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

[MarkInOregon]

I agree with everything you’ve said here. But, just to make a fair argument, isn’t it possible to use NFP with the same “I want to have sex and not get pregnant” mentality - a mentality that is going to view an unplanned baby as a burden?

I suppose that it is–at least I am told that it is–but the act, even at a supposed infertile time–is by the absence of ABC, open to life in a way that you are not when using ABC. Boy I didn’t say that very well. I will say that while not using ABC for the majority of our marriage neither were we great users of NFP–in the sense of charting and all that–it’s a lot of work when both spouses are working. So we were down to kind of guessing and shooting from the hip–so in the back of our minds–we knew there was always a risk of pregnancy. I guess that’s the difference in my mind. It might have been unplanned in the sense that we weren’t actively trying to have a child, but not unplanned in the way a pregnancy while using abc would have been–when in your mind you’re sure the act won’t lead to pregnancy. I guess when we were willing to engage --we were willing to bear the risk of pregnancy–I guess that’s the difference I see, and there are enough stories on here from people getting pregnant when they thought that they were in their infertile period–that one should realize that they always run the risk of pregnancy–which should leave one better disposed to pregnancy–than if they were using ABC. Of course I could be wrong or very wrong about that and it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about something.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[E_7]

(Non abortifacent, artificial) Contraceptives are not holy or unholy themselves- they are a tool. It could be used with a contraceptive mindset, which would be wrong. But one could argue that it can be used for the holy purpose of intelligent and responsible family planning and parenting.

But it will still be an immoral act and intrinsically evil act. With the use of any kind of birth control, you reject the totality of the person. You only want half of the other person to satisfy your carnal desires. Is it love to have sex with your spouse and reject the capabilities or the wholeness of the person? Birth control/contraceptives can never be used for holy purposes. You can’t call yourself part-time Christian. You either sacrifice yourself with Jesus or have an affair with the devil, but you can’t live a double life.

 

[kptrs]

I suppose that it is–at least I am told that it is–but the act, even at a supposed infertile time–is by the absence of ABC, open to life in a way that you are not when using ABC. Boy I didn’t say that very well. I will say that while not using ABC for the majority of our marriage neither were we great users of NFP–in the sense of charting and all that–it’s a lot of work when both spouses are working. So we were down to kind of guessing and shooting from the hip–so in the back of our minds–we knew there was always a risk of pregnancy. I guess that’s the difference in my mind. It might have been unplanned in the sense that we weren’t actively trying to have a child, but not unplanned in the way a pregnancy while using abc would have been–when in your mind you’re sure the act won’t lead to pregnancy. I guess when we were willing to engage --we were willing to bear the risk of pregnancy–I guess that’s the difference I see, and there are enough stories on here from people getting pregnant when they thought that they were in their infertile period–that one should realize that they always run the risk of pregnancy–which should leave one better disposed to pregnancy–than if they were using ABC. Of course I could be wrong or very wrong about that and it wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about something.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I think you’re right. There are exceptions to what you are saying, but I think you hit the nail on the head as far as the general idea.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The continued failure to realise that the clearly referenced **“The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J.,” **is NOT the CCC, and the apparent lack of knowledge of that esteemed author, indicate the lack in knowledge that can and does exist.

The quotations indicate the absence of understanding of periodic cycles for more accurate use which came only with French researchers in the 19th century.

“In country after country and in every country, bishops and councils forbid ‘contraceptive portions,’ ‘herbs or other agents so you will not have children,’ ‘spilling the seed in coitus,’ ‘coitus interruptus,’ ‘poisons of sterility,’ ‘avoiding children by evil acts,’ ‘putting material things in the vagina,’ and ‘causing temporary or permanent sterility.’ These and similar statements occur in ecclesiastical documents before the end of the thirteenth century.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 370).

As the revered Fr John A Hardon, S.J., affirms, medical papyri describe contraceptive methods from 2700 B.C. in China and from 1850 B/C. in Egypt. Ephesian gynecologist Soranos (A.D. 98-138) described no less than seventeen medically approved methods. These methods were referred to as “using magic” and “using drugs” and had nothing to do with fertile or infertile periods which were unknown. Soranos thought that it was safer “to prevent conception from taking place than to destroy the fetus” already conceived. (The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 367).

“Father John A. Hardon, S.J. was one of the greatest teachers of the Catholic Faith during the twentieth century. He was a prolific writer and mentor in the Catholic Faith, as evidenced by the following resources.”
mariancatechist.com/hardon/hardon.html

Father John A. Hardon was a tireless Catholic writer. Some of his best-known books are The Catholic Catechism, the* Modern Catholic Dictionary,* and the Treasury of Catholic Wisdom. But over and above these, he wrote literally thousands of articles of timeless value dealing with practically all aspects of the Catholic Faith. Many of these are contained in this archive. Upon reading them you will discover the mind and expressions of a saint who always wrote to help his readers more deeply know and love the Catholic Church and her faith. Few, either in the past or in the present, have written about these matters as well as Father Hardon.
Fr. Burns K. Seeley, S.S.J.C., Ph.D
therealpresence.org/archives/archives.htm

As quoted:
THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION
Part 1: How Christians Came to Accept It
by John F. Kippley
“While the laws of Leviticus forbade the marriage act during menses and for a week thereafter with great fertility for the Jewish people, this was not linked in any medical or scientific way to NFP until in the mid-nineteenth century French researchers dealing with domestic animals discovered a relationship between certain bodily discharges and fertility. Scientists and others quickly wondered whether this was likewise true in humans. They speculated that a woman was fertile during her menstrual flow and infertile thereafter.” [My underlining].

Facts:
“John F. Kippley has been active in the family planning movement since 1968 and co-authored *The Art of Natural Family Planning *with his wife, Sheila. Recently they wrote an on-line manual—Natural Family Planning, launched a website (www.NFPandmore.org), and founded NFP International. Mr. Kippley has also written Marriage Is For Keeps and many articles, some of which are available at their website.”
goodreads.com/author/show/191806.John_F_Kippley

1. My mistake was misunderstanding that the actual title of the citation is not the CCC. I am relieved that is not the case!
2. Also Hardon is a fine theologian.
3. Your mistake was to continue to hold and accuse me of some sort of blaspheme against your hero and not recognize that obviously in that one instance he is wrong.
   Obviously as has been pointed out, the fertile cycle was widely known before the 19th century.
   My inbox has room if you wish to apologize privately. Or you could have just clarified politely that it was not the CCC being referenced and that yes, that one small point was probably not correct.
   Either way your point about the Church always being against contraception is correct. As is my assertion that one phrase about cycles was hooey. We can agree on the illicit and evil of contraception without having to overstate our case by assuming incorrect things about historical people.
   I’ll make this easy.

Hoosier, you are correct in your point about the historical understanding of biology. I;m sorry that I insulted you. Hopefully we can continue to enjoy each others postings on CAF. God bless!

You can just copy and paste that and send it to me.

Then I will send you.

" No problem Abu! I was relieved to discover I was reading the citation wrong and that it is not in the CCC but rather a book about the CCC. Thanks for your apology and for your defense of Authentic Catholic teaching. See you around the boards!"

We will then be putting into play humbleness and virtue. But we don’t have to do that publicly we can do it privately through PM…
No one will ever know…

 

[MarkInOregon]

…

Hey, tell your wife there are some nice shirts there. I hope she does well. Hadn’t notice that footer before.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree with everything you’ve said here. But, just to make a fair argument, isn’t it possible to use NFP with the same “I want to have sex and not get pregnant” mentality - a mentality that is going to view an unplanned baby as a burden?

Selfishness is a separate issue and confuses the teaching against contraception when it is used by those wishing to restrict the practice of periodic abstinence in marriage and promote sexual freedom which is not part of Catholic teaching either. Christopher West in his counselling capacity noted that selfishness can also feature in ‘quiverfull’ types.

On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. However, the mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had been desiring a larger space between babies ever since. It came to light that the reason they didn’t space their children was because the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching, when looked at more closely, actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that in order for parenthood to be “responsible,” the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness. – Christopher West TOB

The goal in Catholic teaching is not just about following rules blindly, but reorienting ones whole life so that following the rules leads to greater holiness in general. Taking a responsible approach to the make up of a family by periodic abstinence promotes the virtue of continence at the same time being the antidote to concupiscence thereby aiding the overall growth off chaste living.

 

[kptrs]

Selfishness is a separate issue and confuses the teaching against contraception when it is used by those wishing to restrict the practice of periodic abstinence in marriage and promote sexual freedom which is not part of Catholic teaching either. Christopher West in his counselling capacity noted that selfishness can also feature in ‘quiverfull’ types.

On this point, there is another more subtle and little discussed form of selfishness that conflicts with responsible parenthood. I once counseled a couple that had several children very close together. The parents rightly recognized each child as a divine blessing and did all they could to love and care for them. However, the mother, emotionally drained since the third child, had been desiring a larger space between babies ever since. It came to light that the reason they didn’t space their children was because the husband selfishly wouldn’t (or couldn’t) abstain.

Here, what on the surface might pass as a generous response to Church teaching, when looked at more closely, actually demonstrates a failure to live Church teaching. The point is that in order for parenthood to be “responsible,” the decision to avoid sexual union during the fertile time or the decision to engage in sexual union during the fertile time must not be motivated by selfishness. – Christopher West TOB

The goal in Catholic teaching is not just about following rules blindly, but reorienting ones whole life so that following the rules leads to greater holiness in general. Taking a responsible approach to the make up of a family by periodic abstinence promotes the virtue of continence at the same time being the antidote to concupiscence thereby aiding the overall growth off chaste living.

Could you explain to me, then, whether it is a sin or not for a married couple to use NFP to limit their family to one or two kids because “kids drive us nuts”, and “we don’t like going to soccer practice every Friday night, we’d rather be out partying” and that kind of thing?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Hey, tell your wife there are some nice shirts there. I hope she does well. Hadn’t notice that footer before.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Thanks for the shout out Mark! She likes the side business. Keep
It up and you will talk your way to a free t shirt or something…

 

[Xantippe]

Could you explain to me, then, whether it is a sin or not for a married couple to use NFP to limit their family to one or two kids because “kids drive us nuts”, and “we don’t like going to soccer practice every Friday night, we’d rather be out partying” and that kind of thing?

If kids drive you nuts and you still have one or two (and they do, in fact, drive you nuts), isn’t that a lot of kids?

We have an older male relative in our family who can just BARELY stand hosting our two well-behaved school kids for a week/week and a half. He is very sensitive to noise (I’ve had him demonstrate correct door opening protocol to me) and the slightest disorder. He and his wife raised two very widely spaced children. I don’t know if he was less sensitive in his younger years, but knowing what I know of this particular relative, I have a hard time imagining him being a good father to a larger family. He is very good one-on-one with our kids, but not with two. We haven’t gone to visit with all three of our children yet, because we don’t think he could cope with it.

There really are people who are neurologically different and who react in unpredictable ways to sensory stimulus that other people barely notice.

 

[kptrs]

If kids drive you nuts and you still have one or two (and they do, in fact, drive you nuts), isn’t that a lot of kids?

We have an older male relative in our family who can just BARELY stand hosting our two well-behaved school kids for a week/week and a half. He is very sensitive to noise (I’ve had him demonstrate correct door opening protocol to me) and the slightest disorder. He and his wife raised two very widely spaced children. I don’t know if he was less sensitive in his younger years, but knowing what I know of this particular relative, I have a hard time imagining him being a good father to a larger family. He is very good one-on-one with our kids, but not with two. We haven’t gone to visit with all three of our children yet, because we don’t think he could cope with it.

There really are people who are neurologically different and who react in unpredictable ways to sensory stimulus that other people barely notice.

Okay…so what would be an example of a truly selfish reason to not have kids? I’m not trying to argue here, I’m honestly curious.

 

[LongingSoul]

Could you explain to me, then, whether it is a sin or not for a married couple to use NFP to limit their family to one or two kids because “kids drive us nuts”, and “we don’t like going to soccer practice every Friday night, we’d rather be out partying” and that kind of thing?

The first thing is that nobody else can judge another persons soul or motives. Basing your moral judgements on what a person says is wreckless and sinful in itself.

People can certainly be selfish in the way they order their lives but that is across the board and not based on the number of children one has or the financial and material appearance of their status. Pope Pius XII wrote in 1951

"Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.”

Medical, eugenic, economic and social indications. There are many and varied factors to be considered and assessed by a couple and they are the only ones who can ultimately decide. No one should be coerced by the judgement of others or ideologies, to reproduce. That goes beyond what nature and God designed.

 

[Xantippe]

The first thing is that nobody else can judge another persons soul or motives. Basing your moral judgements on what a person says is wreckless and sinful in itself.

Yes. I would not expect a lot of frankness in this area, especially from people you aren’t really, really close to.

The unspoken reasons might be very embarrassing ones.

“My older brother molested me.”

“My husband can’t hold down a job.”

“I have a drinking problem.”

“I have an eating disorder.”

“I need to take psychiatric medication that might hurt a baby.”

“We’ve had three miscarriages in a row.”

Etc.

 

[bitterhope]

Multiple testimonies on this forum point to the fact that NFP does not work. Abstaining within the context of marriage is never to be the norm but the exception (1 Cor. 7:1-5, 9). Contrary to the opinion of many here, St. Paul points to sex within marriage as the antidote for lack of self-control!

NFP does not work for everyone. It does work for others. I am one it does not work for. I have found profound joy with the acceptance of the gift of life that comes from the love I share with my husband. Children are by far the most unitive aspect of sex. Within each of my children are a combination of my genes and my husbands. Through them we have become one flesh. They have joined us in a way that no man can ever separate. I don’t understand why so many people want to allow the fear of a baby lead them to sin.

We have lived below the line of poverty for our entire lives. I can promise you it is not worth commuting sin to avoid raising children in poverty. Especially in the US. My husband grew up extremely poor in rural Mexico. No one here in the States has it even close to that bad. And he had it better than the families he saw in Africa last year. I don’t feel bad about being poor or not being able to give my kids all the things their friends seem to have. My kids are hard working, well adjusted, God loving, well behaved, beautiful, precious, perfectly made gifts from God. They are worth every stretch mark and labor pain. I would love to do it all over again. I’m very thankful that NFP does not work for me. If it had worked, I would only have had the two kids I planned on. I would be middle class instead of poor. I might have a new car instead of junky old van. And you know what? That would be tragic to be honest. God knows what He is doing.

St. Paul is very correct that NFP and abstinence should never be the norm within marriage. I agree with him. There are times that it is necessary though. If a couple has a lack of self control then NFP and abstinence should not be practiced long term. No matter what, artificial birth control will always be evil. There is no way around that. Accepting that God is in control means not purposely making your will, or at least attempting to purposely make your will, be above His will for you. No matter the circumstances in your life, God is well aware of what is needed for your spiritual growth. He knows that I can’t afford to send my kids to college or even buy them new shoes, but He has made sure they’ve never been hungry and in the process has made sure I grow out of the impatient little girl I once was.

God is the Author of Life. We have no business attempting to take that out of His hands. He may have called us to be co creators, but He will always be THE Creator.

 

[bitterhope]

Yes. I would not expect a lot of frankness in this area, especially from people you aren’t really, really close to.

The unspoken reasons might be very embarrassing ones.

“My older brother molested me.”

“My husband can’t hold down a job.”

“I have a drinking problem.”

“I have an eating disorder.”

“I need to take psychiatric medication that might hurt a baby.”

“We’ve had three miscarriages in a row.”

Etc.

These are not the reason she asked about. She asked if limiting kids simply because they annoy you is a moral use of NFP. I was a person that honestly had that, and a few other similar reasons, for attempting NFP. I simply did not want a house full like I grew up around. My husband only has a sister so he wasn’t used to the chaos I was. We did not have money and I was determined to be a pharmacist and then put him through school to become an architect. We had big dreams! It was selfish thinking that way. Not the education and career plans, but the thinking that kids should take the back seat. I have confessed this to a priest and he told me that it is more common than people admit. He agreed it was sinful. He said he wishes more people would come to that realization.

There are times that NFP is moral, but muddying the water with the things you listed when a straight forward question was asked isn’t at all helpful. People are trying to grow in holiness. That’s why they come here to read these ridiculously long threads about topics that they don’t feel comfortable asking about in real life. I agree that it isn’t our place to try to determine someone else’s sins or intent or reasoning. It is a legitimate question she asked though and she deserves a straight forward answer.

Accepting a child when it is uncomfortable is how I grew spiritually. Even though I was used to the noise and mess and chaos, I wanted something different for myself. I tried to make it about my kids (they deserve better) and about my husband (he isn’t used to all this) but honestly it was about me. I was selfishly believing I was worth more than that kind of existence. I was too smart to stay home popping out babies. I was too tired to clean up after another kid. I was worth more than to wear the same tennis shoes with every single outfit. I had to admit all that to myself. I had to quit making excuses.

I’m not saying anyone else is self for wanting any one thing in particular. I’m saying for me it was selfish. It was prideful. I had to overcome that. So yes, I do think a person can very well use NFP selfishly and sinfully. Even if it did not work for me, that was my intent. When I talked to my priest he agreed it was sinful in my case.

 

[Abu]

Hoosier Daddy #547
Obviously as has been pointed out, the fertile cycle was widely known before the 19th century.

Childbirth and Birth Control in the 19th Century
“Modern science has proved that, unlike animals, women are least fertile during their menstruation, and most fertile in the days in the middle of the menstruation cycle. Women in the 19th century who relied on the rhythm method were actually abstaining from sexual activity when they were least fertile and having sex when they were most likely to conceive.” [My emphasis].
loyno.edu/~kchopin/new/women/bcabortion.html

So much for the mirage that “the fertile cycle was widely known before the 19th century.” – it wasn’t widely known, it was widely misunderstood!

“The rhythm methods (based on calculating the woman’s fertile period and abstaining from intercourse during it) were widely discussed during the 19th century. Unfortunately it was very ineffective during the 19th and early 20th century, since** the female fertility cycle was not understood until 1920.** Until that time, observing other mammals lead most to believe ovulation occurred either during menstruation or just before it.” [My emphasis].
The History of Birth Control by Kathleen London
yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/6/82.06.03.x.html

No one doubts the realisation of St Augustine, but there was only inkling, as has been cited. There was no understanding of the reality that developed in the 19th century of real cycles and their real meaning.

 

[LongingSoul]

These are not the reason she asked about. She asked if limiting kids simply because they annoy you is a moral use of NFP.

No. That’s your interpretation. She didn’t ask that at all. She quoted particular text and asked us to judge the text. I have the experience of writing a PM to someone on CAF as a genuine response to a persons sorrowful predicament and experienced the slight of accusation of a malicious attack. People misjudge and condemn the innocent motives of others very regularly when they read text. It’s wreckless and sinful.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Childbirth and Birth Control in the 19th Century
“Modern science has proved that, unlike animals, women are least fertile during their menstruation, and most fertile in the days in the middle of the menstruation cycle. Women in the 19th century who relied on the rhythm method were actually abstaining from sexual activity when they were least fertile and having sex when they were most likely to conceive.” [My emphasis].
loyno.edu/~kchopin/new/women/bcabortion.html

So much for the mirage that “the fertile cycle was widely known before the 19th century.” – it wasn’t widely known, it was widely misunderstood!

“The rhythm methods (based on calculating the woman’s fertile period and abstaining from intercourse during it) were widely discussed during the 19th century. Unfortunately it was very ineffective during the 19th and early 20th century, since** the female fertility cycle was not understood until 1920.** Until that time, observing other mammals lead most to believe ovulation occurred either during menstruation or just before it.” [My emphasis].
The History of Birth Control by Kathleen London
yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/6/82.06.03.x.html

No one doubts the realisation of St Augustine, but there was only inkling, as has been cited. There was no understanding of the reality that developed in the 19th century of real cycles and their real meaning.

You just can’t do it can you… Oh well. You accused me of no proof. I provided it, now you are backtracking. I must say if you are just going to blindly cite things you might want to think differently about your presentation. Oh well, I’m confident that anyone following the exchange has seen what happened. My integrity is in tact. I consider this tangent solved.
Moving on…

 

[E_7]

NFP does not work for everyone. It does work for others. I am one it does not work for. I have found profound joy with the acceptance of the gift of life that comes from the love I share with my husband. Children are by far the most unitive aspect of sex. Within each of my children are a combination of my genes and my husbands. Through them we have become one flesh. They have joined us in a way that no man can ever separate. I don’t understand why so many people want to allow the fear of a baby lead them to sin.

We have lived below the line of poverty for our entire lives. I can promise you it is not worth commuting sin to avoid raising children in poverty. Especially in the US. My husband grew up extremely poor in rural Mexico. No one here in the States has it even close to that bad. And he had it better than the families he saw in Africa last year. I don’t feel bad about being poor or not being able to give my kids all the things their friends seem to have. My kids are hard working, well adjusted, God loving, well behaved, beautiful, precious, perfectly made gifts from God. They are worth every stretch mark and labor pain. I would love to do it all over again. I’m very thankful that NFP does not work for me. If it had worked, I would only have had the two kids I planned on. I would be middle class instead of poor. I might have a new car instead of junky old van. And you know what? That would be tragic to be honest. God knows what He is doing.

St. Paul is very correct that NFP and abstinence should never be the norm within marriage. I agree with him. There are times that it is necessary though. If a couple has a lack of self control then NFP and abstinence should not be practiced long term. No matter what, artificial birth control will always be evil. There is no way around that. Accepting that God is in control means not purposely making your will, or at least attempting to purposely make your will, be above His will for you. No matter the circumstances in your life, God is well aware of what is needed for your spiritual growth. He knows that I can’t afford to send my kids to college or even buy them new shoes, but He has made sure they’ve never been hungry and in the process has made sure I grow out of the impatient little girl I once was.

God is the Author of Life. We have no business attempting to take that out of His hands. He may have called us to be co creators, but He will always be THE Creator.

 

[Usige]

Multiple testimonies on this forum point to the fact that NFP does not work. Abstaining within the context of marriage is never to be the norm but the exception (1 Cor. 7:1-5, 9). Contrary to the opinion of many here, St. Paul points to sex within marriage as the antidote for lack of self-control!

No, there are several examples where NFP did not work for some couples. That does not mean it doesn’t “work”. Some cancers are resistant to chemotherapy, but that does not mean that chemo doesn’t work.

These kind of statements always reminds me of a conversation I had with our bishop when talking about the difficulties of teaching NFP (many NFP instructors eventually stop teaching because the outright hostility to Church teaching wears them down). We were teaching a class and one of the student couples asked how effective it was. My wife and I looked at each other and said “It’s very effective. We conceived a child every time we tried. ” The bishop thought it was funny, but I can guarantee the couple didn’t. Why? Because many people see it as a way to contracept in an approved way. They want to know if it is effective to control getting pregnant without the acceptance that children are inexorably linked to sexual intercourse. Many of those that think in those terms often abandon NFP once they realize that you have to temper your wants, or even needs, with sacrifice.

And yes, St Paul does not say abstaining should be the norm and neither does the Church. She says that NFP is an option for difficult situations. No one should start with using NFP to avoid children as the default, but it should be used as the case warrants. Many couples chart for awareness, but do not use the “rules for avoiding” until the need arises. Others have reasons to avoid and are given a merciful option when they must avoid. Yes it doesn’t work for some, but I suspect there are many that simply have never tried.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

These are not the reason she asked about. She asked if limiting kids simply because they annoy you is a moral use of NFP. I was a person that honestly had that, and a few other similar reasons, for attempting NFP. I simply did not want a house full like I grew up around.

(…).

I believe that what LongingSoul and Xantippe are saying is that some people might offer quippy answers like “I don’t like kids” because the honest answer “my brother molested me” is both painful and nobody’s business.