www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Will we ever see a majority of Catholics with large families?

I teach college theology. I thoroughly enjoy it and look forward to each day's challenge. One thing troubles me and it seems to be getting a bit worse, at least where I teach. It centers in the narcissism that seems to be somewhat natural to most college students.

Here's how it fleshed out this morning. In my Church History class I transitioned from the Patristics period, which I call the "Cauldron of Holiness" to the Middle Ages by asking the students through a number of questions "Is there anything more important than this temporal life? I.e., is there anything worth dieing for?" Dead silence. Nothing. Finally, a former soldier suggested "American ideals". Another suggested family. Finally, after cajoling someone said "self". I thanked her for that honesty because by that time I knew she was speaking for the majority of students. I asked them if "self" was all there was worth dieing for what happens if you die? No real answer was forthcoming.

Only a couple of people after some time said that perhaps "their beliefs". Even that is a pretty poor answer given that this is a level 2 theology course with Theology 101 being a prerequisite.

The Church has failed miserably...at least we've miserably failed these students. I won't give up on them but I need your prayers.

I believe one giant failure is the inability of the Church to convince people that the uese of artificial contraceptives and even abortion are sins which have serious consequences. Mark Steyn points out the severe demographic problems we have made for ourselves. I think I see the result in the selfishness I see in these college students many of whom are nominal Catholics.

Do you think the Church will ever convince our own members of the dangers of artificial contraception and even abortion? What are some of the things we might do to work with the Holy Spirit to guide our young people along the paths of righteousness?

CDL, A convert from the bleakness of Methodism who wishes he had known many many years ago.

Nope, we cannot compeat with the media bombardment of commercials touting birth contral as a good idea for nice people. If someone actually listened to the warnngs of heart attack, stroke, and maybe even cancer and "asked their doctor", the doctor would just give it to them and say "don't worry about it, no problem"...

Theophilus,

But that just arguing secular against secular. What I'm really asking is "Will our people ever again be truly Godly?"

CDL

Maybe not during our lifetimes but someday.

Dr. Eric

4 children going on 12.

I hope that someday there will be the 12 Tribes of Eric!

Hi Carson,

I am not sure I follow the argument.

How did you go from asking what things are worth dying for to a discussion about abortion and contraception?

Shalom,
Memo

Well, I thought being the last of sixteen was just an Italian thing! (Itali'janski Mamo)

Ungcsertezs

Very little matters to most of these students. They were raised to get whatever they wished in a material sense and were never taught to love God and His Church. When a family only has two children nothing is asked of them. There is little or no sacrifice.

I'm not quite sure why you did not make the connection.

CDL

CDL,

I suggest that you might read, "What Went Wrong with Vatican II, The Catholic Crisis Explained" by Dr. Ralph McInerny, the famed Thomist from Univ. of Notre Dame. It is published by Sophia Press. He argues, quite successfully, that the present crisis of the Church is a result of an "alter" de facto magisterium of the "experts" who rallied around the rejection of Humanae Vitae. This rejection of the magisterium threw the laity for a loop from which they are still reeling. Ironically, the birth rate in Rome is the lowest of any European city...but guess who is reproducing in Europe?

I argue that while there is constant cry for evangelization, the domestic Church from which new Catholics should be brought forth, and evangelized from the womb, has effectively been destroyed because of artificial contraception.

McInery also shows how the Vatican has put into place key documents and changes to Canon law, both Eastern and Western, from which the rebelling "experts" can now be sanctioned. Nonetheless, he realizes that only true repentance and a real change of heart can bring about the necessary changes. He notes that prayer, especially to the Theotokos, and fasting will bring this metanoia.

I would add that one must realize that to accept artificial contraception (ie provide an intellectual assent to it as a lawful pratice) is to cease to be Catholic. And of course we know that it is a lie, because by the use of it, the two do not really become one in their own flesh and thereby in the flesh of the child which they might have conceived. I know of nothing more destructive to the Church than the rejection of the Church's teaching as set forth in Humanae Vitae. For a great collection of essays (from priests, physicians and married couples) on the subject, look for a book put out by Ignatius Press.

One former economic advisor to Ronald Reagan goes around to law schools in the country with a message about the decline of Western Civilization which is not very welcome. He looks at the economic statistical data of not reproducing and shows a very bleak future, and tells the women that the country really needs one more mother, rather than one more lawyer. I think most of us would agree that another mother is far better deal than another lawyer.

I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I was the younger of two children and we certainly made sacrifices as I was growing up. We were expected to tithe of our allowances (how do you cut a nickel in 10 pieces?). We were also taught delayed gratification--couldn't open any Christmas presents until after we had been to Mass on Christmas. The Sisters in school were always asking us to support the "pagan babies," and we worked to support our school by holding annual paper drives, going door to door to collect the newspapers throughout our neighborhood.

That was 50 years ago and things certainly changed during the 60s and 70s. The media message is all about sex--not just the commercials, and psychologists try to program us to believe that not having sex is unnatural. It's certainly going to be an uphill battle to bring about change. But I do see some change, not yet in the majority of Catholics, but in a nucleus of dedicated families. There are at least 10 families in my parish that have 4 to 10 children (less than 130 registered households in the parish). One family that recently moved back to the Midwest has had 3 children (including twins) in less than 4 years and another on the way. They have said they want 10 or 12 before they're through! I think there's something about couples seeing other couples having children that's contagious. Passing around a new baby gets those procreative juices flowing. And it sends the message that you're not "weird" because you want more than 1 or 2 kids.

One of the things that really helps change the point of view is either parochial education or home schooling. Kids that aren't exposed to the curriculum and peer pressure found in public schools--and whose media habits have adequate parental control-- have a better chance and acquiring the values of their parents.
Of course home schooling is probably the more affordable alternative for large families, but it really works best with a stay-at-home parent and a support system among home schooling families. So we're back to that couple that is willing to forgo a lavish life style.

As a society, we didn't lose our values overnight, and we're not going to get them back overnight either. But I think I see the pendulum beginning to move back in a more conservative direction.

CDL,

You, as an educator of these kids who are about to go out and start their lives, can have a major influence on their thinking simply by questioning what they think and offering suggestions and examples of how life can be rich even without riches. Don't give up!

CDL,

No, our people will never be Godly. Some will, most will not. There is still the hope that any seed that you plant may still take root before it is too late...

it is not written in stone that Catholics have had large families as a rule, at least in America. my stepfather had two daughters, period.they are both now in their sixties, theirs was an old fashioned Sicilian Catholic family. of course, the younger of the two had eight children in six years (that's nine months apart). I lived in one neighborhood where a Catholic family had so many kids that they had to eat in shifts. I have a friend a few years older who has eleven, he wanted twelve, but the clock went tick tock, and she couldn't have any more. it varies, and it is not a generational thing. my Protestant mother had four children from two Catholic fathers. it seems in Chattanooga, if you have a brood of kids, you are either Catholic, Mormon, Independent Baptist, or Church of Christ, and 99% of the time, that is the rule.
then there is the financial consideration. I don't think that Catholics should breed like rabbits because of some encouragement from a bunch of bachelors in ecclesiastical finery. let THEM marry, have kids, and see what it's like. I myself never married, but I have a hint of what it's like to share what little food you have with a child you are helping to raise, to lose sleep over a sick child, and so on. something those forementioned bachelors for the most part will never have a clue. I don't think that children should have to eat and dress like orphans to satisfy someone's ill placed nostalgia. if you can't give children a decent American life, then limit the number, children have rights too, not just ecclesiastics.
Much Love,
Jonn

Carson, this statement is a bit strong, "when a family only two children nothing is asked of them. There is little or no sacrifice." How do you know that? Everyone's situation is different. Even Pope John Paul II, as ardent in opposing contraception as anyone has ever been, held that we lived in a time when it was legitimate for people to limit the size of their families. I am not arguing for contraception, nor against it. I'm just saying that we shouldn't judge people's faith by family size. To me that is similar to judging someone on the basis of whether the mother works or whether the family home schools. And I have known Christians who have judged people that way. God bless.

Joe

And, in fact John, many of the Church fathers were not enthusiastic about their flock having large families. Since, it was the end of the age and the ascetic ideal was put forth to all, having children was permissible (required if you were going to have sex), but by no means looked upon as a great blessing. You can read about this in John Noonan's monumental study "Contraception." He demonstrates with ample quotation from the fathers that the post-apostolic Christian church steadily moved away from the older Jewish notions of family and embraced a stoic-platonic influenced vision. Jesus' apocalyptic vision and St. Paul's ambivalent attitude toward marriage greatly assisted this. In fact, one could argue somewhat persuasively that Jesus taught an apocalyptic view of the age and that the Kingdom of God would tear apart and tear down "family values" not build them up. Jesus seems to have strongly encouraged celibacy for the kingdom and he repeatedly downplayed the importance of blood relations. To "be like the angels" was a common early Christian inspiration. God bless.

Joe

I am in complete agreement with Joe. This was a presumptious and judgemental statement.

Alice, Moderator

I had another thought as well. Outside of Genesis 1:28, "Be fruitful and multiply..." and some passages from the biblical wisdom literature that indicate the reward of a just man is many offspring, there really isn't much in Scripture that sees children as the primary end of marriage. In fact, in Genesis 2, when God decides to make Eve, He does so because "it is not good for man to be alone," and not a word is said about children. When St. Paul gives the corinthian Christians permission to marry, he does so only on the basis of economia to keep them from fornicating. No mention is made at all of how they have a duty to bear children. I think one could make a case that the production of children is a natural necessity, due to the Fall, but that it isn't necessarily a proper end of marriage at all. When St. Paul praises marriage in Ephesians, he does so because marriage is an icon of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Why is it that the only passages in Scripture that promote childbearing are the ones in the Old Testament that deal with kinship ties and kinship obligations?

These kinship ties are the very thing that Our Lord, and St. Paul, thought of as hindering one from fully embracing the Gospel. Jesus always had opposition from his blood related family and St. Paul talked about the fact that married people could not fully please God since they would be divided in their loyalties. By the way, this is also what led to the martyrdom of many Christians. The Graeco-Roman society saw the early Christians as anti-family and as being a menace to social stability. For more on this, see Robert Wilken, "The Early Christians as the Romans Saw Them." It is interesting that the societal conservatives were the biggest opponents of the early Christians and opposed them in the name of family values. Ironic I think.

Also, I think the blessing in Genesis, "Be fruitful and multiply..." which is given to all of creation is not a command but a blessing. Animals and plants can't be commanded. They have no will. The blessing given to human beings parallels the blessing given to the rest of creation. Just offering this as another perspective. God bless.

Joe