CathInfo.com

Totally agreed that people who have enriched themselves in the past, through not having had the children they should have had (least of all if they used contraception to this end!), should give some of these riches back.  It is ill-gotten gain which justice demands should be repaid in some way.  

So the woman with only 2 children, who buried 2 shortly after birth and had 6 miscarriages is now judged that her wealth is ILL-GOTTEN and justice demands she should repay it in some way?
Just when did God tell you how many children any specific couple should have?

The STAS Letter to Friends and Benefactors by Fr. Le Roux, which I received today, explains that:

"The prize is a Jaguar, not to encourage a disordered concupiscence, but to make this fundraiser attractive to other people who otherwise perhaps would not contribute to the goal that we have in mind.

Knowing that your personal resources are not unlimited, this "Giveaway" is primarily addressed to people of your acquaintance who are not in Tradition and who perhaps could, in this roundabout way, discover it..."

I am wondering whether the practical result of this giveaway, however, is to encourage in people outside of Tradition the very disordered concupiscence which Fr. Le Roux desires not to encourage in those currently within Tradition.

I am very much reminded about the SSPX responses to those who complained 6-7 years ago about all the modern technology and website marketing the neo-SSPX was using:

"Ah, but these websites and internet sites are not for OUR people, but for people outside Tradition."

Was not the practical effect -then as now- to infect BOTH those inside and outside Tradition?

Will those SSPXers selling tickets to those outside Tradition really maintain a contempt for the worldliness such exotic automobiles represent (or will they secretly hope they are the lucky winners)?

Read the bolded words above, then see this scene from The Godfather (beginning at 25 seconds):

You don't need to be so defensive.

He clearly wasn't talking about those in your position:
"people who have enriched themselves in the past, through not having had the children they should have had"

Speaking for most people, miscarriages and other infant mortality are NOT considered by anyone "not having the children you should have had". Who goes up to a woman who's had a miscarriage and shakes their finger, "You should have seen that child to term!" give me a break!

That's a textbook definition of "out of my hands", "God's will" or, the Exception Which Proves the Rule.

Thank you for the good defense.  Incidentally, my wife and I had at least one miscarriage, probably others as well.

People who have deliberately refrained from having children they should have had, know who they are. Deep down they know "yes, we took the high road", and if they function the way a Catholic should function, they will feel remorse and wish there were some way they could undo it.  I offer the voluntary giving of assistance to Catholics who do obey the Church's teachings and are struggling to raise large families, as one thing they could do, in some small way, to set things right (assuming they are no longer of childbearing age and "it's too late").  Kids cost money --- boy oh boy, do they ever!  If you've refused to have children you could have afforded to have --- even if it would have meant living a more modest lifestyle --- then in some way you've been enriched, and to this day you enjoy the benefits of that wealth, ill-gotten though it was.