining factor of what a base number should be.

For me, my basic duty is to accept children as they come. There is no “set” number to achieve and then exceed in superogatory actions. A gift is not necessary. I see children as a blessing and a gift, and so the word necessary would never fit. One or ten, each is a gift…

You can really tell you are the oldest. My SIL has a much similar approach in life…plan, plan, plan. I am just a couple of years older than you and have quite a few years taking care of others, but I think by being the youngest in my family and the child doctors told my mother not to have, I have a very different outlook than you. Life is a gift. I am blessed to be here! I figure I may have 40 years more of it, so I will take care of it while I can. Can you tell I’m the youngest?

Yeah.

When I said “station in life” I meant not just (or even primarily) class, income and education, but all possible factors–health, psychology, geography, local norms, local cost of living, family support, strength of social network, etc.

 

[Xantippe]

I think everyone “gets” why you are proponent of big families; because you have one. Fair play to you.
But insisting that those without big families are “less” is the issue, and that’s the way it comes across online, even if you and others don’t think it does or don’t intend it to.

Exactly.

I know parents of large families on CAF don’t intend it to sound like this, but a lot of large-family boosterism here tends to come across as, “If only you were as holy as me, then you’d have a big family like me! It’s very easy to do–when you’re as holy as me!”

A few pages back, we had a father of five explaining that he didn’t even find it work to have five children.

I find that totally unrelatable.