| Author | |
kristinannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 27 2011
Location: West Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1363
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 2:32pm | IP Logged
|
 |
|
I have been doing a lot of praying about this. I truly feel like God has been telling me that I need to accept the children that He has for me in Heaven. My DH is not on board, but has been opening up to the idea. I am of the firm belief that God will only give you the kids you are meant to have and that He will never give you more than you can bear.
I took the advice on here and talked to my priest about it. I had a meeting with him this morning. He told me the exact same thing that the other priest told me during our premarriage counseling. He said that our family is obviously "open to procreation" since we have three kids, but that we can choose to have more kids or not. He was openly hostile to NFP stating that it was the same as using birth control since the intent was to have sex without procreating. He basically told me to talk to my husband and to pray about it, but that it was fine to do what we wanted.
I was kind of shocked to get this response again. We live on a state border and these two priests are from different dioceses. I was planning on having a meeting with the priest and my husband, but it seems like that would be counterproductive since I want to follow God's will in my life and the priest seemed to line up with my husband's desire not to have any more kids.
I am not looking for a priest to tell me what I want to hear. I am not even sure what I want to hear. I just know that this is not in line with church teaching and it makes me uncomfortable. I am not the kind of person who just does everything the Church tells me to do in all instances, but I honestly think that God is leading me in the direction of leaving the number of kids up to Him and that seems like it is the teaching of the Church.
Anyway, I am sorry to open this can of worms again. It has been a tough couple of months while I have been dealing with this issue. I had planned to have my IUD taken out next week, but I would really like my husband to be on board when I do that. Any advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated.
__________________
John Paul 8.5
Meredith Rose 7
Dominic Michael 4.5
Katherine Elizabeth 8 months
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JodieLyn
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 06 2006
Location: Oregon
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 12234
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 2:37pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| leaving the number of kids up to Him and that seems like it is the teaching of the Church |
|
|
This is not the teaching of the Church. It's certainly within the teaching of the Church. But it's also perfectly acceptable to use NFP to delay (for short OR long periods of time) the conception of more children for just reasons.
__________________
Jodie, wife to Dave
G-18, B-17, G-15, G-14, B-13, B-11, G-9, B-7, B-5, B-4
All men who have turned out worth anything have had the chief hand in their own education.
-Sir Walter Scott
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kristinannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 27 2011
Location: West Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1363
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 3:04pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I completely agree Jodie. I should have written that more clearly.
__________________
John Paul 8.5
Meredith Rose 7
Dominic Michael 4.5
Katherine Elizabeth 8 months
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
CrunchyMom
Forum Moderator
Joined: Sept 03 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6385
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 3:10pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, I don't know if you should approach the priest again, but the response that comes to my mind when people on either side of the NFP issue (those who think you shouldn't chart at all and those who think you may as well use birth control) is the analogy, "and bulimia is the same thing as dieting because the intent is to lose weight." However, perhaps this analogy would help your husband see why the priest's advice is not in line with Church teaching or your own conscience.
I think you need to find a priest who is sound in this area for advice. You know what Church teaching is, and you need guidance in how to proceed with your unique family dynamic within the boundaries of this teaching as well as an authority who might be able to help your explain things to your husband.
Do you have a Catholic homeschool group where you could ask for recommendations for a priest for spiritual direction? Perhaps you could contact the diocese to see if there is a priest in charge of facilitating NFP classes or heads pro-life activities. These priests tend to be very sound in their understanding of these issues.
__________________
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 |
|
| |
Barbara C.
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 882
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 3:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
So, basically the priest was condoning the use of artificial birth control?? RED FLAG!!!
I think you also need to take a little time to see things from your husband's perspective. You're kind of going from having an IUD to saying you would welcome as many children as your body is able to make. That's a pretty big leap to ask someone to take with you. It requires a major paradigm shift.
Your husband may have real reasons for being hesitant: concern over supporting a large family as well as the physical and emotional toll of the responsibility. I think you have to be very careful not to undermine how he sees his responsibilities to his family or assume that you always know God's will for your family better than your husband. (This is a hard lesson I'm learning, too.)
I know ideally you would like your husband completely on board for these decisions. But even though the Church condemns all forms of artificial birth control, IUD's specifically work by causing an abortion. Even if I couldn't get my husband to agree to NFP or leaving your number of children completely up to God, if I were in your position I would feel compelled to avoid any birth control with abortifascient qualities (including the pill).
So, maybe if you can take baby steps your husband will come around or at least be able to compromise on this issue in a way that is morally acceptable to the Church (avoiding artificial birth control even if it means using NFP for discerning God's will together).
And others, please correct me if I am wrong on this, but we do not have "children in heaven" unless said children were conceived and then died inside or outside of the womb (at which time they become "saints" and not "angels"). Each new soul is created at the moment of conception rather than waiting in heaven for an earthly body to be created at conception for them.
I think Lindsay offers good advice about finding out the priest in charge of handling NFP in your area. You might also check out the Couple to Couple League for teaching couples/program directors in your area. They could probably point you in the right direction to a good spiritual adviser.
__________________
Barbara
Mom to "spirited" dd(9), "spunky" dd (6), "sincere" dd (3), "sweet" dd (2), and baby girl #5 born 8/1/12!!
Box of Chocolates
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
stellamaris
Forum All-Star
Joined: Feb 26 2009
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2732
|
| Posted: April 14 2011 at 8:20pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Quote:
| He was openly hostile to NFP stating that it was the same as using birth control since the intent was to have sex without procreating. |
|
|
I think this is where the priest was having some difficulty understanding NFP and the teachings of the Church. Using NFP to temporarily delay the conception of a child requires a couple to abstain during the fertile stages of the woman's cycle. So there would be no preventing of conception if the couple chose to engage in marital relations during the time the wife was fertile. In the case of NFP, the marriage act and conception are not separated from one another, which is why the Church allows NFP to be used for grave reasons. The Church requires each act of marital intimacy to be open to life; it does not require us to perform the act of marital intimacy at any particular time in a woman's cycle.
The teaching of the Church is beautifully summarized by Servant of God Jerome Lejeune:
Jerome Lejeune wrote:
| To dissociate the child from love is, for our species, a methodological error: contraception, which is to make love without making a child; artificial (in vitro) fertilization, which is to make a child without making love; abortion, which is to unmake the child; and p*rn*graphy, which is to unmake love: all these, to varying degrees, are incompatible with natural law. |
|
|
ETA: Link to post about Dr. Lejeune.
__________________
In Christ,
Caroline
Wife to  dh 30+ yrs,ds's 83,85,89,dd's 91,95,ds's 01,01,02,grammy to 4
Flowing Streams
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
knowloveserve
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 31 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: April 15 2011 at 7:23pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Barbara C. wrote:
And others, please correct me if I am wrong on this, but we do not have "children in heaven" unless said children were conceived and then died inside or outside of the womb (at which time they become "saints" and not "angels"). Each new soul is created at the moment of conception rather than waiting in heaven for an earthly body to be created at conception for them.
|
|
|
Forgive me for this because I'm about to state an unpopular belief, but I get a bit uncomfortable when women automatically canonize babies who've been lost through miscarriage. While the Church teaches that we "have reason to hope in God's mercy" for unbaptized babies, it does not explicitly say they're automatically in Heaven. As one who has lost three, I can be absolutely certain my babies aren't suffering in any way (think back to the old "Limbo" belief), and I HOPE they're in Heaven... but I do not presume they are.
__________________
Ellie
The Bleeding Pelican
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Barbara C.
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 11 2007
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 882
|
| Posted: April 15 2011 at 7:41pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ellie, I can understand your hesitancy, and I've never had the misfortune of a miscarriage.
I was just trying to clear up two common theological errors: 1)That souls exist in heaven before conception, and 2) that people who die become angels.
__________________
Barbara
Mom to "spirited" dd(9), "spunky" dd (6), "sincere" dd (3), "sweet" dd (2), and baby girl #5 born 8/1/12!!
Box of Chocolates
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
knowloveserve
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 31 2007
Location: Washington
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 759
|
| Posted: April 15 2011 at 8:46pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
You're right Barbara; sorry if my point was irrelevant or pedantic. God bless!
__________________
Ellie
The Bleeding Pelican
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
kristinannie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 27 2011
Location: West Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1363
|
| Posted: April 15 2011 at 10:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I didn't mean souls that really exist in Heaven...just souls that God has planned to give to this family. Thanks for all of your responses!
__________________
John Paul 8.5
Meredith Rose 7
Dominic Michael 4.5
Katherine Elizabeth 8 months
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Becky Parker
Forum All-Star
Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2582
|
| Posted: April 16 2011 at 6:30am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Ellie,
I guess I'm one the presumes my 4 miscarried dc are in Heaven, but I was basing that on something I learned regarding "Baptism of desire". I know this is going off of the original topic but does anyone know anything about this? Is it church teaching?
__________________
Becky
Wife to Wes, Mom to 6 wonderful kids on Earth and 4 in Heaven!
Academy Of The Good Shepherd
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MaryM
Board Moderator
Joined: Feb 11 2005
Location: Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 13104
|
| Posted: April 16 2011 at 9:07am | IP Logged
|
|
|
It can be challenging to communicate in the email forum with the chance for taking something differently than intended. I'm glad clarification is being offered where needed.
Barbara C. wrote:
| I was just trying to clear up two common theological errors: 1)That souls exist in heaven before conception, and 2) that people who die become angels. |
|
|
Yes, thanks for clarifying those points so that there is not a question about the theological teaching.
In a similar way Ellie was also directing a comment to a different theological teaching, in regards to the concern about what happens when a baby dies before baptism. We, as she indicted, are not given a clear and definitive answer on that but can hope in God's mercy.
I thought this article written by an apologist from Catholics United for the Faith helps to clarify. The Catechism notes that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments” (1257). The catechism also says this in regards to baptism of desire - referring to an individual's own desire for his or her baptism:
CCC wrote:
| For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1259) |
|
|
The author in the article linked, does comment on the idea of a parent's desire for baptism of a child, saying,
CCC wrote:
| This idea, referred to as the “vicarious desire for baptism,” was put forth by Cardinal Cajetan, who lived during the years of the Reformation. Though this theory is considered theological opinion and not a part of the Church’s official teaching, it is a reasonable inference from Church teaching—one in which we can find consolation. |
|
|
Catechism says:
CCC wrote:
| As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. |
|
|
It would seem that assuming a miscarried child is in heaven is a particular individual's surrender to trust as a consolation of the loss. But it is correct that we do not know with certainty. Some day we will though.
This has afforded a chance to talk about several different Church teachings branching from the original question, though tangenial to it. Getting back the orignal post, Kristin, I will continue to pray for your guidance. Can you check with someone at the diocese for a spiritual director who would be well formed in the teachings of the church on this topic?
__________________
Mary M. in Denver
Our Domestic Church
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
JennGM
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 07 2005
Location: Virginia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17702
|
| Posted: April 16 2011 at 2:35pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
MaryM wrote:
| It would seem that assuming a miscarried child is in heaven is a particular individual's surrender to trust as a consolation of the loss. But it is correct that we do not know with certainty. Some day we will though. |
|
|
There is a wonderful (but long) document done in 2007
by the International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised which examines this question very closely. While it is not defining doctrine, you can see that this is a subject near to the Church's heart. The conclusion is very beautiful:
Quote:
3.6. Hope
102. Within the hope that the Church bears for the whole of humanity and wants to proclaim afresh to the world of today, is there a hope for the salvation of infants who die without Baptism? We have carefully re-considered this complex question, with gratitude and respect for the responses that have been given through the history of the Church, but also with an awareness that it falls to us to give a coherent response for today. Reflecting within the one tradition of faith that unites the Church through the ages, and relying utterly on the guidance of the Holy Spirit whom Jesus promised would lead his followers “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13), we have sought to read the signs of the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel. Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).
103. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church. |
|
|
__________________
Jennifer G. Miller
Wife to  & ds1  '03 & ds2  '07
Family in Feast and Feria
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Mothering and Family Life
Topic: More advice about family size
