Remember a few years ago, when it was said to all the priests at the Priests Meeting in Europe that it was "prudent" to only have 5 children?

Now such talk is coming to the United States. They speak now to parents about how they are "obligated to raise their children well". What does that mean? When one priest was asked, he answered that "it means that Pope Pius XII said..." and basically went on to explain that NFP was permissible.

But why is the SSPX pushing it? To be more mainstream and accepted by the world? After all, it's much more acceptable to walk around with a medium-sized family of 5 or 6 children than to make a real statement, walking around with 10 or 12 children.

The SSPX no longer wants to be foolish for Christ. They would rather have the approval of those who are filled with the "wisdom of This World".

And closely tied in with this is the strong push to send children to private school -- specifically SSPX-run private schools. But even with "multi child discount", private school isn't cheap. Especially since everyone pays property taxes these days to support the public schools *whether or not you use them*.

Paying for homeschooling or private school is an added expense. Only fervent souls with their eyes open will see the need. If they aren't told that the Modern World is a huge force of evil -- you know, the "bunker mentality" -- who in their right mind would take this path?  When you send your children to public school, they are out of your hair during the day, which makes your life much easier. And it frees up you and your wife to enjoy other activities, since you have more time and money that isn't spent on private school/homeschooling.

Nevertheless, I believe homeschooling has more economies of scale than private school, especially when you have 7 or more children.

But which came first for the SSPX? Their push for private school, or their push for smaller families/NFP?

Well it must not be universal because there was an SSPX priest from Syracuse who said Mass at my chapel last week (I forget his name) and he said when he speaks to married couples he asks them if they are the kind of Catholics who are willing to do God's will and have twelve children. And he condemned Vatican II for changing the Church's teaching on marriage and he also condemned feminism.

If I have learned one thing in my life, it's that NO organization consisting of hundreds (nevermind thousands, or tens of thousands) of individuals can be spoken of absolutely, or painted with a broad brush.

There is no monolithic "SSPX", any more than there is some mythical, Platonic embodiment of the idea "Traditional Catholic". You always have to ask, "Who are we talking about specifically?"

In any large organization, including the Catholic Church or one of its many religious congregations, there will be some variety. Variety of talents, variety of holiness, variety of education, variety of motives, etc.

This most certainly applies to the SSPX. In fact, it applies even more so to an organization "in flux" as the SSPX is. The SSPX is changing from one thing into something different. Obviously some are completely on board, others are neutral, while still others are against it and will fight tooth and nail to keep orthodoxy as well as their precious organization.

But as we saw in the main Crisis -- the one starting with Vatican II -- how did the priests fare who tried to be Traditional while also staying on good terms with the Conciliar Church authorities? Eventually they had to choose.

The question is: is this an aberration, or is this fundamental to the SSPX's new direction? Does it actually spring from the new direction and position, led by Bishop Fellay?

And a more important question: is this where they were, where they are, or where they are going? Is this kind of thinking typical of the old SSPX, or is it typical of the new?

If this is where they are going, then we will hear this more and more from an increasing number of SSPX priests, starting with the young ones.

Roger you don't have to believe me, but know that I was once a sceptic of these reports too. I have sadly been corrected. I now know from hearing it with my own ears that this mentality is creeping in more and more. "It's prudent only to have as many as you can afford or spend time with or send to school etc...." Human prudence is placed above God's Providence. "A couple can decide among themselves for any reason, no need to consult a priest." The requirement for grave reason and the objective guidance of a priest are no longer necessary.

The first time I heard it, I really thought the couple was simply mistaken or had misunderstood the priest. Or perhaps they were stubbornly sticking to what was convenient for them regardless of what the priest said. All were possibilities in my mind except the possibility that that's actually what the priest told them. But I have since had many more conversations with other couples/ladies. Unfortunately I now know that really was what they were told. And not just them but many others. And not in one isolated incident or parish but in several. It's making its way into Pre Cana classes too. It's spreading and it's being accepted without question, especially by younger generations who grew up listening to SSPX priests, so why should they stop now.

Not every SSPX priest is teaching NFP in this way, in fact I hope it is still a minority, but it is out there and the movement is growing at a scary rate because that's what many people out there want to hear so they don't question it.

I am very curious to know how younger priests are being formed on this topic. That would go a long way to clarify if these NFP priests are deliberately going against the SSPX policies or if the SSPX as an organization is moving that way.

But why is the SSPX pushing it? To be more mainstream and accepted by the world? After all, it's much more acceptable to walk around with a medium-sized family of 5 or 6 children than to make a real statement, walking around with 10 or 12 children.

Pardon me, but the "world" does not think 5 or 6 kids is a "medium" family - they think that is a very LARGE family. And they would basically consider anyone with 10-12 kids to be insane, like the Duggars.

Just sayin'...

And not in one isolated incident or parish but in several. It's making its way into Pre Cana classes too.

Never heard of pre-Cana classes in the SSPX, is this something new?

Quote from: Matto

Well it must not be universal because there was an SSPX priest from Syracuse who said Mass at my chapel last week (I forget his name) and he said when he speaks to married couples he asks them if they are the kind of Catholics who are willing to do God's will and have twelve children. And he condemned Vatican II for changing the Church's teaching on marriage and he also condemned feminism.

You ought to get his name and keep track of him because he's likely to be on the chopping block if he keeps this up.  The New XSPX doesn't need his ilk.

If I have learned one thing in my life, it's that NO organization consisting of hundreds (nevermind thousands, or tens of thousands) of individuals can be spoken of absolutely, or painted with a broad brush.

There is no monolithic "SSPX", any more than there is some mythical, Platonic embodiment of the idea "Traditional Catholic". You always have to ask, "Who are we talking about specifically?"

In any large organization, including the Catholic Church or one of its many religious congregations, there will be some variety. Variety of talents, variety of holiness, variety of education, variety of motives, etc.

This most certainly applies to the SSPX. In fact, it applies even more so to an organization "in flux" as the SSPX is. The SSPX is changing from one thing into something different. Obviously some are completely on board, others are neutral, while still others are against it and will fight tooth and nail to keep orthodoxy as well as their precious organization.

But as we saw in the main Crisis -- the one starting with Vatican II -- how did the priests fare who tried to be Traditional while also staying on good terms with the Conciliar Church authorities? Eventually they had to choose.

The question is: is this an aberration, or is this fundamental to the SSPX's new direction? Does it actually spring from the new direction and position, led by Bishop Fellay?

And a more important question: is this where they were, where they are, or where they are going? Is this kind of thinking typical of the old SSPX, or is it typical of the new?

You should be able to answer this, Matthew -- you were in the SSPX seminary for a while:  Is this what they were teaching?  If not, then this is where they are NOW, not where they WERE. And therefore it's a CHANGE.

So, if it's a change, then we can expect MORE CHANGE in the future, IOW it shows us the direction they are going, which can only become more Modernist in the future.

If this is where they are going, then we will hear this more and more from an increasing number of SSPX priests, starting with the young ones.

Quote from: Matthew

But why is the SSPX pushing it? To be more mainstream and accepted by the world? After all, it's much more acceptable to walk around with a medium-sized family of 5 or 6 children than to make a real statement, walking around with 10 or 12 children.

Pardon me, but the "world" does not think 5 or 6 kids is a "medium" family - they think that is a very LARGE family. And they would basically consider anyone with 10-12 kids to be insane, like the Duggars.

Just sayin'...

When I said "medium sized" I'm talking about objectively, or from a sane (Catholic) point of view.

I realize that the world considers 6 children to be a "very large" family now. But what  would they consider 8, 10, or 12 children? That gets much more attention.

However acceptable 5 or 6 children is to The World, twice that number is even LESS acceptable.

And you can't go from a natural sized family down to 2 or 4 children overnight. It takes many steps. My grandmother had 8 children (basically as many as nature asked for). My baby boomer mother had 4 children (no artificial birth control was used, but I digress). And most of my classmates in school had 2 or 3 siblings. Baby Boomers -- Catholic and non-Catholic -- seemed to average around 3-4 children.

Most young couples today max out at TWO children, if they have children at all.
It's a process.

emember a few years ago, when it was said to all the priests at the Priests Meeting in Europe that it was "prudent" to only have 5 children?

There was a lady in our community who was a hunchback. I don't think she stood more than 5 feet. The doctors all told her that she would never be able to have any children. She had six.