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

[kptrs]

You’re giving an example of what I mentioned upthread–the tendency of many on CAF to nuke the entire concept of “serious reasons.”

We have Humanae Vitae, which says that “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Likewise the Letter to Midwives, we hear that “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.”

Why isn’t that good enough?

I guess it’s not good enough because it can easily be interpreted by some people as you have to be on your death bed for a reason to be considered just. I’m not saying that is the correct interpretation, but it’s not entirely off-the-wall either. I can see where people would interpret it that way.

The “obligatory, positive debt” is also very glaring. Just the wording of that makes it be able to swing in either direction. Especially when you throw in St. Paul’s letter that says marital sex is the antidote for lack of self-control and husbands and wives shouldn’t stay apart from each other too long. It’s easy to turn it into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. On one hand, the spouse who wants to avoid pregnancy is selfish because he/she won’t consent to intercourse during the fertile period. On the other hand, the spouse who wants sex during the fertile period is selfish because he/she is putting the need for sex before reasons not to have a baby. You can’t win.

If you let 10 people make an interpretation of such a document, odds are you’re going to end up with 10 different ones.

 

[pensmama87]

I guess it’s not good enough because it can easily be interpreted by some people as you have to be on your death bed for a reason to be considered just. I’m not saying that is the correct interpretation, but it’s not entirely off-the-wall either. I can see where people would interpret it that way.

The “obligatory, positive debt” is also very glaring. Just the wording of that makes it be able to swing in either direction. Especially when you throw in St. Paul’s letter that says marital sex is the antidote for lack of self-control and husbands and wives shouldn’t stay apart from each other too long. It’s easy to turn it into a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. On one hand, the spouse who wants to avoid pregnancy is selfish because he/she won’t consent to intercourse during the fertile period. On the other hand, the spouse who wants sex during the fertile period is selfish because he/she is putting the need for sex before reasons not to have a baby. You can’t win.

If you let 10 people make an interpretation of such a document, odds are you’re going to end up with 10 different ones.

But what matters is you and your spouse doing honest discernment together. It doesn’t matter what the eight other people decide is right for their families.

ETA: This may be hard for a person with scruples because scrupulous people can’t/don’t trust their own judgment. That’s where priests/confessors/spiritual directors come in handy. But people without scruples, who are making an honest, prayerful attempt , can come to unselfish conclusions and feel confident in them. If they are lying to themselves (which of course happens), it becomes clear over time. But I can usually tell the difference. I don’t swing back and forth a lot. And of course, my husband is engaged in this too and we help each other.

 

[MarkInOregon]

You’re giving an example of what I mentioned upthread–the tendency of many on CAF to nuke the entire concept of “serious reasons.”

We have Humanae Vitae, which says that “With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Likewise the Letter to Midwives, we hear that “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.”

Why isn’t that good enough?

No I am not. 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. Change probably means expanding our comfort zone a little. From what I read it would seem your reasons rise to a level higher than that of mere comfort, but if, indeed, it is simply a matter of comfort for someone–then I think one should consider if that is indeed a serious reason–it’s not my job to decide that for anyone–but I fail to see the great harm in suggesting that we ask ourselves these questions–or how asking the question is nuking the concept of serious reasons. What are we afraid of? Serious reasons as outline by the Church are enough but don’t we need to make sure our reasons are serious and doesn’t that call for reevaluation over time as our situations change? Further my question applies to our whole lives as Christians–not just to this one area.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

I think what may be going on is that you are treating specific superogatory acts as the minimum, whereas the whole idea of superogatory acts is that they go above and beyond, and we are free to do them or not to do them.

I am not an expert on this area of Catholic ethics (I just know the term superogatory!), but it occurs to me that there are practically an infinite variety of possible superogatory acts–having a larger family than necessary, giving more to charity than necessary, being kinder to the stranger than necessary, reading an extra board book at bedtime, playing an extra round of catch, playing an extra encore, etc.

It isn’t actually possible to perform every single possible superogatory act–but you could come close if you found yourself living Ground Hog Day like Bill Murray. But, under more normal circumstances, we have finite resources in terms of time, money, and energy. So we have to choose to do some and not to do others. So, for instance, a smaller family might in fact be in a better position to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, comfort the sick, etc.

What? I don’t see how this relates to the question I asked. This response seems to be out in left field to me. So for instance this smaller family–that is in a better position to feed the hungry, etc. What if that’s not in their comfort zone–is that a defense for not doing it? I’m talking ordinary here not superogatory. You can substitute whatever ordinary act you want into the question. I don’t want to hear well they don’t feed the hungry they do xyz instead. My question is: is the fact that it is not comfortable for us to do something–justification for us not doing it? It has nothing to do with superogatory acts or minimums.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[LongingSoul]

What? I don’t see how this relates to the question I asked. This response seems to be out in left field to me. So for instance this smaller family–that is in a better position to feed the hungry, etc. What if that’s not in their comfort zone–is that a defense for not doing it? I’m talking ordinary here not superogatory. You can substitute whatever ordinary act you want into the question. I don’t want to hear well they don’t feed the hungry they do xyz instead. My question is: is the fact that it is not comfortable for us to do something–justification for us not doing it? It has nothing to do with superogatory acts or minimums.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I don’t know if you have any children of your own Mark, but I know I was already well outside my comfort zone raising my 3. Most people are. It’s such hard work.

 

[pensmama87]

I suspect that the use of the phrase “comfort zone” may be precisely the kind of vague breezy expression that is reserved for not close relationships. You may be interpreting it as, “too bothered to get my lazy bum off the couch” when it could really mean, “actively filled with dread at the prospect.”

 

[jmjZelie]

I suspect that the use of the phrase “comfort zone” may be precisely the kind of vague breezy expression that is reserved for not close relationships. You may be interpreting it as, “too bothered to get my lazy bum off the couch” when it could really mean, “actively filled with dread at the prospect.”

That was my thought. Many of the posters here use such a shorthand to describe their personal crosses, trying to communicate the serious challenges they have faced without getting too personal.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I don’t know if you have any children of your own Mark, but I know I was already well outside my comfort zone raising my 3. Most people are. It’s such hard work.

Five. Raising them is just something we do–I’ve never thought of it as being inside or outside my comfort zone–I’m a parent it is what it is. I’ve never viewed it as hard work, or really as work, but then we are blessed and we don’t have any special needs children or other issues that I see some parents deal with–and it’s hard to say how I’d feel if I did and I hope it remains that way. That’s not to say I don’t get exasperated at times, or that I’d have preferred not to be out driving around at 3:00 am trying to get a collicy (sp) baby to sleep so that my wife could get a little rest–I just never thought much about it. It’s what parents do in my mind. Perhaps I am somewhat emotionally deficient.

I have no doubt that you were outside your comfort zone raising your children since you say you were–do you really think most parents are? Perhaps that would be an interesting poll–and perhaps it would show just how out of touch I am.

What I was talking about is --things that go against our nature (which I guess could be parenting for some) for example I’ve always been what would be considered shy, I’m terrible at small talk, I’m not a big hugger, I’m not big on physical contact with people outside of my wife and kids, it is/was a big effort for me to volunteer, to step out and join the Bible study at our parish–just to do things that bring me in contact with other people–like helping out a the St VDP food closet–I’m not sure that my shyness is a reason or justification for me not to do these things–I think as a Christian I’m called to reach out, to help, etc. even if it’s not comfortable for me–I think I’m called to step out and trust God to help me and through that to grow spiritually, and I find the more I do it – well it does become a little easier. I guess I could argue that because of my shyness it would be ok for me to just stay home and pray–my question is–is that really a good defense? I’m not sure it is. I struggle to see where I’m given that loophole, but perhaps I have a blind spot.

Raising kids or should I say children (I don’t want anyone thinking you were raising goats) was outside your comfort zone but you still did it. It would seem that you decided that staying inside your comfort zone was not a reason for you not to have children.

It was just a question, something for us to think about, not a judgment.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[jmjZelie]

Five. Raising them is just something we do–I’ve never thought of it as being inside or outside my comfort zone–I’m a parent it is what it is. I’ve never viewed it as hard work, or really as work, but then we are blessed and we don’t have any special needs children or other issues that I see some parents deal with–and it’s hard to say how I’d feel if I did and I hope it remains that way. That’s not to say I don’t get exasperated at times, or that I’d have preferred not to be out driving around at 3:00 am trying to get a collicy (sp) baby to sleep so that my wife could get a little rest–I just never thought much about it. It’s what parents do in my mind. Perhaps I am somewhat emotionally deficient.

I have no doubt that you were outside your comfort zone raising your children since you say you were–do you really think most parents are? Perhaps that would be an interesting poll–and perhaps it would show just how out of touch I am.

What I was talking about is --things that go against our nature (which I guess could be parenting for some) for example I’ve always been what would be considered shy, I’m terrible at small talk, I’m not a big hugger, I’m not big on physical contact with people outside of my wife and kids, it is/was a big effort for me to volunteer, to step out and join the Bible study at our parish–just to do things that bring me in contact with other people–like helping out a the St VDP food closet–I’m not sure that my shyness is a reason or justification for me not to do these things–I think as a Christian I’m called to reach out, to help, etc. even if it’s not comfortable for me–I think I’m called to step out and trust God to help me and through that to grow spiritually, and I find the more I do it – well it does become a little easier. I guess I could argue that because of my shyness it would be ok for me to just stay home and pray–my question is–is that really a good defense? I’m not sure it is. I struggle to see where I’m given that loophole, but perhaps I have a blind spot.

Raising kids or should I say children (I don’t want anyone thinking you were raising goats) was outside your comfort zone but you still did it. It would seem that you decided that staying inside your comfort zone was not a reason for you not to have children.

It was just a question, something for us to think about, not a judgment.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Perhaps instead of using the words “comfort zone” we could use the traditional words of the Church: dying to oneself and mortification. Parenthood is very much a mortification, sometimes physical and sometimes interior. We are all given such different talents and temperaments, not to mention circumstances. Jesus Himself fashions our crosses for us, making sure it is precisely what we need to become holy. Other people usually never see the true weight of a person’s cross: these things are too deep for words. So when a person talks about their challenges or crosses or comfort zone, we can never assume to know the whole picture. It is only the tip of the iceberg. What we do not see is the greater portion. I have five children, and I homeschool them. To the outside, we often appear to be the perfect family. Nobody sees the mortifying work that goes on within our home and how often we fail and how terrified we sometimes feel about whether or not we are up to the task. (Well, CAF forum members can get a small glimpse of mine if they view my past threads.).

Parenthood was definitely outside of my comfort zone and stretches me daily. But I am thankful for my cross. I would not want to bear anyone else’s. Some of the stories of the faithful Catholic people here at CAF just break my heart. It is more sorrow than I think I could bear. When they are the ones saying that things are too much for them or are outside their comfort zone, I believe them.

 

[gus]

Point taken. Bad choice of words. You are correct the church never taught that.

Catholic Theologian’s speculated on a Limbo in part in recognizing that certain people who are un baptized should not be condemned to hell. It’s was born of compassion.

 

[Xantippe]

No I am not. 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. Change probably means expanding our comfort zone a little. From what I read it would seem your reasons rise to a level higher than that of mere comfort, but if, indeed, it is simply a matter of comfort for someone–then I think one should consider if that is indeed a serious reason–it’s not my job to decide that for anyone–but I fail to see the great harm in suggesting that we ask ourselves these questions–or how asking the question is nuking the concept of serious reasons. What are we afraid of? Serious reasons as outline by the Church are enough but don’t we need to make sure our reasons are serious and doesn’t that call for reevaluation over time as our situations change? Further my question applies to our whole lives as Christians–not just to this one area.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

In context I told bitterhope, “You may think that that’s “living a life based on fear of what may happen in the future” to avoid under those circumstances, but that just happens to be my and my husband’s comfort zone. If I were to wad up the charts, I would start feeling unbearable anxiety–as it is, I can feel calm, peaceful and accepting of whatever comes, as I’m doing the best I reasonably can.”

The circumstances mentioned are the following:

–I’m 40
–my mom had cancer and a radical mastectomy in her very early 40s
–40-year-old women have a 1 in 66 chance of a baby with a chromosomal abnormality
–41-year-old women have a 1 in 53 chance
–42-year-old women have a 1 in 42 chance
–43-year-old women have a 1 in 33 chance
–44-year-old women have a 1 in 26 chance
–By the time you get to 49 it’s 1 in 8

embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Genetic_risk_maternal_age

When I say comfort zone, I mean, a mutually acceptable level of risk. As bitterhope observed correctly, if one wanted no risk of pregnancy at all, total abstinence would be the answer, but as it happens, we don’t find that a necessary level of certainty.

Also, as jmjZelie mentioned, once you know about fertility signs, there’s a certain amount of awareness no matter what–you can’t unknow what you know.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t know if you have any children of your own Mark, but I know I was already well outside my comfort zone raising my 3. Most people are. It’s such hard work.

Yes.

It always kind of kills me in these discussions when people talk as though it’s generally feasible to have a “selfish” family of 2-4.

Apparently, children in 2 child families never give mom mastitis or thrush, never have exploding poopy diapers, never wake you up in the middle of the night and then wake you up first thing in the morning, never have trouble with potty training, never have to be rushed to ER, never get sick in the middle of vacations, never have problems in school, never have special needs, never have eating disorders, never fight with their sibling or say mean things to their parents, never have to be reminded to do chores, never miss a week of school at a time, never get into drugs, never turn out to be mentally ill, never break their mother’s heart, and so on.

Seriously, even just by the time a couple has raised two children to school age, they’ve generally been through the wars.

If people want to live hedonistic lives of pure pleasure, there are easier ways to do so than raising a family in the suburbs and volunteering for the PTA.

 

[Xantippe]

I suspect that the use of the phrase “comfort zone” may be precisely the kind of vague breezy expression that is reserved for not close relationships. You may be interpreting it as, “too bothered to get my lazy bum off the couch” when it could really mean, “actively filled with dread at the prospect.”

That too.

 

[pianistclare]

Yes.

It always kind of kills me in these discussions when people talk as though it’s generally feasible to have a “selfish” family of 2-4.

Apparently, children in 2 child families never give mom mastitis or thrush, never have exploding poopy diapers, never wake you up in the middle of the night and then wake you up first thing in the morning, never have trouble with potty training, never have to be rushed to ER, never get sick in the middle of vacations, never have problems in school, never have special needs, never have eating disorders, never fight with their sibling or say mean things to their parents, never have to be reminded to do chores, never miss a week of school at a time, never get into drugs, never turn out to be mentally ill, never break their mother’s heart, and so on.

Seriously, even just by the time a couple has raised two children to school age, they’ve generally been through the wars.

If people want to live hedonistic lives of pure pleasure, there are easier ways to do so than raising a family in the suburbs and volunteering for the PTA.

Yeah. And where’s the Christian charity for our sisters who just didn’t have more kids but for a reason known only to God didn’t have any?
Talk about selfish folks. Suffer like I did/do and we’ll call you holy. Riiiight.
I can’t believe family size is considered an issue on CAF
.Big families are ok. Small families are ok. Let’s just raise the ones we have WELL.

 

[Rose71]

Well said!

I know one couple, now in their 70s, who only had 2 children and have had to endure a few deeply hurtful comments about their ‘choice’ of a small family.

The truth is that far from ignoring the Church’s teachings, they lost their first baby at birth; then there was a miscarriage; then one live baby (still alive & thriving) who was born with health issues and his mother also nearly died; then another miscarriage; then a live and healthy baby; then another miscarriage …followed by advice from the family doctor that any more children would put the mother’s life at serious risk. Rather than risk leaving 2 young children without a mother, this brave couple decided to live ‘as brother and sister’ until the mother had gone through the menopause. They have one of the happiest and strongest marriages I know.

Back to the original question: I think the Church (in the UK at least) is in the same position the Anglican Church was in the 1970s and 1980s - so afraid of offending or upsetting anyone, that it has just stopped being taken seriously and seen as something that is more of a ‘tradition’ than a Faith. Ironically, the local Anglican churches around my bit of England are booming because they have really reached out to people at the same time as being quite clear on their message.

The Catholic Church in the UK has never really got to grips with how to function within a secular society. As someone who did stick to the Church’s teachings, I found it heartbreaking and alienating, as I struggled on with celibacy right up to my wedding night, aged 42. I could have easily ‘kept up appearances’ by getting into a relationship and using contraception and sadly, I really think this would have made me feel more ‘accepted’ because to be perfectly blunt - saving myself for marriage often made me feel like a freak.

Don’t get me wrong. The experience of carrying that cross was worth every bit of pain…with hindsight I am certain it has lead me to meeting and marrying the most wonderful husband and with God’s help, enjoying a wonderful marriage. However, I do get hugely irked by people who post in condemnation of couples who stumble, or question the Church’s teaching, who have not really been in my situation (I could have been sexually active, in that I had the body, means and opportunity, from the age of about 15, so that’s 27 years of lovely cellibacy and gettiing my hopes up - then dashed - by men who didn’t want to know when they found out I was serious about my faith) I have also learned great compassion for those who are born with same-sex attraction and have to bear this cross for life if they wish to follow Christ. I have nothing but admiration for those who accomplish this and I pray often for those who slip and are humble enough to seek forgiveness through Reconcilliation (that must take some guts)

The Catholic Church seems to turn a blind eye to those who ‘bend’ the teachings for their own convenience, but ‘keep up appearances’. Those who are in serious need to counsel and a sympathetic ear because of health or other genuine difficulties are treated with incredulity from the many Catholics who think ABC is okay anyway (I mean - everybody is using it - right?!) and a total lack of compassion from those who just quote the rules verbatim without any empathy.

DH and I had to attend a pre-marriage class in our Deanery where we were all told that ABC was a matter of conscience! There was a fairly oblique reference to NFP, but it was so oblique that to anyone who wasn’t already aware of it, they could be forgiven for thinking the lady was advising them to choose organically-sourced condoms

 

[Xantippe]

What? I don’t see how this relates to the question I asked. This response seems to be out in left field to me. So for instance this smaller family–that is in a better position to feed the hungry, etc. What if that’s not in their comfort zone–is that a defense for not doing it? I’m talking ordinary here not superogatory. You can substitute whatever ordinary act you want into the question. I don’t want to hear well they don’t feed the hungry they do xyz instead. My question is: is the fact that it is not comfortable for us to do something–justification for us not doing it? It has nothing to do with superogatory acts or minimums.

Also, for the record, for about 7 straight years, our family gave 10% of net income away.

We aren’t quite hitting that right now, as my beloved grandparents are 90 and 94, and I am currently prioritizing flying our big kids and myself out to visit them every year. It was a tough call and my inner Pharisee still gives me twinges about it, but the poor you have always with you, but grandma and grandpa you don’t. I think we’re still hitting about 7 or 8%, though. I wish that I’d started prioritizing the grandparents earlier, as they are both visibly more frail than even just a few years ago.

Family resources are limited, and one has to prioritize–it isn’t possible to do literally every single good thing at the same time.

My husband would like us to give more than 10% once we have a couple of kids launched and I think that would be a very good thing.

This is largely superogatory. We do it because we think it’s a good thing and we are called to it, but we don’t think that every single Catholic family ought to do exactly the same thing. That said, there are a lot of verses in the NT about charitable giving that don’t get enough attention in our large-family-uber-alles CAF discussions–it’s often treated as if having another child or two were the ONLY moral issue affecting married Catholics.

Here’s a verse from 1 John 3 that I found a moment ago (there are easily dozens of others in the NT):

“But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.”

This is going to sound way liberal, but why is having a larger family something to smack our brothers and sisters about over and over again (and it’s never quite big enough), but we almost never see the same level of passion directed toward charitable giving? Why is it that the only duty is to raise a large nuclear family–there’s no weight allowed to extended family relationships, neighborhood, parish, or community?

I feel like St. John would be very puzzled by the emphasis.

 

[pianistclare]

Also, for the record, for about 7 straight years, our family gave 10% of net income away.

We aren’t quite hitting that right now, as my beloved grandparents are 90 and 94, and I am currently prioritizing flying our big kids and myself out to visit them every year. It was a tough call and my inner Pharisee still gives me twinges about it, but the poor you have always with you, but grandma and grandpa you don’t. I think we’re still hitting about 7 or 8%, though. I wish that I’d started prioritizing the grandparents earlier, as they are both visibly more frail than even just a few years ago.

Family resources are limited, and one has to prioritize–it isn’t possible to do literally every single good thing at the same time.

My husband would like us to give more than 10% once we have a couple of kids launched and I think that would be a very good thing.

This is largely superogatory. We do it because we think it’s a good thing and we are called to it, but we don’t think that every single Catholic family ought to do exactly the same thing. That said, there are a lot of verses in the NT about charitable giving that don’t get enough attention in our large-family-uber-alles CAF discussions–it’s often treated as if having another child or two were the ONLY moral issue affecting married Catholics.

Here’s a verse from 1 John 3 that I found a moment ago (there are easily dozens of others in the NT):

“But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.”

This is going to sound way liberal, but why is having a larger family something to smack our brothers and sisters about over and over again (and it’s never quite big enough), but we almost never see the same level of passion directed toward charitable giving? Why is it that the only duty is to raise a large nuclear family–there’s no weight allowed to extended family relationships, neighborhood, parish, or community?

I feel like St. John would be very puzzled by the emphasis.

This is great.
Well stated.

 

[Rose71]

I think it’s (lazy) human nature to pick on the easy target. It’s easy to determine whether a family has 1 child, or 10 children. In fact, it’s pretty difficult to hide!

It’s easy to point the finger at a teenage girl who has a baby out of wedlock. It’s not so easy to point the finger at the father, because he’s not going to grow in size or be left, literally, holding the baby in most cases.

It’s not easy to point the finger at a teenagers who are sleeping together and using ABC, because I suspect many parents whose teenagers are sexually active are fervently hoping they won’t be grandparents just yet!

There is a dangerous assumption, brought about by the media and (I think) aided and abetted by many Catholics, that ABC is a fact of life and a sensible precaution, therefore, ‘everyone’ is using it - unless there is the real and physical proof of a large family, preferably all lined up in the bench at Mass.

When I thought I might never get married, I decided to sponsor a child in a developing country. Personally, I found this a more ‘responsible’ option than marrying just to have achild; sleeping with a man I wasn’t committed to, just to have a child, or going down the IVF or surrogacy route. It amazes me how ‘radical’ some of my friends think this is when I tell them. To me, it makes perfect sense: I have no child but surplus money and Mrs. X in a remote village in Central America has a lovely little boy but very little money or access to a lot that we take for granted.

I could choose to spend the surplus on better holidays, better furniture, a better car…but I’d rather know I’ve made a real difference to the life of a child who I will probably never see face to face. For me, it’s an absolute no-brainer. DH agrees that we continue to support what is now ‘our’ sponsor child.

 

[PaulinVA]

Yeah. And where’s the Christian charity for our sisters who just didn’t have more kids but for a reason known only to God didn’t have any?
Talk about selfish folks. Suffer like I did/do and we’ll call you holy. Riiiight.
I can’t believe family size is considered an issue on CAF
.Big families are ok. Small families are ok. Let’s just raise the ones we have WELL.

One of my pet peeves.

Catholic families in the sixties and seventies with four or more children were considered holy because probably mom and dad were using the rhythm method, which was not very effective. I was a teen then, and I know a lot of these parents didn’t seek out the large family - it happened due to their faithfulness to church teaching.

These same couples, if they had the modern versions of NFP at their disposal, would not have had the large families. I know. I knew them and spoke to them, in the context of a Catholic prayer group.

My point is that, in the 2000s, faithful = large family doesn’t have the same connection it did in the sixties. Many Catholics can now better limit their family size to what is right for them.

 

[MomaMary8]

I think what may be going on is that you are treating specific superogatory acts as the minimum, whereas the whole idea of superogatory acts is that they go above and beyond, and we are free to do them or not to do them.

I am not an expert on this area of Catholic ethics (I just know the term superogatory!), but it occurs to me that there are practically an infinite variety of possible superogatory acts–having a larger family than necessary, giving more to charity than necessary, being kinder to the stranger than necessary, reading an extra board book at bedtime, playing an extra round of catch, playing an extra encore, etc.

It isn’t actually possible to perform every single possible superogatory act–but you could come close if you found yourself living Ground Hog Day like Bill Murray. But, under more normal circumstances, we have finite resources in terms of time, money, and energy. So we have to choose to do some and not to do others. So, for instance, a smaller family might in fact be in a better position to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, welcome the stranger, comfort the sick, etc.

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.