Catholics Don't Need To Breed Like Rabbits

[ardillacid]

:coffee:

[Oremoose]

In the transcript I read he said it was a few months ago but translations translations.

I happen to agree that anything more than 3 sections is crazy. That's not my point though.

Notice how papa focused on the mother in the case. No mention of the father. That's because we tend to think of pregnancy as being a problem (or blessing) caused by the mother. Undesirable pregnancies are often considered the fault of promiscuous women (that's what the rabbit image recalls, not procreation but uncontrollable sexuality).

When he says her pregnancy is irresponsible, he means she had SEX irresponsibly.

That's why it's especially problematic for a man to be the one wagging his finger and calling a woman a rabbit, especially a celibate man in a religion where abortion and contraception are no-nos.

So she's pregnant when she shouldn't be. What does he want her to do about it?

 

I see and understand your point. To answer the question He wants her to carry her baby to term and that she and the baby remain healthy. And then most likely discern about maybe having it be her last. In order to remain healthy for her family.

 

I am getting this vibe that you are painting the Pope as a misogynist. I am sorry if I am wrong. However The pope was not calling Woman rabbits he was calling Catholics rabbits, in order make the point that we all need more self control in the sexual spectrum of life.

As the 3rd of 11. I would be the first to tell anyone that Large family life is a vocation and not for everyone. I can also say that in the realm of large families there are some who believe that you need to have 5+ kids to be holy (I don't know why,maybe they think it is like buying graces in bulk?). So I agree with the message that the pope was making. The world would be at peace if we all had great self control.

 

As to why the Pope singled out the mother in his later example? I don't know. Like i said I feel you are calling the Pope a sexist. He has to be too bright to fall down that hole. I think he singled her out because she was the one at risk in the example. I would not say that the pope was calling her sex irresponsible. You be "responsible" could take all the precautions necessary (aside from outright abstinence) and still conceive. It would be a long shot but still possible. 

 

Lastly all other reasons aside your, " a man to be the one wagging his finger and calling a woman a rabbit, especially a celibate man in a religion where abortion and contraception are no-nos." Comment I find offencive. It is overused and stale logic (an exemplary Ad Hominem). To boil The Pope down all he trying to do is help to bring all to Christ by being a Priest. It just so happens to do that he has to be male and celibate. And that for you to be as close as you can to Jesus you must abhor Abortion and artificial contraceptives. So for you to Ball him in with those who try to shame/blame women I find disrespectful and cruel. I know the pope is a mere mortal like you and me but he knows his Job and he knows that shaming is not in the description. So to pull out the old "He is just and old, celibate 'women's healthcare' hater." schpeel. Please don't it's bad form.

[Maggyie]

Errr, it's entirely possible to NOT be a misogynist and yet use misogynist language, have misogynist ideas etc since the cultural air we breathe despises women and children (and nowadays men too).  If you don't understand why the Pope lecturing a woman on her sexual relations with her husband and using the 'rabbit' slur is problematic, I dunno what to say.

 

For those keeping score at home:

 

1. Don't have any children - not open to life, selfish, sinful

2. Have too many children - too open to life? irresponsible, sinful

3. Using IVF to conceive - this somehow falls into both categories. Sinful.

4. Having a baby without being married - sinful but we eventually figured out it's counter-productive to shame these women.

5. Using artificial birth control to avoid conception - need I say more. Sinful

6. Having an abortion - Duh. But see #4

7. Adopting - not sinful, but let's talk more about how women are defined in our theology by their sex's ability to physically conceive and give birth.

[CrossCuT]

Errr, it's entirely possible to NOT be a misogynist and yet use misogynist language, have misogynist ideas etc since the cultural air we breathe despises women and children (and nowadays men too).  If you don't understand why the Pope lecturing a woman on her sexual relations with her husband and using the 'rabbit' slur is problematic, I dunno what to say.

 

For those keeping score at home:

 

1. Don't have any children - not open to life, selfish, sinful

2. Have too many children - too open to life? irresponsible, sinful

3. Using IVF to conceive - this somehow falls into both categories. Sinful.

4. Having a baby without being married - sinful but we eventually figured out it's counter-productive to shame these women.

5. Using artificial birth control to avoid conception - need I say more. Sinful

6. Having an abortion - Duh. But see #4

7. Adopting - not sinful, but let's talk more about how women are defined in our theology by their sex's ability to physically conceive and give birth.

 

I wish i could prop this 10x over. But thats probably sinful too...

 

As a woman we have a few choices on how to deal with out sexuality/baby-making-parts. And if you dont follow all the rules, then you get shunned. 

 

I dont buy it. its a load of pocky. 

 

Besides if you CANT use the 1 avenue the church allows, (and/or its super difficult) you are subject to a sexless marriage which ultimately makes the woman feel like a broken piece of garbage. The church has no answers for these women. 

Edited January 23, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Oremoose]

Errr, it's entirely possible to NOT be a misogynist and yet use misogynist language, have misogynist ideas etc since the cultural air we breathe despises women and children (and nowadays men too).  If you don't understand why the Pope lecturing a woman on her sexual relations with her husband and using the 'rabbit' slur is problematic, I dunno what to say.

 

For those keeping score at home:

 

1. Don't have any children - not open to life, selfish, sinful

2. Have too many children - too open to life? irresponsible, sinful

3. Using IVF to conceive - this somehow falls into both categories. Sinful.

4. Having a baby without being married - sinful but we eventually figured out it's counter-productive to shame these women.

5. Using artificial birth control to avoid conception - need I say more. Sinful

6. Having an abortion - Duh. But see #4

7. Adopting - not sinful, but let's talk more about how women are defined in our theology by their sex's ability to physically conceive and give birth.

 

I would think that having Miogynist ideas would make you one. I would agree that the Pope's choice in words was poor but the point He was trying to make is an alright. Those that do not parent well should not continue to have kids, for the sake of their kids fromation and up brining.

 

In resopce to your score board.

 

1.Not having kids is not sinful. If a couple discern togather that they are not in a position the have kids. Go them! (They just need to use natural Birth Controls) Also infertility (the main reasons 2 of my uncles have no kids) does not stop a marraige form being valid.

2. Is there such a thing as having too meny kids? I don't think so, aslong as the the partent do their duties well enough to raise each child with as much love and attention as they each needs. ( If this is referring to the Popes comment. I think you are missing the point He was not saying we are haveing to meny kids. He was saying that we don't need to have lage families to be good Catholics. As I have said, before I have met people that think they need 5+ kids to be a saintly family regardless of the quality of the kids formation and well being. That is what I feel he is adressing, as i said above very crudely but not maliciously).

3. I personally don't know too much about the Curches stance on that but I am sure it is reasonable.

4. Shame is never good or permissable. I think that comes from Socitiy as a whole, not just the Church.

5. Props. No other way to say it.

6. I think the shame here comes more from a postion of "Why? when there are so meany out there ready to help you?" rather than "Contol yourself" as with #4.

7. Sure lets talk, I love learning. I have recently (in my limited freetime) been looking into Gender Vs. Sex, Gender equality and such with little luck. I am happy to see what others have found and their Critques on it.

 

 

Edit: Spelling. I am terrible at it and my works web browser does nto have spell check. :(

Edited January 23, 2015 by Oremoose

[CrossCuT]

I would think that having Miogynist ideas would make you one. I would agree that the Pope's choice in words was poor but the point He was trying to make is an alright. Those that do not parent well should not continue to have kids, for the sake of their kids fromation and up brining.

 

In resopce to your score board.

 

1.Not having kids is not sinful. If a couple discern togather that they are not in a position the have kids. Go them! (They just need to use natural Birth Controls) Also infertility (the main reasons 2 of my uncles have no kids) does not stop a marraige form being valid.

2. Is there such a thing as having too meny kids? I don't think so, aslong as the the partent do their duties well enough to raise each child with as much love and attention as they each needs. ( If this is referring to the Popes comment. I think you are missing the point He was not saying we are haveing to meny kids. He was saying that we don't need to have lage families to be good Catholics. As I have said, before I have met people that think they need 5+ kids to be a saintly family regardless of the quality of the kids formation and well being. That is what I feel he is adressing, as i said above very crudely but not maliciously).

3. I personally don't know too much about the Curches stance on that but I am sure it is reasonable.

4. Shame is never good or permissable. I think that comes from Socitiy as a whole, not just the Church.

5. Props. No other way to say it.

6. I think the shame here comes more from a postion of "Why? when there are so meany out there ready to help you?" rather than "Contol yourself" as with #4.

7. Sure lets talk, I love learning. I have recently (in my limited freetime) been looking into Gender Vs. Sex, Gender equality and such with little luck. I am happy to see what others have found and their Critques on it.

 

 

Edit: Spelling. I am terrible at it and my works web browser does nto have spell check. :(

 

4. It definitely comes from the church. Thats were all these rules originated. You have to be married to have sex so that extends to children as well. So of course the prejudice of unmarried mothers stems from religion. Society was much more steeped in these thoughts a long time ago when it was a norm. It has since become more welcoming but that is still were the prejudice comes from. 

 

6. I dont think you can take a pregnant woman who chooses to get an abortion and be like "Hey look at all these options that are totally accessible to me but might not be for you but I dont have the state of mind to understand why your life stinks right now but Ill judge you anyways by not upholding the values I live by."

7. Catholics should stop being so angry about letting gay couples adopt. Its much better for a child to go to a loving home than stay in the system.

Edited January 23, 2015 by CrossCuT

[MarysLittleFlower]

It seems he was saying minimum three is needed for the population and we should be responsible. That's what I can understand from the context...

I read the words of a Pope last century I think Pope Pius? I forget which one... But he said NFP should ONLY be used for grave reasons and the examples he gave were things like concentration camp or world war. But today this has been forgotten yet is seems to be the authentic Catholic teaching. Today it often sounds like people can use NFP for any reason or any reason they care about but the Pope said very clearly it needs to be for grave reasons. The norm is not NFP, it is an exception and should not be used with contraceptive mentality. So I think that its good to accept all the children God sends ... As for being responsible parents maybe it is about grave circumstances? I don't know. I don't know what was meant.

[veritasluxmea]

Errr, it's entirely possible to NOT be a misogynist and yet use misogynist language, have misogynist ideas etc since the cultural air we breathe despises women and children (and nowadays men too).  If you don't understand why the Pope lecturing a woman on her sexual relations with her husband and using the 'rabbit' slur is problematic, I dunno what to say.

 

For those keeping score at home:

 

1. Don't have any children - not open to life, selfish, sinful

2. Have too many children - too open to life? irresponsible, sinful

3. Using IVF to conceive - this somehow falls into both categories. Sinful.

4. Having a baby without being married - sinful but we eventually figured out it's counter-productive to shame these women.

5. Using artificial birth control to avoid conception - need I say more. Sinful

6. Having an abortion - Duh. But see #4

7. Adopting - not sinful, but let's talk more about how women are defined in our theology by their sex's ability to physically conceive and give birth.

What do you think a solution would be? These back-and-forth problems seem to stem from a rather puritan cultural thing (as in how other people in an American parish see you and "what they will say," which I agree is sometimes deplorable), not actual church teaching. 

[Amppax]

It seems he was saying minimum three is needed for the population and we should be responsible. That's what I can understand from the context...

I read the words of a Pope last century I think Pope Pius? I forget which one... But he said NFP should ONLY be used for grave reasons and the examples he gave were things like concentration camp or world war. But today this has been forgotten yet is seems to be the authentic Catholic teaching. Today it often sounds like people can use NFP for any reason or any reason they care about but the Pope said very clearly it needs to be for grave reasons. The norm is not NFP, it is an exception and should not be used with contraceptive mentality. So I think that its good to accept all the children God sends ... As for being responsible parents maybe it is about grave circumstances? I don't know. I don't know what was meant.

This is so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to begin. Unfortunately I'm on my phone, I'll have to come back to this later.

[Nihil Obstat]

This is so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to begin. Unfortunately I'm on my phone, I'll have to come back to this later.

Man, that was my reaction too. I was hoping someone else would do the heavy lifting. <_<

[Oremoose]

4. It definitely comes from the church. Thats were all these rules originated. You have to be married to have sex so that extends to children as well. So of course the prejudice of unmarried mothers stems from religion. Society was much more steeped in these thoughts a long time ago when it was a norm. It has since become more welcoming but that is still were the prejudice comes from. 

 

6. I dont think you can take a pregnant woman who chooses to get an abortion and be like "Hey look at all these options that are totally accessible to me but might not be for you but I dont have the state of mind to understand why your life stinks right now but Ill judge you anyways by not upholding the values I live by."

7. Catholics should stop being so angry about letting gay couples adopt. Its much better for a child to go to a loving home than stay in the system.

 

4. You are right I just didn't really think that far back.

 

6. I would say the complete opposite if she has the ability to get an abortion then she should have access to support and help in keeping her child. If she has not then we are failing as a society. I would also say the shame that happens because of an abortion is different then a woman that has a child out of wedlock. Simply because one is merely the result of sex (though some would say the circumstance is "scandalous** ") while the other is ending a life.

 

**If it is scandalous or not is a debate in and of its self

[Archaeology cat]

It seems he was saying minimum three is needed for the population and we should be responsible. That's what I can understand from the context...

I read the words of a Pope last century I think Pope Pius? I forget which one... But he said NFP should ONLY be used for grave reasons and the examples he gave were things like concentration camp or world war. But today this has been forgotten yet is seems to be the authentic Catholic teaching. Today it often sounds like people can use NFP for any reason or any reason they care about but the Pope said very clearly it needs to be for grave reasons. The norm is not NFP, it is an exception and should not be used with contraceptive mentality. So I think that its good to accept all the children God sends ... As for being responsible parents maybe it is about grave circumstances? I don't know. I don't know what was meant.

Where's Cherie when I need her? Anyway, the Church has never said "grave" reasons - that's a mistranslation. It says "just" reasons, and those reasons do not have to be life-and-death, and are to be prayerfully discerned by the couple. I highly recommend looking at Simcha Fisher's book The Sinner's Guide to NFP. 

 

While I agree NFP isn't the norm, it can licitly be used for a variety of reasons. And I doubt it's even possible to use it with a contraceptive mentality, as it requires a lot of abstinence, sometimes more than others. If a couple has a serious reason to avoid, they often use phase 3 only in order to be sure, which means 9-13 days of the cycle are available. If you use phase 1, too, you can add another 3-5 usually. It's not exactly a cakewalk. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

This is so incredibly wrong I don't even know where to begin. Unfortunately I'm on my phone, I'll have to come back to this later.

Sorry but this is found in a Papal writing. So its not wrong. If its wrong give me evidence but the Pope's words were very clear and I spent a while researching.

[MarysLittleFlower]

4. It definitely comes from the church. Thats were all these rules originated. You have to be married to have sex so that extends to children as well. So of course the prejudice of unmarried mothers stems from religion. Society was much more steeped in these thoughts a long time ago when it was a norm. It has since become more welcoming but that is still were the prejudice comes from.

6. I dont think you can take a pregnant woman who chooses to get an abortion and be like "Hey look at all these options that are totally accessible to me but might not be for you but I dont have the state of mind to understand why your life stinks right now but Ill judge you anyways by not upholding the values I live by."

7. Catholics should stop being so angry about letting gay couples adopt. Its much better for a child to go to a loving home than stay in the system.

Have you ever looked up studies about how the children adopted by same sex couples feel later about this? I heard the results were critical to it. Also I read a story of a man told in his words he was adopted by two homosexual men and later he really struggled with this because of everything he's seen and he got confused about his own sexuality. Its not like how the media presents. Its not the same as a mom and dad home.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Man, that was my reaction too. I was hoping someone else would do the heavy lifting. <_<

Huh? I'm confused. Cause the traditional teaching is that NFP - I mean the abstinence part - is only for grave reasons. I'll find the quote by the Pope.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Where's Cherie when I need her? Anyway, the Church has never said "grave" reasons - that's a mistranslation. It says "just" reasons, and those reasons do not have to be life-and-death, and are to be prayerfully discerned by the couple. I highly recommend looking at Simcha Fisher's book The Sinner's Guide to NFP.

While I agree NFP isn't the norm, it can licitly be used for a variety of reasons. And I doubt it's even possible to use it with a contraceptive mentality, as it requires a lot of abstinence, sometimes more than others. If a couple has a serious reason to avoid, they often use phase 3 only in order to be sure, which means 9-13 days of the cycle are available. If you use phase 1, too, you can add another 3-5 usually. It's not exactly a cakewalk.

I'll find the quote by the Pope then people can comment. The Pope gave some examples of reasons. I'm not saying there aren't other ones and this should be discerned with a good priest. But I've heard of very knowledgeable Catholics talk about how NFP can indeed be done with a contraceptive mentality.

[Archaeology cat]

This article shows why "grave" isn't a good translation in the English. 

 

Here's an excerpt: 

 

The words “grave motives” are probably the most commonly quoted when defending the position that the use of periodic abstinence is only permitted in extreme cases or dire necessity. This is because the common English understanding of “grave” reminds people of death, mortality, great danger and the like. A survey of the relevant definitions for “grave” in English, however, offers a wider appreciation of this word, which is even broader in Italian:

In Italian the word “grave” has a much greater semantic range. Consulting an Italian dictionary is helpful when translating a word like this. The first four pertinent definitions are:

1 a: obsolete: authoritative, weighty b: meriting serious consideration; important c: likely to produce great harm or danger d: significantly serious; considerable, serious.

 

1. something that has significant weight

2. weighed down, as if by fatigue, exhaustion; heavy, oppressive;

3. difficult to sustain insofar as it creates pain and suffering; and

4. implying an onerous or notable responsibility.

 

ETA: I'm an NFP instructor. Can NFP be used selfishly? Possibly, though I'd again contend that it's rare given the abstinence involved. But contraceptively? By definition it can't since NFP doesn't alter the marital act to thwart conception.

 

Edited January 23, 2015 by Archaeology cat

[Cherie]

It seems he was saying minimum three is needed for the population and we should be responsible. That's what I can understand from the context...

I read the words of a Pope last century I think Pope Pius? I forget which one... But he said NFP should ONLY be used for grave reasons and the examples he gave were things like concentration camp or world war. But today this has been forgotten yet is seems to be the authentic Catholic teaching. Today it often sounds like people can use NFP for any reason or any reason they care about but the Pope said very clearly it needs to be for grave reasons. The norm is not NFP, it is an exception and should not be used with contraceptive mentality. So I think that its good to accept all the children God sends ... As for being responsible parents maybe it is about grave circumstances? I don't know. I don't know what was meant.

 

"Grave" is an unfortunate, get-it-to-the-presses-fast mistranslation. In that particular sentence, the official Vatican translation says, "serious." Later in Humanae Vitae, it says, "well-grounded" reasons. Later, still, it says, "reasonable motives." That gives you a better idea of the mind of the Church on this matter. This is a very long piece, but please, MarysLittleFlower, please read it. You--and every Catholic--would do well to familiarize yourself with this information: http://www.hprweb.com/2008/03/humanae-vitae-grave-motives-to-use-a-good-translation/ 

 

No specific examples of reasons have been given (except perhaps in this instance where Pope Francis mentioned multiple c-sections as a reason, depending on your circumstances); couples are free to discern those reasons for themselves. What constitutes a "well-grounded reason" for one couple to use NFP to avoid pregnancy may not constitute a reason for another couple. We all have different physical, psychological, emotional, spiritual (etc) makeups. Humanae Vitae explains everything relating to NFP beautifully, even prophetically. I REALLY suggest reading it in full; it's not very long. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

Also, NFP can never be used contraceptively. Ever, ever. It's impossible. The whole reason why it's allowed for Catholics as a means of avoiding pregnancy is precisely BECAUSE it is never contraceptive. Now, can couples use it selfishly? Sure, just like couples could be irresponsible or imprudent in deciding to have another child. But honestly, there are so many built-in sacrifices with NFP that if a couple is inclined toward selfishness, they probably aren't going to go through the hassle of NFP at all; they'll just use artificial birth control. Plus, no couple is going to sign up for 8-14 days (on average; some couples experience MUCH longer stretches) of abstinence unless they have a really good reason for doing so.

 

The "contraceptive mentality" phrase was coined by Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio and Evangelium Vitae to (in the words of Simcha Fisher in her excellent book, "The Sinner's Guide to Natural Family Planning"): "describe a corrosive modern mindset, which not only encompasses a widespread acceptance of the use of literal contraception, but also lays the groundwork for other disastrous offences against the human person, such as abortion and sterilization." 

 

Catholic couples are certainly free to take a so-called "providentialist" approach to family planning if they want to: letting "nature take its course," i.e. not preventing or trying for pregnancy in any way, which, unless a couple deals with infertility or subfertility, usually results in a large family. We are all called to responsible parenthood, however, and that means that no matter our circumstances, we should be prayerfully discerning what is best for our particular family in our particular circumstances. That's really all the Pope was trying to get across. He's simply reiterating Church teaching, in the vernacular (ETA a vernacular that obviously upset or ruffled quite a few people, but I doubt it was intentional). 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Maybe my post wasn't very clear... The way in which I meant grave was serious.

Here are 2 links that clarify what I was trying to say. There are quotes here that show that:

1. Couples can indeed have wrong motives in periodic continence and this is a quote of Pope Pius XII

2. Some just / grave reasons are given. Concentration camps and wars are mentioned but I never meant to say there are no others. The links provide some others.

it also says the Church doesn't teach couples always have to use NFP or need to use at all - the Church only said its permitted when necessary or needed for serious reasons.

taylormarshall.com/2014/08/nfp-and-serious-reasons-what-are-these-reasons-html

prolife365.com/nfp-no-for-everyone/

[MarysLittleFlower]

This article shows why "grave" isn't a good translation in the English.

Here's an excerpt:

ETA: I'm an NFP instructor. Can NFP be used selfishly? Possibly, though I'd again contend that it's rare given the abstinence involved. But contraceptively? By definition it can't since NFP doesn't alter the marital act to thwart conception.

Sorry I meant wrong motives with a contraceptive like mentality not contraceptive in itself.

This is something Pope Pius XII said and the source is above :)