Author Topic: Heathen Teaching in VIIchild bearing (Read 1056 times)

Tiffany · « **on:** July 08, 2013, 04:56:47 AM »

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Responsible Parenthood

10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

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

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #1 on:** July 08, 2013, 06:31:06 AM »

Was Paul VI a double-minded man? Archbishop LeFebrvre thought so.

This passage quoted mentions a couple "deciding to" and it also mentions a couple willingly refraining from... In the same paragraph. A couple paragraphs later, any Vatican II apologist could quote as proof that Paul VI was a Traditional Catholic. But what is the real purpose of inserting the concept of "Responsible Parenthood" other than to start a discussion away from the traditional concept of marriage in the post Vatican II church.

ggreg · « **Reply #2 on:** July 08, 2013, 06:40:51 AM »

Seems like a minefield to me. Impossible for a normal person with a healthy dose of humility to navigate and risky for a highly intelligent and intellectually capable person, since even if they can easily afford the children they might very easily rationalise that their wife's or their own 'psychological health' was not up to the task, never seeing that they were being selfish.

So all very subjective. I don't mind crying babies for example, to me their cries are no more stressful than the sound of birds or the wind in the trees. But I grew up around crying babies.

Someone who grew up as an only child, however, might find them terribly stressful and convince themselves that the next child was going to give them a nervous breakdown, when in reality it very probably would not.

Then what of fathers who have unstable incomes? Oil field workers for example, or real estate agents, who can make six figures when the oil price is high and suffer a decrease in income when the price is low. Should they take a high/low or hedged risk strategy when deciding the size of their family. Two children for low risk, 4 for hedged and 8-10 for high risk (assuming that oil will stay high and they will have long term well paid employment).

Simple answer is don't use contraception, don't worry too much about what happens, life has all sorts of nasty (and nice) surprises and let God provide. Most people in the Western World find a way to muddle through.

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

This I don't really understand at all. It either suggests that one can turn natural desires on an off like a tap, or hints that some sort of natural contraceptive cycle needs to be obeyed by "responsible parents".

I will hold on till her next 'safe' day. Or "let's stop having sex for a year or two", so we don't have too many children and behave "irresponsibly".

People are not this cold blooded, are they? That is why we are taught to avoid occasions of sin. Otherwise we could be in those occasions and simply be "responsible" about it. Why avoid the beach in the summertime if you can simply give up sex as a married man for one or two years or program yourself to feel like it on the 17th of the month?

Generally speaking, middle age, lack of fitness, stress, tiredness from hard work and the additional hard work of parenting will space your children out to every two to three years. That means that in a normal marriage without contraception you're going to have between 6 and 10 children depending on how early you get married.

You'll have little gaps in your schedule when you get to both be in bed at the same time and each have the energy. If those days happen to be the fertile ones then you're going to have a baby or at least a better than 10% chance.

I don't really see any alternative to this other than abstinence, which surely cannot be a general solution for most couples most of the time, or using NFP in such a way that you are diarizing when you're going to have sex.

Frances · « **Reply #3 on:** July 08, 2013, 09:01:44 AM »

More double-speak! "Don't use contraception because it's immoral, but if you choose to use contraception, do it morally." HUH?

Tiffany · « **Reply #4 on:** July 08, 2013, 09:04:09 AM »

The connection they make between being "responsible" and births is what is so wrong.

Tiffany · « **Reply #5 on:** July 08, 2013, 09:23:06 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

Why avoid the beach in the summertime if you can simply give up sex as a married man for one or two years or program yourself to feel like it on the 17th of the month?

Tiffany · « **Reply #6 on:** July 08, 2013, 09:25:41 AM »

Quote from: ggreg

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

This I don't really understand at all.

You can't even analyze some of their stuff it's double dutch. They insert these words that should mean something but they don't end up saying anything, it's like blah blah nice word blah blah.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #7 on:** July 08, 2013, 10:38:25 AM »

Is it fair to say that Paul VI wrote this encyclical with malice aforethought?

JohnGrey · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2013, 11:26:38 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

The connection they make between being "responsible" and births is what is so wrong.

Agreed, what is more responsible than achieving the end for which marriage is the divinely-intended means?

JohnGrey · « **Reply #9 on:** July 08, 2013, 11:32:33 AM »

Quote from: Tiffany

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Responsible Parenthood

10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

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

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

What capricious and vacuous blubber. There is only one kind of responsible parenthood: the abandonment of fecundity to Divine Providence and the unceasing and unadulterated education of children in the immemorial Catholic faith. Save these things, the very essence of marriage, and by extension parenthood, is tainted and very probably ruinous to the formation of Catholic souls.

JohnGrey · « **Reply #10 on:** July 08, 2013, 11:45:14 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Is it fair to say that Paul VI wrote this encyclical with malice aforethought?

Objectively, canon law holds that any violation of divine or ecclesiastically law is presumed to have been committed with the intent of malice until such time that it can be proven to the contrary.

Nadir · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2013, 06:26:48 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

Is it fair to say that Paul VI wrote this encyclical with malice aforethought?

Gustave Martelet is said to have written Humanae vitae, or at least played a big part in it.

Of course, whether Gustave Martelet or Paul VI, the doc certainly buys into the overpopulation mythology:

Quote

2. The changes that have taken place are of considerable importance and varied in nature. In the first place there is the rapid increase in population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. This can easily induce public authorities to be tempted to take even harsher measures to avert this danger. There is also the fact that not only working and housing conditions but the greater demands made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large family.

and

Quote

23. And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations. To you most of all is committed the responsibility of safeguarding the common good. You can contribute so much to the preservation of morals. We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined. The family is the primary unit in the state; do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God. For there are other ways by which a government can and should solve the population problem—that is to say by enacting laws which will assist families and by educating the people wisely so that the moral law and the freedom of the citizens are both safeguarded