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

Joe,

It almost seems as though you are pitting the Old Testament against the New Testament. Our Lord said that he came not to abolish the Law but to fulfil it.

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric

Dr. Eric, to some extent, I'm playing devil's advocate. The status of the Old Testament was a live question in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It was the task of the fathers to find a way of interpreting the Old Testament that preserved what was essential in it. I think that, in general, the Fathers would have held that earthly promises and legal regulations of the Old Testament needed to be allegorized. Also, I think that there is a good bit of ambivalence in the New Testament toward the law. Ultimately, the Law is carried over in the New by spiritualizing it. Jesus fulfills the law in fulfilling its true intention, which deals with the heart. Everything dealing with the nation of Israel (circumcision, food laws, earthly promises, etc) was only provisional and an imperfect version of the law (the Epistle to the Hebrews says explicitly that we have a more perfect law in Christ). God bless.
Joe

Joe,

So, do you agree with the sources you've cited or do you not.

I don't.

But I also acknowledge that if one follows the fasting canons to a T, there are only about 180 days of the year for marital relations. This is assuming that the wife is not having her menses (unless that doesn't bother the couple), if they are doing NFP then fertile times can cut this down further if they are not trying to have babies at that time, and this is also assuming that she is not having a yeast infection or other vaginitis.

Theoretically, there could be very few days that a married couple who follow the Orthodox canons could actually be having relations.

God Bless You,

Dr. Eric

Dr. Eric,

I agree with the historical studies that these were indeed the views of the fathers. Do I agree with the fathers? Not entirely, and neither do any of the current Christian churches. On the issue of sexuality, there is a good deal of discontinuity between the fathers and contemporary views. My personal opinion is that the early Church was overly influenced by Pagan/Stoic notions and by the view that the end of the age has come. I think that it has taken a long time, but the Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) are finally coming around to a more balanced view of sexual love in marriage. But, I do think that it is important, as a matter of intellectual honesty, that those of us who have spent a good deal of time studying this, point out the discontinuity between what the Church taught and what is being taught now. This is very relevant because it cannot be assumed that Humanae Vitae is a summary of what the Church has always taught. Humanae Vitae is quite innovative and "liberal" so to speak. Once the Church said that it was morally permissible to attempt to avoid pregnancy while engaging in the sexual act (NFP), then the Church departed from its historic position. I understand the distinctions that natural law theorists make between contraception and NFP, but the church fathers would not have made such a distinction. St. Augustine condemns the use of the infertile period explicitly and there are numerous fathers who speak against those who have relations during mensus in order to avoid pregnancy. Ironically enough, our NFP teacher 12 years ago was talking about that time as a good time to have relations. And I think that the reason many people do not follow the Roman Catholic teaching against contraception is that the Roman Catholic church's teaching is confused and contradictory. But, that is another subject. My whole point in bringing all of this up was to say that it was not always the case that having a large family was a test of who was really a good Catholic (if it ever was a test). God bless.

Joe

Sometimes, say after a generation or so, the biological just trumps the merely logical...

-- John

Perhaps because both my wife and I have only one younger brother each (6 years younger in my case, 11 months younger in my wife's) and here we are.

We decided to stop having children after our third, and they are growing up fine, I do have hopes for a priestly or religious vocation among them, maybe two, but at the very least, I know they will be people of faith, no matter what path they choose in life.

My dad, on the other hand, is the youngest of 8 and he and my 7 aunts and uncles, fairly decent folks, all of them, have been practical (or formal) atheists most of their lives, even in spite my Grandma was a very religious (and holy, the two treats not always go hand-in-hand) woman.

In my experience, there is not a direct connection between the size of your family and you commitment to God, Church or even society in general.

Shalom,
Memo

The difference is in the motivation behind the couple's family size. It is just as likely that a couple with one or two children suffer greatly with infertility as it is that they are contracepting from where you stand. They might have married later (as is common right now) and be past child-bearing age. They might have grave reason to avoid pregnancy or childbirth.

I know a mother of a large family who spoils every one of her children rotten (in a bad way). Her motivation for having children is self-serving and it shows. I also know a mother of a single child who grieves not having more. Her son is as far from spoiled as you could get. I know a family with two who must stretch so far to put food on the table for their family that they continue to make the heart-breaking decision to use NFP to limit their family size. I know a couple with a single son who think families larger than 2 children are impossible to provide for, and that's with both parents working upper-middle class jobs. Their definition of providing is expensive parties, trips, presents, and other lavish material goods. There is such a wide range of situations and you seem to overlook that. You seem to be saying

1-2 children = contracepting, selfish, unholy, don't expect responsibility from the children, never say no, have the money for more but won't sacrifice to have any, don't teach their children about God or His Church, make up for their inadequacies with material goods

3-4 children = maybe unselfish, maybe holy, maybe not contracepting, maybe decent parents, maybe teaching about God and His Church

5+ children = holy, selfless, living according to the church's teaching, raising the children with responsibility and balance, teaching their children holiness

I think the observations you had among the college-age students who are in your class could have stood on their own without expanding it to include all the families in your temple and what you perceive is their motivation behind their family size. The two groups are necessarily different in a matter of ways which would make any scientist refuse to apply formal statistics from one group to the other, much less stereotypes and generalizations.

John,

I don't quite think you've got the gist of what I wrote.

CDL

Joe,

I'm not interested in an argument. Think what you wish.

CDL

And of course, so is yours. I'm not looking for an argument. I'm looking for help. When we have an abundance of priests and our church is growing and healthy I may be open to quibbling with you. Right now, I think the quibble is inappropriate.

CDL

I did not post this in order to have some secular argument about the size of families.

If no one wishes to discuss theology or faith or even philosophy so be it. I will not join the conversation here. I'm in several on other boards on this topic and am a bit disappointed that the one here isn't any better than it is.

I told my theology students that I was next to tears realizing that most lacked any purpose in life outside of serving self. I have no reason to be more optimistic in my observation. Instead I realize the depth of the struggle the Church has in converting the Church.

I hope this discussion improves, but if not, so be it.

CDL

Carson,

It is not clear to me what it is you are looking for. Are you looking for an apologetic argument to offer to your theology students that there is something greater than themselves to live for? I think that is where I would start. To me, the issue of contraception is relatively minor compared to the issue of choosing to live for God. If a person doesn't choose to take God seriously, then any argument about contraception and family size will fall on deaf ears.

Perhaps, you should have them read through Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, at least books 1-2, and then book 10. Aristotle makes very good arguments against the notion that pleasure is the highest end to be pursued. You could also have them read from Augustine's confessions or some Pascal? Basically, people need to feel that there is an infinite sized hole in their heart, or they will not convert. We all need conversion. For those young people who have not been properly catechized, they need to be brought to a point where they feel a genuine need for God. That's my two cents anyway. And I think that discussion of family size would just be a distraction. God bless.

Joe

Joe,

Thank you. I shall do my homework.

CDL

Awesome!

12 Tribes of Eric will require at least 12 Sons. Unless you have all sons, this will probably require about 24 kids total assuming a 50/50 boy/girl ratio.

Then again, it very well may take 13 sons. One son must be the head of the Priestly Tribe which does not count in the 12.

Well, Carson, as the son of parents who had (only) 2 children and as the father of (just) 3, I do not like the way you ask for help.

Shalom,
Memo