| Author | |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 11:59am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
First of all please excuse any typos and general inchoherencies. I got less than 4 hours of sleep last night and my brain is fried. I am going to lie down right after I post this.
I understand the hesitation to require NFP classes for all couples getting married. I have reservations about it myself - BUT, as I have been reading this thread and reflecting on my own journey to understanding Church teaching, I have to admit that had I had the opportunity to attend such classes I do think it COULD have been a great help.
I can see why some dioceses have made it a requirement given that there is SO much confusion and sadly priests who aren't teaching the truth or are telling people completely wrong things.
Do I think requiring NFP classes is the best solution? No, the best solution is the ideal. Priests preaching the truth from the pulpit, Catholic schools and CCD programs teaching the truth and ultimately PARENTS knowing it, living it and teaching it to their children.
But we have had YEARS of confusion and this is where we are at right now. Things ARE getting better, I truly believe that but I also think it takes time and faithful Bishops like Chaput know that and are doing what they think is best for their flock at this point in time. As we go along and things improve I think we will see less of a need to require NFP classes. But let's face it this IS where we are and there are far too many people who don't know and understand Church teaching.
Contraception is intrinsically evil but my understanding is that the Church teaches that NFP even misused is at best a venial sin. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it OK to sin but in the effort to protect people from the graver sin of using contraception I think many priests and Bishops are willing to temporarily suffer the misuse of NFP because can open the door and lead people down the right road. Do I agree with this line of thinking? Well, let's just say I can see both sides and I will admit in some places it seems to be working. Regardless, I do not think (nor do I think these same priests and bishops do) it means we are ever excused from learning, understanding and living the fullness of Church teaching on openess to life.
StephanieA wrote:
| I am totally against having the diocese requiring NFP classes as I am against having my kids in CCD that require chastity education. You really don't know what is going to be said and relayed. Do I think some couples will benefit from NFP? Yes. Do I think that some couples will be hurt by it? Absolutely. |
|
|
I do understand where you are coming from and I wonder if perhaps a couple could opt out if they can prove they already "get" Church teaching on all this? I don't know how that would work exactly it's just a thought off the top of my head.
Martha wrote:
| NFP was very hard on our marriage and it's not as user friendly for everyone as some claim it to be. |
|
|
Well this is something I DO have an issue with, the idea that NFP is wonderful and a real joy to every marriage. That may be true for some people but it's certainly not for everyone and I do not think it's fair to present it that way. This is where I take serious issue with certain authors who present it as a means to having better s*x. That is NOT it's purpose nor, I doubt, is it most couple's experience.
However, the proper use of NFP (strictly speaking of its use as periodic abstinence here - just to be clear) IS an issue of self-discipline and that is not a bad thing. If we believe what Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae,
Quote:
"The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions.
For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order.
This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character.
And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings.
For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity.
It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers. " |
|
|
then we must also realize that indeed there has to be some value to be found in its use and for my dh and I personally we have reflected that the difficulty surely lies with us and not with God and the graces He gives us.
God bless,
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 12:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Dear Gwen,
I am NOT against NFP. Please don't read into my objections or anyone else's so vehemently. NFP certainly has its proper place as do annulments, chastity education, etc. I just don't think it should be viewed as the norm. I myself have used NFP. I don't in anyway see it as a second rate choice if it is needed. I see children as the higher good. I don't look down on marriage either  , but the state of virginity is the higher good too. But the church encourages both for different people and for different reasons.
StephanieA wrote:
| Yes, the magesterium supports families and children as a blessing, but many Catholics really don't. |
|
|
<<<<Again, this is nothing new. But the culture of death and the sexual revolution was welcomed in by many Catholics who came from large families who were not using NFP and were welcoming life, not by a bunch of NFP teachers. I know a few them. The majority of Catholic couples began using ABC in the 60's and 70's, not NFP.>>>>
Yes, there were Catholics who certainly thought they were being faithful to the Church in the late 50's even who resorted to birth control. I know some of them also. They felt sure and were told by many priests that the Church was planning to change its mind about artificial birth control. The priests and they were sincerely suprised when this did not happen. One of the problems during this time period also was that Rome moved so slowly getting Humane Vitae out. Altar girls were in the same boat. We had altar girls here 30 years ago and our Catholic high school did so on the idea that Rome would soon come around to the inception of altar girls. This they did. Contraception had a different outcome.
But the view of the blessings of children really is
something new....as in the last 100+ years. Part of this is due to the industrial revolution and the fact that children now were not active members of the family's commerce. People moved away from farms and small industry and children didn't participate in the economics of the family. They became liabilities in some people's eyes, not assets. Even the children's book, "Ox-Cart Man" puts this in perspective of what life might have been like "back then".
StephanieA wrote:
| True, NFP MAY help some couples who are contracepting or planning to. But the emphasis should be the discussion of the loving acceptance of children .....as in one of the 2 purposes for marriage. |
|
|
<<<NFP may help?? I am really sorry that the women, who in this and past threads, rather meekly and quietly tried to explain that their NFP classes were a moment of grace and conversion for them and others they know were totally ignored. >>>>
This is why NFP SHOULD be taught and learned, but not necessarily required for ALL couples. And it should be taught by teachers who really view children as a blessing.
StephanieA wrote:
| The Church taught throughout the centuries up until this century that raising a family was the primary reason for marriage. Why is this teaching SO neglected? Because of societal pressure. |
|
|
<<<<Stephanie, the Church did not stop teaching that raising up a family is the primary purpose for marriage. I do not see anywhere where the Church stopped teaching this in this century. Our pastor preaches this all the time. >>>>
You are very blessed to have such a parish. Consider it a true asset. But if you pick up conservative religious textbooks, like "Our Moral Life in Christ" which our diocese refuses to use in our Catholic high schools because it is too conservative, page 278 reads: Purposes of Marriage 1. Good of the spouses
2. Procreation
Ummm. This certainly gives the wrong impression. It goes on to quote Gaudium et spec and that..."Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love....have this aim....couple cooperate with the love of the Creator...will enlarge and enrich his own family."
Here the textbook says what the Church has always taught, that the primary purpose of marriage is to have and educate our children, but by putting purpose #1 as Good of the spouses and leaving the encyclical as the last thing said, it may cause confusion. Again, even where diocese have approved good textbooks like this, will the instructors emphasize #2 as #1 as it is suppose to be?
It is difficult sometimes sitting there in the congregation listening to the lack of support for families, stay-at-home moms, etc. It requires a lot of prayer. It is simply that some of these moms on this group need support for their anti-cultural stance. No, it is NOT easy. We have little time for ourselves and little extra money. It is not because it is a choice per se or easy on us that we have chosen to be open to life. It is because the Church does teach that having children is a noble, worthy, and sanctifying job and I see this stance deemphasized. No, it is certainly not the fault of NFP. NFP can bring couples to an openness to life. But as I said, it can also do the opposite. I can give examples of this as well.
Michele may have a great point: requirement for NFP only if you don't understand the Church's position on BC. This would be up to the diocese. The problem with that is what is also happening with the reception of the sacraments in our diocese. Unless you go to the required classes and retreats for Communion and Confirmation, you can't receive the sacraments. We have had a sincere problem with the Confirmation day-long retreat. My boys were sickened by the attitudes of the teens about the faith and the movie that was shown was horrible  . I wish I could have grabbed them and walked out.
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kaw912
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 26 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 12:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Michele,
I completely agree with your post. Some may not agree with me, but I kind of view NFP as a "bridge" for current and future generations to find it's way back to openness to life. It is very difficult to have been born and raised in a contraceptive society (and especially into a contraceptive family, as both myself and my dh were) and not feel terrified at the idea of possibly having 10 children in 15 years. I agree, this is not the ideal. But when you live in a family where noone has more than 3 children maximum and you have no support from family or friends with regards to having a large family and noone willing to help relieve the mother's physical burden from bearing and raising many small children, it's really hard to "let go and let God". Yes, you might argue that this might be a faithful Christian's cross to bear. Keep in mind, though, that when you point to openness to life as being the norm throughout history, that there was previously more physical support offered to young mothers. At one time large families were the norm, society supported such familes, and extended families lived close to one another, so there were frequently older female relatives available to lighten the physical burdens of raising young children. Society does not offer this support anymore, and most young mothers don't have the physical support that they did in the past.
Also, keep in mind that in previous centuries many children born didn't survive to adulthood, and many women died in childbirth. These were all tragedies as they would be today, but the result was a type of "natual birth regulation" ( I didn't want to write something that sounded so harsh, but I couldn't think of another way to phrase it. Please forgive me.) Thank God for the incredible advances in medicine in the last century or so. I once read somewhere where someone pointed out that our knowledge of NFP coincided with great advances in maternal/fetal medicine and in healthcare overall, and maybe there's something to that. You might disagree, but it's something to think about. I am not at all trying to suggest that each and every person conceived isn't an incredible gift from God and that regulation of numbers of births should be the goal here. It's more that I think maybe it's possible that God saw what most of his children on Earth could handle at this time and place, and He gave us the gift of NFP to help those of us who needed it.
I'm sure I'm going to get many tomotoes thrown at me for that last paragraph. I'm going to go duck now.
God bless,
Kathy in VA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 12:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I'm sure I'm going to get many tomotoes thrown at me for that last paragraph. I'm going to go duck now.
>
I frankly would go pull the covers over my head if the 4Real board would throw tomatoes.
I do however think there are multiple ways to look at your points. Yes there were more infant and child deaths previously. People still ended up with families larger than most today. Yes, we have medical advances today. We also have lots of previously unknown challenges as you said. Perhaps the advances in medical care came at a time when there would be lots of new challenges and needs in the family so that they would counter those? ie: While we may have less outside support we also have somewhat less devastation from child loss.
I guess the train of thought that medical advances coincide with nfp still sounds like children are a burden or a population that needs to be checked. Since we now have less 'help' (for this burden) we now get info to avoid the burden (nfp). Perhaps this is not what is really meant but I think it could be argued that is the logical underpinning of the position.
I don't gloss over the challenges are presented to the contemporary family. There has never been extended family for us nor any community to speak of since we moved so often with the military. But then I think back to generation after generation of immigrants and pioneers who shared this difficulty. We tend to idealize the past. most of those women were on their own. Alone - with their children. In the end we have to decide if that is a liability and if those children were given to increase the difficulty or if they were given to provide a special kind of comfort and company.
I don't think anyone here is saying nfp is a evil. The whole point of the thread was to simply say it is not for everyone and perhaps very likely not for most of us and not for the reasons often given. Those of us who struggle with nfp also would like to provide some other ways to look at the child number 'problem'. It isnt meant to attack people. Just to help shine light on what people are saying are insurmountable issues. Are they? If society has indeed clouded people's perceptions than can we not look to other faithful Catholics to help us see things differently?
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 1:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
<<<<Stephanie, the Church did not stop teaching that raising up a family is the primary purpose for marriage. I do not see anywhere where the Church stopped teaching this in this century.>>>>
Not to keep on this, but in the Catholic Catechism (in the Sacrament of Matrimony section) it quotes Lumen Gentium (1964) by saying, "By this grace they (parents) help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and education their children."
This states that the purpose of marriage is two-fold, which it is. But one gets the impression that welcoming and education of children is secondary....it is listed second, but there is an "and". But it doesn't reinterate that the the first purpose, listed as the second, is the primary purpose of marriage. Again if the Church isn't emphasizing this or writing it clearly enough, then there are going to be many people with wrong ideas.
My point is not to argue, but to find support.I am continuing to feel isolated in this whole endeavor. I yearn deeply to have the local Church support the Church
It wouldn't hurt my husband to have a little support SOMEWHERE also. He certainly doesn't get it at work, from his friends, or from his family.
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
momwise
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 28 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1914
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 1:32pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
You guys are so much better at email expression than I. 
MichelleQ wrote:
| Do I think requiring NFP classes is the best solution? No, the best solution is the ideal. |
|
|
This is exactly what was in my head just dying to come out! 
StephanieA wrote:
| I just don't think it should be viewed as the norm. |
|
|
Neither do I. And I so wish I didn't come across as
vehement. However I do believe strongly that the course some priests and bishops are on, to promote NFP to their "lost sheep" saturated in ABC is a good one. Stephanie, I do not have a personal issue with you or anyone else here. I fully support large families, those getting larger, those who never even thought of NFP and those who teach it correctly. I am really sorry, because try as I might to disagree on a clinical level, it comes across as personal to many.
KimF wrote:
| I guess the train of thought that medical advances coincide with nfp still sounds like children are a burden or a population that needs to be checked. Since we now have less 'help' (for this burden) we now get info to avoid the burden (nfp). Perhaps this is not what is really meant but I think it could be argued that is the logical underpinning of the position |
|
|
Kim I think that a culture that so hates life (yes, hates it) will use anything, no matter how subtle, to express that children are a burden, even NFP. I hope I didn't express that children in developing countries are a burden. Nothing is farther from the truth. But the parents there who are literally being crushed by Western anti-child imperialism can use NFP as a gift (not that they have to use it but they can use knowledge of it) from the Church to use against the ABC/Abortion onslaught. I think you may be right but I believe it is the culture coloring the definition; it could just as easily be said, if it were a pro-life culture, that NFP is a burden that is used as sparingly as possible and children are the blessings--well I guess it has been said hasn't it in a pro-life setting--here!
__________________
Gwen...wife for 30 years, mom of 7, grandma of 3.....
"If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life." JPII
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Lisbet
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 07 2006
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2706
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 1:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Stephanie, Support - yes, you nailed it there. I'm not going to say that I don't have a good network of friends (MarieC from here is a dear friend in my life! :)) Or that I am totally shunned by my family, but it's the hairy eyeballs, the sneers from neighbors, the glares from the elderly woman in some churches when they notice my newest belly buldge. Sometimes, even the supportive remarks are bass ackwards (as my husband would say )WOW! Hey Congrats! You guys must *really* enjoy that sacrament!! (*gag*)
We shouldn't be made to feel like a novelty, or some throw back in the past of the Church. It should be just a part of being a married Catholic.
__________________
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 |
|
| |
LLMom
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 19 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 995
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 2:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
The 1917 code of canon Law #1013 states that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. Pope Pius XII said "To the question: 'Whether the views of certain recent writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, or teach that the secondary ends are not necssarily subordinate to the primary end, but are equally principal and independent' the reply was : In the negative." (Bouscaren & Ellis, Canon Law p. 400)
But in 1983, the Code of CAnon law embraces this very idea that was condemmed less than 40 years earlier by placing the two ends of marriage on an equal and independent level. It also lists first the secondary end. (supporting the good of the spouses)
So why has that been changed? Someone mentioned that maybe NFP was a gift to us from God because life was so hard. I think He would have given the "gift" a whole lot sooner if that was the case. Our lives are so much easier now that what people have, with the exception that now we don't have our families close by. But we have such good medicine, modern convienences, etc. But so many people think they can't handle more than a couple of kids.
I know for myself and at least 5 friends, were taught nothing about serious and grave reasons when we took NFP classes back when engaged. It was just taught as an acceptable method of family planning. Thankfully I learned but when I mentioned to a few friends and gave them reading material on it, they didn't care or change. There really needs to be something done about it all.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 3:19pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kathy -
I'm with Kim. I would be shocked to see a single tomatoe tossed your way. As heated and personal as some of the discussion on this board may be at times, I've yet to see anyone get mean. And everyone seems very willing to assume the best rather than the worst. And forgive all regardless.
I do disagree some with you though. My reason is because it sounds like the same logic used for using ABC. 'Women had to have more babies then. god watched over them by 'naturally' controling the population. Now God's given us brains to use ABC.' I view NFP very differently. God and the Church have always allowed for abstaining - which is all NFP is. Nothing has changed. It should still be for grave reasons because it still goes against the natural and healthy purpose of marriage.
StephanieA wrote:
I am continuing to feel isolated in this whole endeavor. I yearn deeply to have the local Church support the Church
It wouldn't hurt my husband to have a little support SOMEWHERE also. He certainly doesn't get it at work, from his friends, or from his family. |
|
|
Lisbet wrote:
| Stephanie, Support - yes, you nailed it there. I'm not going to say that I don't have a good network of friends (MarieC from here is a dear friend in my life! :)) Or that I am totally shunned by my family, but it's the hairy eyeballs, the sneers from neighbors, the glares ... |
|
|
Yes. Some place where we can find sanctuary.. a place of peace ... a place to feel comfortable with being who we are... I have come to accept that this is not something I will find in this world. It has been very difficult to accept that.
Sometimes, most times, it's not even anyone's fault. I think many people are just ignorant or oblivious.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
SaraP
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 15 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 531
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 3:39pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
StephanieA wrote:
<<<<Stephanie, the Church did not stop teaching that raising up a family is the primary purpose for marriage. I do not see anywhere where the Church stopped teaching this in this century.>>>>
Not to keep on this, but in the Catholic Catechism (in the Sacrament of Matrimony section) it quotes Lumen Gentium (1964) by saying, "By this grace they (parents) help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and education their children."
This states that the purpose of marriage is two-fold, which it is. But one gets the impression that welcoming and education of children is secondary....it is listed second, but there is an "and". But it doesn't reinterate that the the first purpose, listed as the second, is the primary purpose of marriage. Again if the Church isn't emphasizing this or writing it clearly enough, then there are going to be many people with wrong ideas.
|
|
|
I think the Church does not emphasize a heirarchy of the two purposes of marriage because those two purposes are normally inseparable. That is, in most cases, it is largely through their children that the sanctification of the spouses is brought about.
Quote:
The spouses' union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple's spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2363 |
|
|
Is this getting lost at the parish level? A lot of times, yes, but I don't think that is a result of a lack of clarity on the part of the Magisterium.
__________________
Mama to six on earth, two in heaven and two waiting in Russia. Foxberry Farm Almanac
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kaw912
Forum Newbie
Joined: May 26 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 4:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Martha -
It saddens me greatly to see that someone could use my words as a defense of ABC, because that is absolutely NOT what I was trying to do. ABC is ALWAYS intrinsically evil, and I would never use it or encourage someone else to use it. I guess I still have a lot more spiritual growth to do, and I clearly still have a lot of work to do to overcome the fear of childbearing/rearing that was ingrained in me by my own family.
Kathy in VA
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 4:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Karen said: <<I clearly still have a lot of work to do to overcome the fear of childbearing/rearing that was ingrained in me by my own family. >
A great number of us do. I am carrying my ninth child and I STILL approach pregnancy and childbirth, never mind the daunting task of childrearing, with a good deal of trepidation. It IS scary and doesn't help that the world keeps reiterating all the possibly ways it could go wrong.
I have been greatly encouraged by keeping in regular discussion over the yrs with people who were enthusiastically open to life however. It helps to dispel those fears and inspire confidence. Seeing people who have gone a few steps further than us keeps me thinking ok, maybe we can stretch a bit more. To me that is the beauty of a forum like More the Merrier.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MicheleQ
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2193
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 8:06pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
SaraP wrote:
Why do we have this option [of NFP] now when most people didn't for the first 1950 years (give or take) of Christian history?
I don't have a firm or official answer, but my own thinking is that it is a merciful gift from God to those couples in this day and age who do have truly serious, long-lasting reasons to avoid pregnancy. I'm sure celibacy within marriage was never easy, but in a world where we can't go to the grocery store or drive down the freeway without being assulted by pornographic images and where women regularly walk around wearing clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination and where contraceptives are all but shoved down our throats, I have to think it is much, much harder that it has ever been before - especially for men. Perhaps God has allowed us a little more understanding of the mysteries of fertility and little more responsibility to freely cooperate with his plans for our families as a grace to combat the overwhelming temptations to all kinds of unchastity that many couples trying to live celibately would experience. |
|
|
Sara I think this is a good and reasonable answer, as is Gwens' here:
momwise wrote:
| There is a whole world full of dire poverty out there and the NFP (which is a chaste practice within marriage)is the one weapon that Catholic aid workers can use against the predators of death in Developing countries. |
|
|
We must also remember that the timing of NFP as a truly effective method of regulating births, coincides with that of truly effective artificial contraception - most specifically the pill and it's subsequent "offspring" if you will, of which there are many forms today. It is a moral alternative for those who truly do have reasons to avoid pregnancy and yet who find living a life of complete abstention to be far too difficult or even impossible (especially as Sara mentioned above in our current culture).
momwise wrote:
| ... the culture of death and the sexual revolution was welcomed in by many Catholics who came from large families who were not using NFP and were welcoming life, not by a bunch of NFP teachers. I know a few them. The majority of Catholic couples began using ABC in the 60's and 70's, not NFP. |
|
|
StephanieA wrote:
| Yes, there were Catholics who certainly thought they were being faithful to the Church in the late 50's even who resorted to birth control. I know some of them also. They felt sure and were told by many priests that the Church was planning to change its mind about artificial birth control. The priests and they were sincerely suprised when this did not happen. One of the problems during this time period also was that Rome moved so slowly getting Humane Vitae out. |
|
|
This I firmly believe has much to do with the Papal Commission on Birth Control. Even though the members of the commission took an oath that the information and reports of the commission were to be kept secret and the information was to be given to Pope Paul VI only, it was in fact was in fact leaked to the National Catholic Reporter and published by that paper on April 19, 1967.
Yes Humanae Vitae was slow is being published but there are many reasons for that including Pope Paul VI's need to read the report, study it, pray about and and then actually write HV. In those days, it could take months for an encyclical to be translated and distributed to the public, while in the meantime unofficial and semi-official sources could be (and were!) freely distributed.
The commission's "Majority Report" has done a tremendous amount of damage over the years. Not only was it leaked to the press but it was published in books claiming to be "official" Church teaching at least as late as 1978. I have one such book and if I didn't know what Church teaching really was I would have been very confused. The report reads like a Church document and in the book I have is lumped right in with other truly official Church documents. It has been a huge eye opener to me as to how we got to where we are today.
StephanieA wrote:
| But the view of the blessings of children really is something new....as in the last 100+ years. Part of this is due to the industrial revolution and the fact that children now were not active members of the family's commerce. People moved away from farms and small industry and children didn't participate in the economics of the family. They became liabilities in some people's eyes, not assets. |
|
|
The view of children as blessings goes back far more than 100 years. Scripture is filled with such references. People who didn't see it that way were wrong headed but not because it wasn't taught.
StephanieA wrote:
| It is difficult sometimes sitting there in the congregation listening to the lack of support for families, stay-at-home moms, etc. It requires a lot of prayer. It is simply that some of these moms on this group need support for their anti-cultural stance. No, it is NOT easy. We have little time for ourselves and little extra money. It is not because it is a choice per se or easy on us that we have chosen to be open to life. It is because the Church does teach that having children is a noble, worthy, and sanctifying job and I see this stance deemphasized. |
|
|
I agree it's hard. You have all no doubt read my own complaints, however I must also say that lately the Lord has really laid it on my heart that I need to be careful not to let this sort of thing affect my attitude and steal my joy. For all the many people who loudly and rudely make comments we have no idea how many more silent souls are encouraged and edified by how we live our lives. It is a cross that we have to carry and for my part I find I can be rather whiney about that sometimes  so I'm really making an concerted effort not to be.
WJFR wrote:
| However, I suppose it is one of the easiest and most readily available ways to be "persecuted for Christ" in our day and location! We don't get many opportunities for this -- unlikely to get thrown into jail or endure civil or political inequities directly for being Catholic. Yet Christ loves those who mourn, are poor, are mocked and humiliated for His sake. |
|
|
Amen! You are in my prayers dear sisters. Be encouraged. Trust in the love and mercy of our Heavenly Father and know that it shall all come right in the end.
__________________
Michele Quigley
wife to my prince charming and mom of 10 in Lancaster County, PA USA
http://michelequigley.com
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
StephanieA
Forum Pro
Joined: May 11 2006
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Oct 13 2006 at 8:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
[QUOTE=StephanieA] But the view of the blessings of children really is something new....as in the last 100+ years. Part of this is due to the industrial revolution and the fact that children now were not active members of the family's commerce.
<<<The view of children as blessings goes back far more than 100 years. Scripture is filled with such references. People who didn't see it that way were wrong headed but not because it wasn't taught.>>>>
Boy, do I need to proofread I meant some people have been viewing children as a liability, not a blessing, for well over 100 years. It just may not have been so prevalent or widespread in actual action or verbage. It began in the industrial revolution in England in the 1830's and here in the US in the 1870's or so. Chesterton has several articles written in the 1910-20's addressing this issue. So it is not a totally "new" attitude. I meant that children were nearly always seen as blessings, that is until the last 100-150 years.
<<I agree it's hard. You have all no doubt read my own complaints, however I must also say that lately the Lord has really laid it on my heart that I need to be careful not to let this sort of thing affect my attitude and steal my joy.>>>
I don't fret over the lack of pro-child attitudes much anymore either. People, I suppose, just expect it from us by now. My in-laws gave up after #5
and people at Church just nod. Most times I don't care what they say. But to get in that mode of thinking takes time, prayer, and sometimes a simple "I don't care" attitude. When I don't hang with the nay-sayers it becomes so much easier. That said, forums like this are like a vitamen against letting "the world" get to me. I like to take my vitamens to stay strong before I get sick (down about other's attitudes). I think it really helps.
Blessings,
Stephanie
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Martha
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 25 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2291
|
| Posted: Oct 14 2006 at 5:58pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
kaw912 wrote:
Martha -
It saddens me greatly to see that someone could use my words as a defense of ABC, because that is absolutely NOT what I was trying to do. ABC is ALWAYS intrinsically evil, and I would never use it or encourage someone else to use it. I guess I still have a lot more spiritual growth to do, and I clearly still have a lot of work to do to overcome the fear of childbearing/rearing that was ingrained in me by my own family. Kathy in VA |
|
|
Kathy, I know that you were not arguing for ABC. My point was simply there is a close tie in the logic of viewing NFP in that manner. I'm sorry if it came across in any other way.
And I've got plenty of mileage to clock before I overcome those same fears myself, so I truely do understand your sentiment.
__________________
Martha
mama to 7 boys & 4 girls
Yes, they're all ours!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
ALmom
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 18 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: Oct 14 2006 at 10:52pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
First, I haven't read all the threads but wanted to throw out a couple of things in case they haven't been touched on. One is that NFP is not used solely for postponing babies - a large percentage of the couples we taught were trying to achieve.
The other may sound like a quibble but the terminology "required" is really incorrect. NFP is not a requirement in any diocese that I am aware of. It is a normative part of marriage preparation in some. Now, normative does not mean everybody has to. If done nad understood properly, it should be easy for those who are well formed and committed to church teaching to just opt out by talking to their pastor. Normative means this is what most couples in the parish do - but Father is free to exempt anyone at his discretion. It is a normative part of marriage preparation that couples counsel with the priest for 6 months and attend an engaged weekend. My grandmother who was getting married (after her first husband had been deceased for a few years) was not required to do this - she obviously had the formation she needed and did not need these programs that were designed because so many were not getting the formation they needed. It is normative in our diocese for parents to attend a Baptism class prior to the Baptism of the children. Our last pastor told us to skip it .
Seen in this way, and assuming a pastor with pastoral sensitivity, there shouldn't be a problem making something normative. IE - someone comes in and says Father, we know and firmly believe the church's teaching, we want to just remain open to children and really feel that no matter what we are not going to use anything at all - but if we were led otherwise at some point, we know about the classes and would certainly sign up because we would not ever disobey church teaching. Right now it just doesn't seem appropriate for us. Then Father could say, skip it. It would probably take a couple that Father knew pretty well, and the guts to go in and talk to him (otherwise how will he know that you are one of the lucky few who really do know and believe what the church teaches). At the same time, the vast majority of couples are really a mess in terms of formation - but this is one point that there is a window of openness and making something normative is not so threatening to these couples - and if nothing else, they hear the church's teaching expounded at length (assuming the classes are taught as they should be). But the pastor always has the authority to exempt people. Yes, everyone should be well formed - that is the ideal - but not the reality. Norms are established for the real, pastoral needs that are evident.
In a perfect world, marriage preparation wouldn't be normative either - we'd have learned this in our families. When my parent's got married,lengthy marriage prep was not normative - now it is. You didn't have to make sure that couples understood that marriage is forever.
Janet
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Oct 14 2006 at 11:24pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
<<The other may sound like a quibble but the terminology "required" is really incorrect. NFP is not a requirement in any diocese that I am aware of.>.
It IS a requirement in the diocese of Colorado Springs as of 2006, which together with the type of articles and positions taken by the couple in charge of the (mandatory) NFP portion of the program led to my posting intially. You can check the link. Marriage Prep Not only is the NFP a mandatory requirement but there is a one year waiting period to marry in the church here now. Many think this is unwise and/or an unnecessary burden to place on young people striving to be chaste.
The words "must" and "required" and "mandatory" indicate that this is more than normative, it is policy. Not to say this is the case other places of course. But it is what they are dealing with here.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Oct 14 2006 at 11:27pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Also of interest is that mentor couples are enlisted to teach the engaged couple. You must be knowledgeable about and practicing nfp to qualify as a mentor couple.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Dawnie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Aug 30 2005
Location: Kansas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 841
|
| Posted: Oct 15 2006 at 12:02am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Kim F wrote:
Also of interest is that mentor couples are enlisted to teach the engaged couple. You must be knowledgeable about and practicing nfp to qualify as a mentor couple.
Kim |
|
|
Kim,
You probably know more of the specifics than I do, since you're living in Colorado Springs, but "practicing NFP" does not neccissarily mean "postponing pregnancy." A couple can be practicing NFP to help achieve pregnancy as well. A couple who is ecologically breastfeeding can be said to be practicing NFP, too. It is a natural form of child spacing (providing more space for some than others, of course! ). My dh likes to point out that simply doing nothing is also a form of natural family planning...after all, doing nothing to prevent pregnancy is "natural," isn't it?
So, I would want to know if the mentor couples you mentioned in your previous post would be required to be using NFP to postpone or space pregnancies, or if they would just be required to be knowledgeable about it. There's a big difference.
When dh and I were going through the certification process to become a teaching couple for CCL, we had to show that we understood how to use NFP by submitting correctly interpreted charts...however, we did not have to be using those charts to postpone pregnancy. We just had to show that we knew how to chart the signs of fertility and that we knew how to determine the limits of the fertile time. How we *applied* that knowledge was irrelevent to us becoming a teaching couple.
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 |
|
| |
Kim F
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 03 2005
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Oct 15 2006 at 12:19am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was just clarifying that it was in fact mandatory here to take the full classes as well as Christopher West's Theology of the Body class from the time 12 to 2mo before marriage since it was suggested that maybe it was just encouraged. I think it goes without saying that no one would nor could require a person to prove they were using it to postpone.
Considering the position that the current diocesan nfp coordinators have (that grave and serious reasons are not necessary) I do have issues with these courses being required. With all due respect to CCL, Creighton, and Christopher West, their writings are not doctrinal nor infallible nor is the way they are presented, which often includes lots of personal opinion. Is it better than ABC? Yes. I would rather not compare to the sinful however but to an ideal, which even if we cannot always attain we can reach for. At the least it would better to have writings from folks like Msgr Burke getting equal footing.
Kim
__________________
Starry sky ranch
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: Grave and Serious Reason?
