| Author | |
guitarnan
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10883
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:24am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Lucy, don't feel bad...I recall one horrible day when I finally took my baby son with me to the mall. I pumped so I could bottle-feed him there (I was going with a single friend and thought I'd avoid having to nurse in public by bringing a bottle along). There I was, trying to persuade my son to take this bottle, when a lady happened along and said to my (baby) son, "Tell your mom to give you the REAL stuff!" I just cried - it WAS the real stuff.
People who judge based on appearances just don't get it. They don't know how hard you tried to conceive, how long it took to adopt, how much you'd rather nurse than be on chemo...I've learned from my long-ago bottle-at-the-mall experience that kind and encouraging words are the only words I need to use around mommies and babies.
__________________
Nancy in MD. Mom of ds (24) & dd (18); 31-year Navy wife, move coordinator and keeper of home fires. Writer and dance mom.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:45am | IP Logged
|
|
|
A humble spirit.
I think this is the major difference between the mothers of many (closely spaced or not) and Popcak.
Mothers of many have learned the hard way that just when they think they know what they are doing and the best way to do it - no, they don't know squat. Time to be humble enough to accept a new situation or a new child's unique needs. I feel fairly confident that Danielle, Elizabeth, Lisbet, Matilda, ect.. would not say they have all the answers or have done things the same for all their kids and other such notions? I think that was the heart of what Danielle was saying in, "Do what is best for your family." Not what feels good, but what is best. And be prepared that what is best for one child or today may change, in fact it's highly likely it will change.
I've done so many things, cloth vs disposable, sling vs blanket, co sleep vs crib, bf vs formula, pump vs public bf-ing, self weaned or force weaned, medicated births, unmedicated vbacs, c-sec, and the list goes on. But in every one of those situations I did what was best for my family and my child and I did it out of love for them. And you know what? I'm glad I did it that way rather than trying to force myself and my kids into some AP mold that wasn't what we needed or best for our family.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:49am | IP Logged
|
|
|
What Lindsay calls what was "scientific" at the time reminds me of something my grandmother told me...she said that mothers were told never to cuddle their children, hug them, praise them too much, etc. What they put into baby formula at the time makes me shudder (raw egg? are you kidding??  ). Whenever we use science (and I am a biologist) as a reason for one child-rearing method over another, something is going to be left out of the equation. "Love" is not scientific.
My grandmother loved all of her children unconditionally, and with the exception of my dad who is a bit of nut (and he was raised by a smothering, childless aunt--long story), her 8 children are wonderful.
To paraphrase Nancy: It's not the science; it's the love.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:56am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm sorry if this has been said several times, but just allow me to write my thoughts. Spending those quiet times nursing does get the brain rolling around.  What irks me the most in Dr. Popcak's final response is that he seems to have decided for all that AFP is definitely a moral and serious reason to space children. I know there have been discussions ad nauseum about reasons to use NFP, and it usually boils down to an informed, spiritually advised, moral decision by the couple.
While I highly agree that the principles of AFP are naturally good for a family, no one is in the position to decide for each couple what is good for their marriage and souls except that couple. It seems outside a therapist's job to decide these moral decisions. NFP is allowed by the Church, but not a mandate, and it's not to be taken lightly or prescribed across the board.
Having multiples is a great example. Dr. P's ideas seem to have a great deal of "control" -- he sees the parents as steering the ship. But we are all called to have God in control. NFP may be practiced, but that doesn't mean it works perfectly. God always seem to show who's boss. What would be more helpful from a therapist is to show how to make "the ideal"--AFP--work when life isn't ideal. How about suggestions of moderation, or key principles that help, instead of throwing it back in the parents' faces that they aren't in control and it's their fault if we can't make it work? He seems to have an "I told you so" attitude which isn't helpful.
I know from my own experience that I have constant reminders only God is in control. As my grandmother always said "The good Lord tries to keep us humble." We had a plan from the beginning, but how would I have known that we would have had fertility problems? Or require c-sections for each birth? We thought we would try for a big family, and now holding our second miracle child, we know it's just not meant to be. But the 3 years lapse before the first was born and 4 years difference between the two doesn't mean we tried to space. There are several miscarriages and many tears and tribulations in those lapses of time. And all of these, both sad and joyful are gifts from God.
I'm currently reading a biography on St. Elizabeth Ann Seton. Her life was a lesson of not being in control. Wow, she certainly suffered greatly!
And Nancy, you do seem to have the gift to sum up things so nicely!
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 12:25pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Nancy, I like what you said, alot! 
I was at a very small conference a few years ago, Henry was 6 months old and I was pregnant with Molly. Greg and Lisa we're speakers and I had the pleasure of meeting both of them and their children.
Their children were delightful and were constantly asking me to hold the baby. (Henry) Lisa P. and I have very much in common really, and we talked at length about homebirth and she was very interested in the way I carried Henry on my back and I gave her some pointers on sling wearing as they were looking into adoption. In their defense, they were both very encouraging when we spoke about my family size and the spacing of my children. I think maybe they saw alot of AP in action by a mom of many.
I enjoyed the talks they gave and the time I spent talking to Lisa. (didn't speak with Greg much. I think that their own personal experience comes into play ALOT in this discussion. A good friend of mine calls Dr. Popcak the Rush Limbaugh of Catholic talk radio!
I will say that all of this has made me re-evaluate my mothering a bit. I've went back to why AP was initially important for me and how it has evlolved in our family, both the good and the bad, looking for ways to improve. That is always a good thing!
A few of the moms here have mentioned how they have been 'eyeballed' in some Catholic circles because of the number/spacing of children. I'm a bit perplexed at this, probably because of my personal experience, but in my circles, 9 kids is NOT the norm. Most of the wonderful mothers in my Catholic homeschooling community have 4-5. I have never wondered about their child spacing reasons what so ever. I have often felt the need to defend my own though. And I know there have been times my family has been excluded from activities and groups because of the number of us.
Sorry if my thoughts are disjointed on this, this is my first day working on cutting out caffine!
__________________
Lisa, wife to Tony,
Mama to:
Nick, 17
Abby, 15
Gabe, 13
Isaac, 11
Mary, 10
Sam, 9
Henry, 7
Molly, 6
Mark, 5
Greta, 3
Cecilia born 10.29.10
Josephine born 6.11.12
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
chicken lady
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 27 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2315
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 12:26pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
It is a scientific fact that a bumble bee can not fly!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 1:59pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
chicken lady wrote:
| It is a scientific fact that a bumble bee can not fly! |
|
|
And if they did fly, they'd use some other method.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 3:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Something else I'm not sure I understand about Popcak.
He mentions several times about biological needs and God's design.
If a mother is eco bf-ing and her cycles return, wouldn't that be God's biological design kicking in affirming that she may be ready biologicly to conceive?
Why would Popcak agree with that only if that would put the spacing further than 2.5 years apart?
He talks alot about how we are imprinted by God with these needs, but then he seems to totally not address when biological evidence doesn't agree with him? (some you already mentioned twins for example)
Now, if a couple felt for some reason they needed to use NFP... fine.
But to insist they should or they won't be properly bonded with their current and/or future children? That seems a bit much.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dawnie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 30 2005
Location: Kansas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 4:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
JennGM wrote:
| What would be more helpful from a therapist is to show how to make "the ideal"--AFP--work when life isn't ideal. How about suggestions of moderation, or key principles that help, instead of throwing it back in the parents' faces that they aren't in control and it's their fault if we can't make it work? He seems to have an "I told you so" attitude which isn't helpful. |
|
|
Jenn, this is so true! I was just thinking today, so many people are quick to say, "Well, if so-and-so would just stop having babies, then x problem wouldn't occur." It is not EVER helpful to make that kind of judgement. How does that help a mother or family who might be struggling with the demands of a large family? I think, what we are called to do when we see someone else struggle is to offer whatever help we can, not judgements about what they "should have" done. Maybe all we can offer is prayers and encouragement. But if we can offer some good, practical advice (like about a laundry system, or chore system, or menu rotation plan), maybe some frozen casseroles, or help with the kids, that's even better!
Judgements about how other people should space their families are truly a way that the devil seeks to divide us. I think that what Christ would have us do is to help bear one another's burdens. That's what I see happening here, and that's why I keep coming back. :)
Dawn
Dawn
__________________
Mom to Mary Beth (99), Anna (02), Lucia (04), Clara (06), and Adelaide Victoria (2/28/09)
Visit my blog!Water Into Wine:Vino Per Tutto!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 6:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha wrote:
Something else I'm not sure I understand about Popcak.
He mentions several times about biological needs and God's design.
If a mother is eco bf-ing and her cycles return, wouldn't that be God's biological design kicking in affirming that she may be ready biologicly to conceive?
Why would Popcak agree with that only if that would put the spacing further than 2.5 years apart?
He talks alot about how we are imprinted by God with these needs, but then he seems to totally not address when biological evidence doesn't agree with him? (some you already mentioned twins for example)
Now, if a couple felt for some reason they needed to use NFP... fine.
But to insist they should or they won't be properly bonded with their current and/or future children? That seems a bit much. |
|
|
Absolutely. What about the way God created the mother's body to be? What about the natural indicators that perhaps means a particular child doesn't fit as well in "the mold" and is ready for a sibling sooner than another child This seems *very* evident to me with my two--Henry nursed less during the day and could have cared less when I held another baby--Karl nurses more during the day and freaked out when I held someone else's baby until quite recently. I got 3 more months spacing after Karl--which doesn't sound like a lot but is pretty significant when they're still so young.
To me, eco-bfing was a big factor in my seeing AP as a "natural" choice. I feel like he's taken all of the natural part out of "natural" family planning, lol.
__________________
Lindsay
Five Boys(6/04) (6/06) (9/08)(3/11),(7/13), and 1 girl (5/16)
My Symphony
[URL=http://mysymphonygarden.blogspot.com/]Lost in the Cosmos[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 7:15pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dr Popcak wrote:
Finally, providentialist parents often note, correctly, that the Church does not require the use of NFP. They fail, however, to also note that the Church also does not require or even recommend the providentialist mindset. In fact, a comprehensive survey of Magisterial teaching clearly shows that while both approaches are certainly permissible, the Church offers many more cautions to providentialist parents than she does to parents who use NFP both as an aid to space children and conceive their next child. The only thing the Church requires of both groups is responsible parenthood and integral procreation. Favoring the providentialist approach does not let you off the hook for being responsible and prudent any more than favoring the NFP approach lets you off the hook for being generous in the service of life. For instance, Pope Pius XII (author of Casti Connubii) noted that the reasons that constitute “serious reasons” for spacing children were, “in truth, very wide.” Likewise, Pope John Paul II responded to this issue in a July 1994 Angelus address when he stated,
Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point, as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God’s co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious, generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. [Emphasis mine]. |
|
|
These paragraphs intrigued me. I am not well versed in these areas, but I would have said that I have really only heard of the Church cautioning parents not to use NFP in a ‘contraceptive way’ with no real reason for it and have never read or heard much from the teaching majesterium as to the opposite, yet Dr Popcak says the Church has written more about that...??
If this were so the case (due to me just not doing enough reading of Church documents) I’d like to know what the Church means if it has stated, ‘not to pro-create indiscriminately and without thought’ – what or who are they referring to? Surely not big families who are open to life and living faith to the best of their ability, even when times sometimes are tough? Is it a case of Dr Popcak is using these ‘quotes’ from Popes/Church and then HE is classifying who falls into those categories? Actually, I’d be interested in feedback and opinions on all that I have quoted above, because I find it a bit bewildering...
I mean, just look at the saints in history - St Catherine of Siena, baby number 23 (she was a twin, but her twin died) and when I read Married Saints and Blesseds there are so many (probably the vast majority) marriges/families that would not fit this strict AP mold at all! What about St Monica, should she have not had her children due to the undue bad influence her husband would have on them? What about St Rita? These marriages are irregular and imperfect, people in this day and age may say they were irresponsible...
I must say it is really upsetting to see people so dogmatically interpret the Church on these quotes when they seem to me, grey areas left to the individual parents to prayerfully interpret for themselves...
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SusanJ
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 25 2007
Location: New Jersey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1347
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't have time to parse out everything Dr. Popcak said, but I think when the church talks about providentialism (I lost track of what big p and little p mean) they mean things like: the mom is going to die if she has another baby but the parents leave it all up to God. Or the mom has severe ppd and psychosis after having three babies in three years but the family doesn't use NFP OR . . . I don't know. I don't want to go too far with this because I fear describing a situation that someone here has faced. I think the church wants us to be reasonable when considering our ability to have more children but also generous. When Elizabeth says she begged God for each of her children and we can see from her blog that they are all happy and healthy even though some of them were born less than three years apart--well, that's not providentialism as I understand it. That's being open to life.
I fear that Dr. Popcak thinks he has uncovered new science that should be irrefutable when it comes to how to raise children. I'm sure he is acting in all charity, but, as Martha said, look at what is actually happening with our bodies. If our fertility returns at 12 months postpartum, maybe that baby is ready for a sibling?
Susan
__________________
Mom to Joseph-8, Margaret-6, William-4, Gregory-2, and new little one due 11/1
Life Together
[URL=http://thejohnstonkids.blogspot.com]The Kids' Blog[/UR
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:02pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
[QUOTE= aussieanne
These paragraphs intrigued me. I am not well versed in these areas, but I would have said that I have really only heard of the Church cautioning parents not to use NFP in a ‘contraceptive way’ with no real reason for it and have never read or heard much from the teaching majesterium as to the opposite, yet Dr Popcak says the Church has written more about that...??
If this were so the case (due to me just not doing enough reading of Church documents) I’d like to know what the Church means if it has stated, ‘not to pro-create indiscriminately and without thought’ – what or who are they referring to? Surely not big families who are open to life and living faith to the best of their ability, even when times sometimes are tough? Is it a case of Dr Popcak is using these ‘quotes’ from Popes/Church and then HE is classifying who falls into those categories? Actually, I’d be interested in feedback and opinions on all that I have quoted above, because I find it a bit bewildering...
I mean, just look at the saints in history - St Catherine of Siena, baby number 23 (she was a twin, but her twin died) and when I read Married Saints and Blesseds there are so many (probably the vast majority) marriges/families that would not fit this strict AP mold at all! What about St Monica, should she have not had her children due to the undue bad influence her husband would have on them? What about St Rita? These marriages are irregular and imperfect, people in this day and age may say they were irresponsible...
I must say it is really upsetting to see people so dogmatically interpret the Church on these quotes when they seem to me, grey areas left to the individual parents to prayerfully interpret for themselves..end quote)
Many of the Saints in History had wet nurses, and were "parented" as was the vogue of the day, especially if they were from wealthy households and could afford it. Just as in the 1940's Breastfeeding was thought to be "common and vulgar" so was it thought throughout History in the wealthier classes, and later the Victorian era, which heavily influenced America, for example, quite a bit.
Just as grace and wonderful things can happen due to a child concieved out of rape, or a "missed vocation" (a married dad who missed his true calling to the Priesthood could still make an incredible Husband and Father due to the Grace of God!) So, too, can Saints come from the family of 14 kids who raised them at arms length, rigidly scheduling because that is what was "acceptable and normal" at that time. So, too, can Saints come from the 23rd child of a wealthy family, who, realistically, if the mom had been very poor (thinking st Bernadette here as a flip side example) that 23rd child would not have been born due to at least some breastfeeding infertility. The poor all slept together in one room, and often one bed,(which in more than one way caused fewer children) while the wealthy of St Catherine's time could be living in 50,000 sq ft Castles!
From all of my studies of Church teachings, (I also have a Theology degree) the quotes you quote from Popchek are very familiar to me. We are ALL called to put thought into our family size, otherwise, as I have said before, the stork could just randomly drop a baby on our doorstep whenever there was a full moon or something
We are called to be co-creators with God, this is where it seems as if Science and Love collide in a beautiful way! Just as Nature, the seasons, plant and animal life have fertile and infertile times, so do we, and it is wonderful how we are made, and God wants us to know this!
So fertility awareness and regular discussion about our family size is something the Church actively teaches, where it gets messed up is when people equate fertility awareness and dialogue about being called to have another child with charts, graphs and the like. Those "tools" to track our fertile and infertile times are there if we need them, to help us concieve or abstain, only if we need help for a time either way 
Dh always likes to say it is a very Protestant belief to think that God wants us to have as many kids as physically possible, and it denies Church teaching.
And, you mention something about "when times are tough". There is actually nothing wrong, when times are tough for a couple (and even if it might not seem SO tough to any other couple out there) to abstain for a time. That God's will might actually be to avoid a child. Yes, grace, and many blessings could come from a child concieved, and it also allows others to participate charitably by perhaps tithing time, talent, treasure to a mom with severe postpartum who is hospitalized after giving birth for a longer period. But, God gave us an intellect and a will, and although we might not want to use it and "blame it" all on God (as in "God wanted me to get pregnant and so I did")we as Catholics should know better
Because we are a selfish society, especially first world countries were a good 97% of married Catholics are not living according to Church teaching, we often hear of the "contraceptive mindset" more often than anything else. HOWEVER, the danger is to throw out fertility awareness (how our body is created and ordered by God) just because of a future fear that a couple MAY have the wrong intent when dropping Birth Control and coming around to the Truth.
While I have known MANY couples I have taught NFP to have massive conversions, ditch their contraceptives and go to confession, I have yet to know one who "used" NFP with a contraceptive mentality for more than a short while until they "got it".
It is beautiful then to see the second "aha" moment go off in their head as they realize, through having to communicate about very intimate issues for the first time for many of them in their marriages, that hey, wouldn't it be nice to have another!!?? And most do not have a second aha conversion to begin with they "get it" right away!
Keep reading, I love the Church's writings on Breastfeeding as well, really amazing stuff!
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
aussieannie wrote:
| Is it a case of Dr Popcak is using these ‘quotes’ from Popes/Church and then HE is classifying who falls into those categories? Actually, I’d be interested in feedback and opinions on all that I have quoted above, because I find it a bit bewildering... |
|
|
I think it is just such a use.
Dr Popcak wrote:
| Finally, providentialist parents often note, correctly, that the Church does not require the use of NFP. They fail, however, to also note that the Church also does not require or even recommend the providentialist mindset. |
|
|
Actually, I'd challenge that. I thin khe is taking a writing and twisting it some. The Church has said repeatedly two things in various forms of one kind or another as far as I can tell. (An admittedly less than expert theologian  )
1. We should be sacrificially generous in our consideration of having children. We should be willing to suffer happily having children, or more children.
2. For those who feel a possible just reason to space children via NFP, this too should be a sacrificial consideration, and as such is permitted by the Church. This is NOT saying that one is irresponible if they have what seems like harsh, even literally brutal or life endangering just reasons to use NFP and choose to literally sacrifice completely to God's tender care. It is simply saying that the Church has compassion for such couples and such couples should not feel as thought they must martyr themselves rather than use NFP.
popcak wrote:
| In fact, a comprehensive survey of Magisterial teaching clearly shows that while both approaches are certainly permissible, the Church offers many more cautions to providentialist parents than she does to parents who use NFP both as an aid to space children and conceive their next child. |
|
|
I would be interested in that. The only thing I can find is very vague examples worded in such a way as to imply that one should not feel they must martyr themselves - that if they feel just reasons NFP is an option. Not a caution. More a note of compassionate understanding that some will have just reasons to not feel comfortable relying solely on God's discretion in this matter.
popcak wrote:
| The only thing the Church requires of both groups is responsible parenthood and integral procreation. Favoring the providentialist approach does not let you off the hook for being responsible and prudent any more than favoring the NFP approach lets you off the hook for being generous in the service of life. For instance, Pope Pius XII (author of Casti Connubii) noted that the reasons that constitute “serious reasons” for spacing children were, “in truth, very wide.” Likewise, Pope John Paul II responded to this issue in a July 1994 Angelus address when he stated, |
|
|
Yes, indeed. However, even those popes that Popcak mentions did not venture as far as he has to claim what constitutes responsible or intergal. In fact, many saints and popes probably would have argued that the only thing a parent must do to be responsible is raise their children to be devout to God. Just about anything else can be over-looked as gravy. And everything else isn't worth dirt if that is missing.
popcak wrote:
| Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood on this point, as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God’s co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious, generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. [Emphasis mine]. |
|
|
hmm. so God is indiscriminate, careless, selfish, and doesn't think of our futures? Again, I note, we are only COcreators! If one is married and raising their children in the faith, then it is not possible to call that indiscriminate. When we are called to consider the future, we are called to work to provide and care for our children and our spouses to the best of our abilities and with all the grace that God may give us along the way to grow spiritually.
I have not ever read that we should give priority to the welfare of the unborn child? The priority should always be the will of God. If we consider only the best physical and emotional welfare and refuse to commit ourselves to co-creation unless that standard is met, we limit ourselves and God. We loose opportunities to suffer gladly. We miss the chance to really see God's grace in action. Sufferring is not a bad thing if it's a Godly endeavour.
Again, if one feels just reasons to use NFP, then I'm completely okay with that. If I felt a just reason, I'd use it. I don't think Mr. Popcak is qualified to make such a blanket statement. This is a very spiritual and personal matter. To say it is an option is one thing. To imply any parent not doing it is irresponsible, selfish, and careless in having children that God himself has sent is irresponsible, careless, and prideful of Mr. Popcak, imho.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
PS, when one needs to "use" NFP for any length of time (I prefer to say abstain, because let's face it, that is what you are doing! ) it should be with a great deal of sadness, and for those I know that need to go this route, believe me, it is.
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:28pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
okay.
*sigh* a bit hot uder the collar with popcak there.
had some coffee and chocolate and much more clear now.
lisa wrote:
| But, God gave us an intellect and a will, and although we might not want to use it and "blame it" all on God (as in "God wanted me to get pregnant and so I did")we as Catholics should know better |
|
|
Lisa,
I'm presuming you didn't intend to say that couples not using NFP are not using their intellect and will - well that's sure what it read like. 
I have never met someone who has given this up to God's will who "blame it" on God like that.
Mr. Popcak (and possibly you?) seem to be missing a key point here.
Those such as myself who do not use NFP have decided with their intellect and their will, to give their fertility completely into God's very capable hands. We are indeed co-creators with him. We are married and everytime we embrace it is with the knowledge and willingness that God may decide to create from that union a new life, which we will love and raise to love Him and others.
I get rather tired of hearing, "Well God gave us minds to use you know!" and various versions of the same. The implication is that if I sacrifice more or simply when they would not, then I am not using my intellect and will. I'm being unreasonable and maybe a bit scrupulous. This is not true. It is simply a loving sacrifice that I make. And although I may do so with trepidation at times (fear is such a human thing and I am very human!), I also do it gladly.
If a mother feels led to risk dying in labor, rather than presume she is dogmatic and not using her intellect, maybe.. just maybe... we should consider that God is at work on the next saint and that scared woman is gladly, and possible literally, willing to die to bring that saint to a world in dire need of every saint it can get? You may not feel compelled to such lengths. I have not been. Yet. But I shudder to think of that poor woman alone and friendless in her months of pain and the best words we can come up with is, "Well you know God gave us a brain and science for a reason!"
I really do not think badly of any of the wonderful people I know who use NFP. I think it's wonderful that the Church offers this compassionate means to ease their fears and possible sufferrings.
Why can't we just say the simple truth?
NFP is nothing more than a just option.
But it's an alternative to using nothing, not an alternative to ABC, which is simply not a licit option.
Any couple who isn't using NFP or ABC is being providentialist to some degree for however brief a time. It's simply leaving it in God's hands.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:31pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
LisaR wrote:
| PS, when one needs to "use" NFP for any length of time (I prefer to say abstain, because let's face it, that is what you are doing! ) it should be with a great deal of sadness, and for those I know that need to go this route, believe me, it is. |
|
|
I completely and 100% agree. 
Whether we are deciding to leave it to God or to use NFp, it is an act of great sacrifice to do so.
I also agree that very few people can do it for very long without a just reason. It's very hard and if one doesn't feel there's a just reason, the couple will very likely start to get more and more lenient about the rules for "go" days.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:36pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Any couple who isn't using NFP or ABC is being providentialist to some degree for however brief a time. It's simply leaving it in God's hands. [/QUOTE]
first off, we never , as Catholics , can "simply leave it in God's hands" because we are co-cooperators with Him. We at some point are still making a decision, and we are called to discern His will for us. Almost always, this is an ongoing thing. Mother Teresa, the Saints, they all were constantly checking in with God to discern if they were still "on track" with their vocation. and again, our vocations are not to have as many babies as physically possible, although some of us might be Blessed in that way.
Also, as an aside, and just a terminology thing, but it is Birth Control, not ABC, because there is no "Natural" birth control, it all goes against Natural Law and says "no" to how we are created, and therefore no "artificial" BC either...
I am thinking we are on the same page, but perhaps wording it differently??
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
aussieannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 21 2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7251
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
LisaR wrote:
| God wants us to have as many kids as physically possible, and it denies Church teaching. |
|
|
But really, wouldn't the church be meaning not to have as many children as possible with no proper intention in raising them properly in the faith? If you choose to have as many children as possible but raise them with the faith, should that be a problem? Would not that be what the church is referring to when it says "procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future" because if it means the future in regards to more temporal issues, then we'd never have children at all because nobody knows what the future holds - parents can die unexpectedly - people can lose their whole fortune (it happened to my parents) and so on. This is what annoys me - my husband is 58 - 21 years older than me - a most blessed man and father - yet I have had a good Catholic person question whether we should have more children due to his age - but he has great health and fathers much, much younger than himself can develop illnesses or die unexpectedly and do, everyday! I just can't help thinking that the word "control" when it has come to this issue and "generosity" has be forgotten to a large extent (not referring to anyone in the 4Real discussion at all but meaning the original debate in other parts of the cyber-world.)
Actually, reading Martha's comments, she too has said what I am trying to express, sorry for missing it:
Martha wrote:
| In fact, many saints and popes probably would have argued that the only thing a parent must do to be responsible is raise their children to be devout to God. |
|
|
Thanks Lisa and Martha for your thoughts - Martha, it was a great point of 'sacrifice' you brought up - a BIG thanks, that is something that has also been overlooked but so important!
__________________
Under Her Starry Mantle
Spiritual Motherhood for Priests
Blessed with 3 boys & 3 girls!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
LisaR
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2226
|
| Posted: Jan 12 2008 at 9:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I just can't help but think how many people Greg P must see who are hurting in his practice. I know that many of them are Catholic homeschooling couples. He must be so frustrated and might be trying to figure out a "why" or a "how could this problem be solved". I am not saying I agree with his "solutions" 100%, but I am trying hard to put myself in his shoes. In person, he actually is a very delightful, intelligent, and very compassionate man.
as an aside, I once counted 19 Catholic homeschool moms I knew who were on Antidepressants at the same time. It was alarming and depressing to me- and I really wanted to figure out why??? why are we all "falling apart"?? So for him to see falling apart people day in and day out, well, maybe this is where he is right now.
Maybe he has advocated AP to moms who were more the Ezzo type and seen peaceful and productive results, without meds, who knows? Maybe he has seen a mom "use" NFP for the first time in her life for a time, have a child spaced a bit farther out, and that was "all it took" so to speak?
__________________
Lisa
dh Tim '92
Joseph 17
Paul 14
Thomas 11
Dominic 8
Maria Gianna 5
Isaac Vincent 9/21/10! and...
many little saints in heaven!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: Popcak, AP and providentialism End on p.4
