Sixteen Children … And Counting!

You’re 39, you’ve just delivered your sixteenth child, what are you going to do?

"I’m going to do it again!"

Is that a response that springs to mind for many mothers and many families? Probably not, at least in this day and age. (Although, centuries ago, it may have been. St. Therese of Lisieux was the last of nine children; St. Catherine of Siena was her mother’s twenty-fourth child.) But there are still a few modern families heroically open to life:

"Michelle Duggar just delivered her 16th child, and she’s already thinking about doing it again.

"Johannah Faith Duggar was born at 6:30 a.m. Tuesday and weighed 7 pounds, 6.5 ounces.

"The baby’s father, Jim Bob Duggar, a former state representative, said Wednesday that mother and child were doing well.

"He said Johannah’s birth was especially exciting because it was the first time in eight years the family has had a girl.

"Jim Bob Duggar, 40, said he and Michelle, 39, want more children.

"’We both just love children and we consider each a blessing from the Lord. I have asked Michelle if she wants more and she said yes, if the Lord wants to give us some she will accept them,’ he said."

GET THE STORY.

Sounds like the Duggars have filled one quiver and are working on another (cf. Ps. 127:3-5).

52 thoughts on “Sixteen Children … And Counting!”

  1. +J.M.J+
    Oh, they had another girl! Good; I’m sure the older sisters are thrilled.
    I saw the Duggars’ story on the Discovery Health channel a few times. Quite a family!
    One thing that didn’t sit well with me is the fact that they have their own “house church” (they’re Evangelicals) rather than going to church. They meet in their own house with another large family (nine kids) and sometimes a few other people. I guess as a Catholic I don’t like that idea, but I guess just about anything goes in the Evangelical subculture.
    In Jesu et Maria,

  3. “One thing that didn’t sit well with me is the fact that they have their own “house church” ”
    Considering the fact they they have a 7000 sq ft house with 10 bathrooms, they could have a house church, pool, auditorium, gymnasium, indoor parking lot & guest quarters…
    We have 9, and we’d get lost in a house that big.

  6. “Did this only make the news because the father is something of a politician?”
    We live in the same area of Arkansas as the Duggars and, no, this was news worthy both before and after he was elected to any office. I think it was after the birth of their tenth child that the coverage began to expand outside the state.
    Besides, being an Arkansas State Representative isn’t exactly glamorous.

  7. +J.M.J+
    >>>Considering the fact they they have a 7000 sq ft house with 10 bathrooms,
    Well, that’s their new house which they either just built or are still building. Their old house only had two bathrooms – not a good situation for such a huge family! Hence the reason they built a new one.
    In Jesu et Maria,

  8. God bless this family, but I have to admit I chuckled when I saw the father’s name was “Jim Bob”. Talk about walking into elitist stereotypes…

  9. My father-in-law (et al) live in Springdale. He commented “The family actually lives in Springdale, just down the street from our church … You drive by a window of sewing machines (they make their own clothes).
    Fascinating family. Amazing sacrifice. There has never been anything but praise for all
    of those kids.”
    Wonder why Mr. Jim-Bob got all the glory since all their names start with a “J”… what about Michelle and the myriad of M names? 🙂

  10. And to think that Senator DeWine only had eight kids. (Back when he was Greene County prosecutor, mostly.)

  11. I must attempted that I was tempted towards the sin of envy…and not just envy of a 7000 sq. ft. house. (Altho it sounds awfully appealing considering we have 6 kids, various visiting friends, three dogs and other assorted fauna living in a 1200 sq. ft. townhouse with one full bath. But, as I keep telling the kids, we’re living better than 99% of thw world…and little things like waiting to shower are what build character and make for marvelous childhood memories…)

  12. From what I hear about the house is they are building it themselves and it has taken several years. They don’t want to go into debt so they build when they can buy the materials. They are an impressive family–can we convert them?

  13. Trust me, when I spoke of the 7000 sq ft house with 10 bathrooms, I was spewing out of jealousy. I think this family is awesome!
    Now, we just need to tell them about the rosary…

  14. I am having a heck of a time finding a woman willing, not wanting, but merely willing to have one child.
    I guess I need to move south. People in New York City are weird.

  16. If the parents ever decided to protest some cause they have a litle army all set to go.
    While most people distance themselves from Fred Phelps because his message is a bit in your face, he has 12 children and they have 56 kids and this huge family protests all over the country. 11 of the 12 children are lawyers.
    His protests at funerals of fallen soldiers is over the top and in my mind very wrong.
    Can you imagine a family member killed in Iraq and at the funeral a band of protestors arrives whinning about how your relative is part of the problem of the gay culture in america. Unreal.

  17. I thought about the laundry and the legos involved in having 16 children and I had to go lie down and rest. 🙂

  18. I think that this family is to be applauded for putting aside the society’s materialistic tendencies. After watching the Discovery documentary on these kids, my (Baptist) husband is finally willing to try for our third child together. I told him it was just a case of relying on God to provide and being willing to make sacrifices for the kids!
    It was from that same show that I got my two boys to cooperate just like Mrs. Duggar does with her kids and their “Buddy System.” Who says everything on tv is bad? Ha ha ha!

  19. The Duggar’s family is so impressive – happy, neat, friendly looking children and two positive faith-filled parents. Oh how I wish we could have a whole lot of Catholic families like that! What an answer to the pro contraceptive, death believing, pro abortion, pro euthanasia, trendy, so called Catholic “sisters” and priests indoctrinating our children today in our so called Catholic schools. The Duggars live their faith and it shows in their faces.

  20. Actually I think this is just a couple who have recognied the sterility of the pill, contraceptives and NFP. Unless a grave reason exists, NFP is to be avoided, according to the Catholic Church.
    Now if they could recognize the One True Faith…

  21. It has been well promulgated by the Vatican, Catholic Answers writers, and others, that NFP may be used, according to the consciences of the parents, for “serious” reasons. They do not have to be grave.
    I have been very interested in this distinction since I am a new NFP learner myself.

  24. Fr. Harrison, and Catholic media outlets do not speak for the church.
    However, When the ARCHBISHOP of Chicago
    produces a booklet which says in three places that NFP is ALLOWED if a GRAVE reason exists, then Catholics can feel certain that is the case. Such booklet carries a Imprimatur, and Nihil Obstat.
    Please keep in mind that such matters are not comparable to a rule like a holy Day of Obligation. The Church can change such a rule. But with issues like NFP, that involve the sanctitiy of life and pro creation, the Catholic Church is not given a free hand. The fact is birth control is strongly condemned in the Bible, and only in grace cases is it allowed.
    I grant that today many Bishops and many priests promote it. In fact, even in the 1960’s priests would tell Catholics when asking about birth control, ” Whatever your conscious tells you”.
    They left out ” as long as it conforms to Catholic teaching.”
    Same with NFP.
    Catholics may practice it ,so long as the reason conforms to traditional Catholic teaching.
    And that says, grave.
    limiting children to buy a house, or a bigger house, or to maintain a certain standard of living or waiting for a time when finances are improved etc…are not grave reasons.
    If the wife was ill and a pregnancy would seriously weaken her health until she recovered her strenghth, that would be in line with a grave reason.
    It is estimated that 97% of USA annulments are in fact granted on grounds that wold be overturned by the Vatican, since in reality most American Annulments are voided by Rome when appealed.
    I believe the same is the case with NFP, because pro life people promote it so hard with ALL Catholics, when they do not know the proper
    teaching.
    Finally, NFP is to be practiced with permission of the Priest/ Confessor and one should receive a dispensation from the priest.
    Keep in mind 35% of Catholics practiced birth control in 1955. 85% in 1985.
    The fact that so many do it, does not change the law of God.

  25. +J.M.J+
    >>>Fr. Harrison, and Catholic media outlets do not speak for the church.
    Well, the Sacred Penitentiary most certainly does speak for the Church, and that’s what Fr. Harrison quotes in the article – if you read it. Based on your last post, which has absolutely nothing to do with the contents of the article I linked, I’m not sure you read it at all.
    In fact, Fr. Harrison (who is a very traditional priest, BTW) at the end of the article wishes that the Church would be a little more specific on what qualifies as a valid reason to use NFP. He is certainly not saying it is OK no matter what.
    Seriously, I suggest you read the article. You might even like it.
    In Jesu et Maria,

  26. NeoCon,
    Prescinding from what you’re arguing about, a nihil obstat and an imprimatur in this day and age signifies very little. There are a great many nasty books out there with a nihil obstat and an imprimatur. But even granting its value, all it means is that there’s the book contains no formal heresy, it doesn’t apply any agreement with the teachings of the book.
    Noone is claiming that a very restrictive position on NFP is heretical, so that book you cited doesn’t prove anything. So there are two schools of thought on NFP, one more restrictive, one less, and neither is formally heretical. Your point? Your citation fails to establish that one side trumps the other.

  27. Dear Rosemarie,
    The issue for Catholics is this. May Catholics use NFP as their chosen method to limit the number of children they have, because that practice suits their goals.
    The answer is no.
    when a grave reason exsits, it is lawful .
    I did not state what year the booklet I have was written. Let me say it was before Bernadin’s time.
    In matters of this kind, which go to the hear of Catholic doctrine and dogma, there is not a moving interputation of the issue.
    Just like Abortion will always be a mortal sin, evn if the life of the mother is in danger. Some issues are never subject to being revised for modern times.
    Lying, stealing adultery, etc… Birth control is one such issue.
    As to the Sacred Penitentiary, I know how it operates.
    The office allows a person to write and seek permission or guidance on certain matters. This office, does have permission to grant a dispensation to a person based on their own situation.
    The fact is NFP is something that should be kept in the confessional and a dispensation sought before practicing it.

  28. NeoCon,
    Regarding your view that a priestly dispensation is required for NFP, it’s nice that you think that, but you don’t have sufficient authority to back that up.
    It used to be standard to ask permission of your Confessor before going to communion, that’s no longer required. Would you advocate that as well?
    You’re argument about the immutability of the natural law does nothing to establish a positive law to seek priestly dispensation for things. What if someone lived in a country with no priests, eh?
    While it’s good to discuss these things with one’s confessor, it’s quite odious to impose an absolute obligation that has no basis in law or fact.

  29. The idea that a Catholic would be hard pressed to find a priest to confess to or seek a dispensation from is not a issue today.
    There has never been any requirmenet to ask permission to go to communion. Prior to 1903, that is before Pope Saint Pius X became pope, most persons only went once per week to communion.
    The reason a dispensation would have been sought would be to discuss with the priest if the reason was indeed grave.
    Did people do this, I do not know.
    The key point is thta I know that in many RCIA classes and paretning classes, NFP is the birth control method most often advocated.
    I attended a class in order to conduct research on this matter and it was the poistion of the instructor this is what the Catholic Church suggests.
    The instructor never once suggested it was to be used in grave situations.

  31. THE USCCB has authority to issue statements, but if those statements, of Doctrine, are not in line with Traditional Catholic teaching, Catholics are free to disregard them.
    This was noted in a encyclical written by John Paul II in 1998, in response to some radical elements within the the NCCB who tried to insert the document ” Always Our Children” into circulation with a stamp from the NCCB, to make it look like Church teaching.
    In that case, the NCCB never debated or voted on the matter, ( it was very pro homosexual , which makes sense since 3 homosexual consultants wrote it) but even if they had debated and voted on it, the fact it is at odds with traditional Catholic teaching makes it null and void.
    If the USCCB declared tomorrow that
    all Catholics who would like to to practice NFP are free to do so, that woud be a invalid statement.
    The real scandal in NFP is that it
    is the most promoted method of birth control
    within Catholic communities and that is wrong.
    In other words those who teach such a stance,
    are false teachers.

  32. Neoconspy,
    I have never heard the claim that couples need to consult a spiritual director. Could you please cite some acceptable sources on the subject?
    You’re right that using NFP without serious reasons is sinful, and you’re right that this needs to be made clear to the very tiny percentage of Catholics who care enough about their Church’s teaching on contraception to opt for NFP. However, you are wrong if you think the only reasons allowable for using NFP are life or death reasons, or absolute poverty. In fact, in his “Address to Midwives,” Pope Pius XII metions that “Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” ” are sufficient for spouses to use what he called “periodic continence.” There are two things two note from this quote:
    1) These grave reasons arise often (“not rarely,” in the Pope’s words), which you seem to be denying.
    2) These reasons are not just limited to health, or even to health and economic need; they include “social” reasons. This may very well mean that what is a grave reason in one society or one historical era would not be a grave reason in another time or place. A reasonable size for a family 100 years ago may not longer be a reasonable size for a family today, given social changes.
    “The real scandal in NFP is that it
    is the most promoted method of birth control
    within Catholic communities and that is wrong.”
    That’s wrong? NFP is the _only_ method of birth control allowed to Catholics, other than LAM (ovulation suppressed by ecological breastfeeding, which is obviously only a temporary means of spacing) or total abstinence. If you think it’s wrong for the Catholic community to promote NFP to couples who have need of avoiding conception, what should we be doing?
    The real scandal of NFP is that not enough people know what it is, how effective it is, or why it is radically different from contraception.

  33. Pardon my Protestant ignorance, but how does the Catholic Church reconcile the call to have as many children as possible with the practice of a celebate clergy and religious? Those Protestant denominations that believe it’s wrong to limit one’s fertility also regard lifelong singleness as suspect, either the result of selfishness to be condemned, or inability to find a spouse, which is to be pitied. By contrast, those Protestant denominations that regard lifelong singleness as a positive lifestyle choice regard contraception as morally acceptable (even those who condemn abortion) and say that the various Biblical calls to be fertile have to be understood in the context of the pre-Industrial-Revolution society in which it was given.
    And to be quite honest, both kinds of Protestant denominations tend to have unkind words for the Catholic Church. Those who believe we should have as many children as possible regard celibacy as a cruel desolation that robs the most devout of God’s gift of children, while the others see the Catholic opposition to contraception as a bunch of grumpy old men who aren’t “getting any” going around making rules to control the pleasure of those who are. (Don’t believe me? I remember people at our denomination’s church camp singing Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” routine, and none of the counselors called them down on it).
    And that doesn’t even touch the question of the legitimacy of the “life of the mother” exception on the abortion issue — even many Protestants who oppose abortion for any other issue are horrified by the Vatican’s refusal to allow a woman to save her own life by ending a pregnancy gone terribly wrong, regarding it as treating women as expendable wombs on feet.

  34. Leigh,
    On the issue of priestly celibacy, the priest is imitating Jesus (as well as Apostles like Paul) by remaining celibate “for the sake of the kingdom”~Mt. 19:12. Also, their celibacy points to a heavenly existance, where as Jesus told us, “after they are resurrected, no one will be married or given in marriage”~Mt. 22:30.
    On the issue of the life of the mother, there has always been exceptions such as ectopic pregnancy which allows for the taking of the child’s life, since both would die. If it is a matter of one or the other, then “no greater love has any man than he who is willing to lay down his life for another”. If the child can live, then no abortion should be done. If both would die, then it is permissable.

  35. The issue of consulting a confessor as to whether a person should practice NFP, is obvious.
    There is no book which lists the reasons. Traditional priests or Eastern Rite prists are often the place to turn for such help. But not SSPX, NOT CMRI, and NOT Opus Dei, for sure.
    Let me rephrase my point about NFP.
    The real scandal in many Catholic classes like RCIA, etc,, is that NFP is promoted without qualifications and all all encouraged to practice it.
    The is just one of the many abuses the post 1958 church has had to contend with.
    As to Novus Ordo Priests…
    How often does the average novus Ordo priest condemn abortion from the pulpit in one year ?
    How often the Pill ?
    Living together before marriage ?
    Condemn the viewing of pornography ?
    Counsels Catholics to stay within their faith and not marry non Catholics?
    Preach about devotions ?
    Preach about the need to convert thy neighbor?
    I recall one Novus Ordo priest who one time managed to preach on just one of these topics in a 3 year period.
    The Eastern Rite priest, where I attend usually covers each of the above 2 or 3 times a year, and many other toipics that remind the faithful the lives we lead today are always in need of improvement, and the temporal and spiritual dangers are everywhere
    The reason so many Novus Ordo attendees, and I do attend the novus Ordo at times during the year, do not know the faith, is that the FAITH is NOT TRANSMITTED.
    How many Catholics even realize the practice of not eating meat on FRIDAY WAS never abbrogated?
    One may substitute another pennace for it, but barely 1 in 10,000 know that.
    Imagine the mountain of responsibilty placed on the soul of the priest, in terms of how much he is to preach, teach and transmit.
    As young kids say often, is there anything more than peace and justice to this Catholic religion. ?
    Pray much for Catholic priests who are trapped
    in the Peace and Justice labyrinth.

  36. Leigh,
    I think the essence of that issue is not so much much the oddity of the Catholic practice so much as a question of what exactly the Protestant teaching solves. In fact, the Protestant ethic divorces marital relations from the religious. In other words, marital relations are reduced to a biological function. Children generally are considered a blessing or, in more liberal sects, merely a desired good, and the parents are considered passive actors or receivers of a blessing. This also is where the unnaturalness of celibacy is seen, i.e. it is unnatural to deny ourselves biological function. Note that this is not called unholy, but rather unnatural.
    Catholic tradition on the hand sees the procreation and rearing of children a holy enterprise. Not only is a child seen as a blessing, but the creation of a child is seen as a blessing, holy, and pleasing to God. Children created outside of this are historically, but not universally currently, seen as victims of tragic circumstaces. This is probably why one of the more common charitable works you will see are orphanages. This desire for holy things is not seen in a vacuum though. It is indeed permissable to forego holy things for temporal considerations. As a farmer may paritally forego his Sunday obligation of rest to feed his sheep, so a couple may forego coitus so as not to unnecessarily burden the family. (Short note to any readers: Unnecessarily burden is not a literary device. I mean unnecessarily burden.)
    Religious life is another holy good. I certainly agree with Barbara’s citations, but I will go in a slightly different direction. Children come with termporal obligations. Temporal obligations take away from holy obligations. For example, a holy obligation is caring for the sick and dying. This typically has been done by nuns. My mother was a nurse but certainly not a nun, and she participated in this. Needless to say, this work definately did interfece with her obligations to us children. She was not always there to make meals and do other less essential things. This is certainly not to condemn my mother, because I certainly love and appreciate her. However, if she did not have us children, she could have devoted more time to this holy work of mercy. By divorcing themselves from temporal things, religious are able to do greater work in holy things.

  37. As of 1970, nearly 75% of the WORLD’S healthcare was provided by the Catholic Church with its thousands of hospitals and clinics all over the world.
    Today, it is less than 40%
    Why ?
    Liberalism and modernism drove nuns from orders. Orders which supplied them to hospitals. and labor makes up 75% of the cost of running a hospital.
    In the 1970’s, the cost of having a child in a catholic hospital without insurance might have been $800.00. Today, it will cost you $13,000.
    paid in advance.

  38. “The issue of consulting a confessor as to whether a person should practice NFP, is obvious.”
    It may be obvious to you, but it’s not obvious to anyone else I’ve ever spoken to. You don’t have any support for it, do you? I looked through _Humanae Vitae_ this morning and I found nothing to support the claim. In fact, the encyclical seemed to admit that it was morally permissable for spouses to, “for defensible reasons, make a mutual and firm decision to avoid havinga child” provided that they used the “morally permissable means.” (Section 16). There’s nothing there about needing pastoral counsel to determine what are defensible reasons.
    The phrase “mutual and firm decision” highlights the problem with your assumption about the need to bring it to a confessor: you seem to be naively assuming that the decision to use NFP can or should be the decision of ONE of the spouses. But one person alone can’t use NFP- it very definitely takes two, and as a result it’s a decision that those two have to make together. (Your assumption that NFP use is a private spritual matter between a person and his/her confessor, more than anything else, suggests to me that you are single, and thus the question of NFP use is entirely academic to you. Forgive me if I am wrong and have assumed too much, but if I’m right, shouldn’t you defer to the greater experience of people who are actually married?) Unless you are suggesting that married couples should go to confession together so that they can tell “both sides of the story,” the priest in the confessional is simply not going to have adequate information to tell if their reasons are grave. He isn’t qualified to make the decision based on one side of the story.
    As for the rest of your post, what does it have to do with anything? I don’t care what you think about the “Novus Ordo” liturgy or Vatican II. Just please quit imposing an unnecessary burden on married Catholic couples. And don’t blame the Catholic Community for encouraging use of NFP: it is only following the directive of Pope Paul VI, who, in _Humanae Vitae_, said that the Church had a duty not only to inform couples of the immorality of artificial methods of birth control, but also to “offer them support in morally permissable methods of regulating family size” because “ours is a time when families and nations face harsh conditions.” (Section 19). In other words, those RCIA programs, pre-Cana programs, etc. which encourage NFP are just doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Please leave them alone and let them do their job.

  39. Not to mention that the pastor/confessor doesn’t have full information regarding your financial/medical/emotional history and therefore is not necessarily in a good position to advise as to whether your reasons for using NFP are serious.
    I include morning sickness and post partem depression with medical and emotional as they are a serious factor in if/when to have another, but not necessarily something one would bring up in confession, as they are not sinful.

  40. When the ARCHBISHOP of Chicago produces a booklet which says in three places that NFP is ALLOWED if a GRAVE reason exists, then Catholics can feel certain that is the case.
    When Popes and the Catechism teach that the reasons need NOT be grave, then Catholics can feel certain that the archbishop is using inaccurate terms or exaggeration. As Brier pointed out, Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae said that just and serious reasons are sufficient for NFP. Spacemouse rightly quotes Pope Pius XII. The Catechism, likewise, says “For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children.”
    The issue for Catholics is this. May Catholics use NFP as their chosen method to limit the number of children they have…?
    Yes. “Spouses have the inalienable right to found a family and to decide on the spacing of births and the number of children to be born… in accordance with the objective moral order which excludes recourse to contraception, sterilization, and abortion,” (Charter of the Rights of the Family article 3).
    Pardon my Protestant ignorance, but how does the Catholic Church reconcile the call to have as many children as possible with the practice of a celebate clergy and religious?
    Very easily: The Church does not even ask married people “to have as many children as possible,” much less people with the gift of celibacy.

  41. In fact, [Humanae Vitae] seemed to admit that it was morally permissable for spouses to, “for defensible reasons, make a mutual and firm decision to avoid havinga child” provided that they used the “morally permissable means.” (Section 16).
    Same teaching as the Vatican’s Charter of the Rights of the Family.

  42. The Catechisms of recent years are full of HERESY, and are NOT infallible.
    It stands to reason that when JP II’s name was applied to the Catechism, he may not have even read it.
    He has commissions to do that, and he trusts they will follow church teachings.
    But even if JP II read every word of the new catechsim, the fact is JP II believed many things that have never been taught in the church.
    The bigger issue for faithful Catholics is how to understand the recent NOVEL pronuncements of church officials that seem to contradict the Ancient Apostolic and Traditional Church teaching.
    Simple.
    Novel church teachings, should be seen in the light of the ancient, Apostolic and Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church.
    And if NEW and NOVEL teachings ( of DOCTRINE, not Discipline) oppose the Ancient Apostolic Teaching of the Magisterium, they are to be ignored.
    note the scale of words used to discuss NFP.
    GRAVE…
    Serious…
    Just…..
    When Catholic parents are taught they are allowed to decide how many children they want, they are being counselled to practice steriltity as they see fit.
    This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

  44. Is it time for the NFP debate again???
    I’m not even against NFP per se, but many of its advocates don’t seem to grasp one thing. We are not comparing like goods. Yes couples can forego having children for temporal reasons. We married folk are still called by God to be fruitful and multiply. We should be open to blessings. I wouldn’t argue that one should only have the Eucharist once a year, because that is all that is required. I wouldn’t argue that those who attend daily mass are no better than the Sunday-only-ies. That argument is implicit though. Yet there are many others out there who say people with many children are no more blessed than a couple with two. These same people often confuse people with an adapted Calvinist theology of not hell-bound and still heaven bound. Choices to child bear come in 3 forms: sinful, morally neutral, and sanctifying. It is an incredible grace to be blessed with a child. Why do so many NFP advocates speak as if having a child is morally neutral?

  45. Choices to follow the Catholic Church come in two, not three forms.
    Obedient os disobedient.
    A action is either sinful or not sinful.
    Catholics are permitted to follow their conscious, only if their actions conform to Catholic Moral teaching.
    With the recent advent of NFP, and more information of how to avoid becoming pregnaent, the opportunity for widespread abuse rears its head. It is therefore the job of religious ed teachers, and Pastors to teach this method is reserved for those unique cases that permit it.
    I submit that in most parsishes, NFP restrictions are thrown into the wind, and all Catholics without qualification are encouraged to practice it.
    This is a grave scandal.

  46. Wow. NeoCon, all I can say is that I’ve never heard an NFP discussion come up in a Catholic context WITHOUT it being in the light of the need for a serious reason. I guess in theory it could become a kind of “Catholic Birth Control,” but I’ve never actually heard it presented that way.
    I am really grateful that the Church permits us to space our children when circumstances warrant. I’ve had seven children in eleven years and consider them a great blessing from God. Yet during those years there have been times when I REALLY needed to take a little break between babies– sometimes for medical reasons, and sometimes for my own sanity, like when I had three under three, all in diapers and none talking yet. I resent your characterization of that as “practicing sterility.”
    I guess I’m sort of lost as to exactly what your quarrel is here. Do you feel that Humanae Vitae’s stated need for a “serious” or “just” reason constitutes heresy?? If you do, please just come out and say it so it’s clear where you stand.

  47. Why do so many NFP advocates speak as if having a child is morally neutral?
    I don’t, nor do I know any NFP advocates who do. Children are a blessing.
    That doesn’t mean that only grave reasons allow delaying or spacing children. The Church doesn’t teach that, and neither should other people.
    Do you feel that Humanae Vitae’s stated need for a “serious” or “just” reason constitutes heresy?? If you do, please just come out and say it so it’s clear where you stand.
    That appears to be the case. And I agree that if Neocon thinks Humanae Vitae teaches “heresy” he should just say so.

  48. What I will say about Humane Vitae, after studying it and the two reports which the commission produced, called the majority report and the minority report is this:
    Humane Vitae contains VERY LITTLE on the Traditional Catholic teaching when it comes to the issues of marriage and birth control.
    For example the first 6 sections talk about the changing situations in modern life ?
    One of the greatest enclycicals ever written
    on this subject, was written by Pope Pius XI,
    called Casti Connubi. Pius XI incorporated the teachng of St. Augustine when writing it.
    But Saints like St. Augustine and St. Thomas were ignored in the composition of Humane Vitae.
    Humane Vitae, for those caught up with particular words, does include the word SERIOUS in the document.
    Lets us put this word in the proper context in which we read it in the encyclical.
    NFP is allowed for those with serious MOTIVES.
    It does not abbrogate the perenial Catholic teaching, that the REASON, must be GRAVE.
    Here is how to understand this:
    Saving money for house in which to live is a serious motive, which might make a person think about practicing NFP.
    Practicing NFP because you want a bigger house , ( while a serious motive) is not a GRAVE reason.
    Thus, in responding to the question, do I belive that HV is heretical?
    No. When the commission was established to look into this issue, the great majoirty of observers were certain there would be a change in the Catholic position on this matter.
    When it did not change, it set off a revolt which is with us today.
    HV, while not heretical, is weak because rather than rely on the Traditional Catholic teachings contained in the minority report, it relied new reasons for holding to a no change policy in the Catholic teaching on birth control.

  50. Humane Vitae, for those caught up with particular words, does include the word SERIOUS in the document.
    And “serious” is not grave. Nor is “just,” which term Humanae Vitae also uses. So if you’re holding people to the “grave” standard, you’re putting a burden on people beyond the Church’s teaching.

  51. The Standard in HV was not changed. HV changed nothing in the Catholic understanding of Birth control. It was a huge blunder in tht it set up people for a change, which did not happpen.
    After all, why have a commission for a Catholic teaching that is well defined. In fact between 1816 and 1929, no fewer than Papal 19 letters or encyclicals were written condenming birth control.
    In this encyclical the Pope drew heavily from the majority report, and disregarded nearly all of the information in the minority report, which mirrored traditional Catholic teaching.
    The confusion for some is generated because Pope Paul VI left out some wording, which had been constant Church teaching.
    It is important note he did not try to change the wording, and this is seen as the work of the Holy Spirit.
    When moved by a serious motive, one may practice NFP if there is a grave reason.
    Because we know that it has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that a grave reason must exist, along with the fact that such matters as birth control are based on Doctrine rather than Discipline, and that Paul VI never attempted to abbrogate the teaching of a grave reason, it is held that such teaching remains unchanged. One can review a long list of Papal letters and encyclicals which demonstate HV
    changed nothing. It’s design flaw owes to ignoring Tradiotinal Catholic teaching, while relying on novelty.

  52. Per Rule 2, I am going to close this discussion, although also per Rule 2 it may surface again eventually. Thanks to everyone for contributing thought-provoking and interesting comments! 🙂

Comments are closed.