The Churchâ??s Changing Position On Birth Control

[LDSToronto]

Is there some requirement to "live middle class"? Is this a new Temple Recommend Interview question? I must have missed it.

Lehi

That's an interesting thing to say and I like where this conversation is going because now I think we can move to an neat question: What is the minimal set of requirements necessary to ensure that a married couple can successfully raise an unlimited (well, naturally, biologically limited) number of children into this world?

H.

[LeSellers]

That's an interesting thing to say and I like where this conversation is going because now I think we can move to an neat question: What is the minimal set of requirements necessary to ensure that a married couple can successfully raise an unlimited (well, naturally, biologically limited) number of children into this world?

That will vary broadly among families.

What is at issue is the level the parents expect to live, and how they value their economic "lifestyle" in contrast to their valuation of children and raising a righteous posterity.

Lehi

[LDSToronto]

That will vary broadly among families.

What is at issue is the level the parents expect to live, and how they value their economic "lifestyle" in contrast to their valuation of children and raising a righteous posterity.

Ok. But that seems to conflict with what you had said earlier, that from generation to generation the cost of raising children doesn't change. So, I'm interested in hearing what that minimal set of costs is, from your experience,that would ensure success.

H.

[LeSellers]

I'm interested in hearing what that minimal set of costs is, from your experience,that would ensure success.

As I said, this will vary broadly from family to family. There is no way I or anyone else can say what it would take.

Rather than setting a set of costs, we could define the minimum set of needs for a family.

• A mommy and a daddy who love them, and respect them as individuals and as children of God, who value them as members of their family.
  
• Food, nutritious and adequate in caloric content. Oatmeal, Wheatina, home-raised goats or cow providing the milk (or raw milk to avoid allergies and other illnesses), home grown vegetables and fruit supplemented by stuff from the store, etc.
  
• Clothing, neat and clean. Fits reasonably well. Home-grown meat form time to time, and eggs from the family hens, etc.
  
• Housing, a bed for each child (although not necessarily a separate bed for each child — it was common until the 1960s for children to share a bed until they were in their early teens), a place to read, and a place to eat, preferably as a family unit, and warmth (or coolth — although again, not mandatory in most cases; Las Vegas might be an exception) to prevent illness, etc.
  
• Transportation or reducing the need for it. I seat belt for each family member.
  
• A library (public if needs be) and a respect for reading and thinking, etc.
  
• etc.
  
• etc.
  

There are people who live reasonably well with several children on less than $10,000/year. It takes much dedication, it takes creativity, it takes daring, and it takes more than wishing, but it is more than possible. These people have savings, too.

The family who just had their 17^th (aIr) child last year (not LDS btw) wasn't "rich", but they managed rather well.

It simply is a lie to say that it takes $200,000 to raise a large family. It takes $200,000 to raise a large, wasteful, fashion-conscious "family".

Why is it that the rich kids from Sandy, Utah, are the ones who can't hack it in the mission field? They miss their cell phone, their cars, their designer clothes, their Wiis, their computers, their stuff. They don;t have testimonies, they don't have dedication, they do not have guts. But they have diamond nose rings or whatever.

Our five sons all served missions, our seven children all married in the Temple. All of our 21 grandchildren are being raised in faithful homes. We have, among our 14 children (and -in law), nine returned missionaries.

Did we and do we have any problems? Don't be absurd, of course we did, and we will for ever. "Life" is "problems". Do any families who have money to burn, as it were, have similar success stories? Probably. I know that Ann and Mitt Romney have a great posterity. But money is not the answer, it isn't even the question.

It doesn't take all the fancy doodads and the hoopla the destroy-Western-families people print to raise strong, happy, successful children. Money might help with some issues, but it will not make parenting, true parenting, any easier. That takes time, dedication, and love without stint or measure. And, yes, you can love "many" as much as you love "few": yajesgottawanna.

Lehi

[katherine the great]

As I said, this will vary broadly from family to family. There is no way I or anyone else can say what it would take.

Rather than setting a set of costs, we could define the minimum set of needs for a family.

• A mommy and a daddy who love them, and respect them as individuals and as children of God, who value them as members of their family.
  
• Food, nutritious and adequate in caloric content. Oatmeal, Wheatina, home-raised goats or cow providing the milk (or raw milk to avoid allergies and other illnesses), home grown vegetables and fruit supplemented by stuff from the store, etc.
  
• Clothing, neat and clean. Fits reasonably well. Home-grown meat form time to time, and eggs from the family hens, etc.
  
• Housing, a bed for each child (although not necessarily a separate bed for each child ? it was common until the 1960s for children to share a bed until they were in their early teens), a place to read, and a place to eat, preferably as a family unit, and warmth (or coolth ? although again, not mandatory in most cases; Las Vegas might be an exception) to prevent illness, etc.
  
• Transportation or reducing the need for it. I seat belt for each family member.
  
• A library (public if needs be) and a respect for reading and thinking, etc.
  
• etc.
  
• etc.
  

There are people who live reasonably well with several children on less than $10,000/year. It takes much dedication, it takes creativity, it takes daring, and it takes more than wishing, but it is more than possible. These people have savings, too.

The family who just has their 17^th (aIr) child last year (not LDS btw) wasn't "rich", but they managed rather well.

It simply is a lie to say that it takes $200,000 to raise a large family. It takes $200,000 to raise a large, wasteful, fashion-conscious "family".

Why is it that the rich kids from Sandy, Utah, are the ones who can't hack it in the mission field? They miss their cell phone, their cars, their designer clothes, their Wiis, their computers, their stuff. They don;t have testimonies, they don't have dedication, they do not have guts. But they have diamond nose rings or whatever.

Our five sons all served missions, our seven children all married in the Temple. All of our 21 grandchildren are being raised in faithful homes. We have, among our 14 children (and -in law), nine returned missionaries.

Did we and did we have any problems? Don't be absurd, of course we did, and we will for ever. "Life" is "problems". Do any families who have money to burn, as it were, have similar success stories? Probably. I know that Ann and Mitt Romney have a great posterity. But money is not the answer, it isn't even the question.

It doesn't take all the fancy doodads and the hoopla the destroy-Western-families people print to raise strong, happy, successful children. Money might help with some issues, but it will not make parenting, true parenting, any easier. That takes time, dedication, and love without stint or measure. And, yes, you can love ""many as much as you love "few": yajesgottawanna.

Lehi

Again with the self congratulations...

[LeSellers]

that seems to conflict with what you had said earlier, that from generation to generation the cost of raising children doesn't change.

If I said that, I am sorry.

The cost of raising children has fallen over the generations.

Food is cheaper than it has ever been.

Clothing is cheaper than it has ever been.

Housing is about the same, per sq ft, as it has ever been.

Nearly everything is cheaper, controlled for inflation, than it has ever been. Everything except taxes and medicine (which is both more expensive and less effective in many areas).

What is more expensive is the amount of stuff people assume they need, and their inability to provide their own stuff.

My mother, a fair seamstress, made fifteen shirts every year in September. They were identical (except for size and a clever mark sewn into the pocket, one for each of the five of us boys). Fewer and fewer women will tolerate sewing nowadays.

We each got a new pair of shoes every six months. The new one was "school" (ugh!) and Church, the old one became "play".

My Jacquie baked bread for 15

[LeSellers]

Again with the self congratulations...

"Write what you know."

First rule of good writing.

It ain't braggin' if you done it.

Lehi

[3DOP]

katherine, speaking of the old timer

Again with the self congratulations...

3DOP

I can see how you might think so. But here's a guy, I should say a man, who has lived a while and has sacrificed to do what he thought was right. As he gets older, it gives him greater joy than ever. He is so happy now. And it is hard to sit quietly listening to young people dismissively talk about things he knows and understands. I am probably just a little younger than Lehi. We weren't Catholic at the time or things would have been different. Still, I regret the children that we missed because we deliberately avoided having them. I wish a Lehi had taken me aside for a few words. I appreciate Lehi's determination to maintain what I now perceive as well to be the truth, even at the cost of being accused of magnifying himself. And he probably is a little proud. That doesn't make him wrong. It doesn't even make him a jerk. I have all kinds of sneaky ways of dropping bits of information here and there to try to make myself look good for others. I don't guess we're the only two like that around here. We shouldn't be like that but here somebody opens up a topic that tempts a good 'ol guy like this to really beat his chest a little...and he does. I haven't noticed him a lot before, maybe he is always thumping his chest. Oh well...it sounds like he's done a few things right.

He could probably be more effective with a little sympathy. Obviously, goats and chickens aren't God's will for everybody. But overall, I think he has to be raising some good points. Are we really saying that we are less affluent than our parents and grandparents were? I can't believe that. I fear we think a little too much about this life and worldly comforts. If we really have faith, ALL of that pales in light of eternity. And for Catholic and Mormon...the more the merrier...No?

[LeSellers]

But here's a guy, I should say a man, who has lived a while and has sacrificed to do what he thought was right. As he gets older, it gives him greater joy than ever. He is so happy now. And it is hard to sit quietly listening to young people dismissively talk about things he knows and understands.

You have it nailed.

I regret the children that we missed because we deliberately avoided having them. I wish a Lehi had taken me aside for a few words.

I wish I could make it easier, softer, more pleasant to the ear. But the position I take is not the popular one, and it is, as I have said, expensive to raise children, now as ever. But it is worth it on so many levels. We have seven children who will take care of us if it ever becomes necessary. Sad to say, many people cannot rely on that.

he probably is a little proud. ... It doesn't even make him a jerk. ... Oh well...it sounds like he's done a few things right.

I have done one, at least: I chose their mother. And, for what it's worth, the vast majority of any praise for our family's accomplishments go to her. Any light in which I bask originates with my Jacquie.

He could probably be more effective with a little sympathy.

Mine is not the gift of the soft answer or the velvet word. I am a hard man, and shoot from the hip, as it were. The issues that loom large before my eyes are all tied to either my family or my Church. I take no quarter, and I give none.

Thank you for your kind words. While I cannot see any reconciliation theologically between our positions, I both admire and respect you and your dedication to your positions. There are many of whom I cannot say the same.

Most sincerely,

Lehi

[Log]

It's too bad citing uncanonized words of dead prophets in support of a position is effectively verboten on this board, or LeSellers would probably appear even more unpleasant to certain posters.

[why me]

Perhaps the United States lds should spend some time thinking how to reform the American health care system. To make it cheaper for the majority of Americans would be very nice. In Europe, babies are affordable but still very few in the old EU are having babies. But I can see if America had the European system, perhaps more lds would have more babies. It would be a win-win.

[thesometimesaint]

LeSellers:

I've been poor and I've been middle class. Middle class is better.

[katherine the great]

"Write what you know."

First rule of good writing.

Lehi

Now you are claiming to be a good writer as well?

[Analytics]

Perhaps the United States lds should spend some time thinking how to reform the American health care system. To make it cheaper for the majority of Americans would be very nice. In Europe, babies are affordable but still very few in the old EU are having babies. But I can see if America had the European system, perhaps more lds would have more babies. It would be a win-win.

That's an interesting point. It raises an interesting question about why so many Mormons are conservative on this issue. Are they against â??socialized medicineâ? because they really think that our healthcare system ought to be a business geared towards making insurance companies, lawyers, and healthcare providers very wealthy? Or are they against â??socialized medicineâ? because the current system makes babies prohibitively expensive, thus providing an excuse for family planning?

[katherine the great]

That's an interesting point. It raises an interesting question about why so many Mormons are conservative on this issue. Are they against ?socialized medicine? because they really think that our healthcare system ought to be a business geared towards making insurance companies, lawyers, and healthcare providers very wealthy? Or are they against medicine? because the current system makes babies prohibitively expensive, thus providing an excuse for family planning?

Is this a joke?

[Analytics]

Is this a joke?

Satire, really.

[3DOP]

Thank you for your kind words. While I cannot see any reconciliation theologically between our positions, I both admire and respect you and your dedication to your positions. There are many of whom I cannot say the same.

Most sincerely,

Lehi

Well Lehi...it would seem that you are out of step with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints too. Perhaps Catholics have invested a bit more than the Mormons, having issued the theology and philosophy behind why artificial birth control is wrong. For those Catholics who consult what has been explained, the reasoning is persuasive and is not affected by the rising price of diapers. Our doctrine is not going to change from what Pius XI taught when this issue arose among Christians in the 30's.

From the hip,

3DOP

[bluebell]

Well Lehi...it would seem that you are out of step with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints too. Perhaps Catholics have invested a bit more than the Mormons, having issued the theology and philosophy behind why artificial birth control is wrong. For those Catholics who consult what has been explained, the reasoning is persuasive and is not affected by the rising price of diapers. Our doctrine is not going to change from what Pius XI taught when this issue arose among Christians in the 30's.

From the hip,

3DOP

I was under the impression, though i could very much be wrong, that the Catholic church supported that limiting births via natural family planning (ie. not having relations during the women's fertile days each month) was completely fine.

If that's true (and again, it may not be), then wouldn't that suggest that the Catholic church believes that controling the number of births in a family is fine as long as it's done in a certain way?

I'm honestly asking.

[3DOP]

bluebell

I was under the impression, though i could very much be wrong, that the Catholic church supported that limiting births via natural family planning (ie. not having relations during the women's fertile days each month) was completely fine.

3DOP

Hi bluebell,

That is conditionally correct. That is why I carefully expressed opposition to artificial birth control only, which is never permissible. Regarding the restriction of conjugal relations to the sterile period...

There are serious motives, such as those often mentioned in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic, and social "indications," that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act. From this it follows that observing the non-fertile periods alone can be lawful only under a moral aspect...if, according to a rational and just judgment, there are no similar grave reasons of a personal nature or deriving from external circumstances, then the determination to avoid habitually the fecundity of the union while at the same time to continue fully satisying their sensuality, can be derived only from a false appreciation of life and from reasons having nothing to do with proper ethical laws.

---Pope Pius XII, 1951, Apostolate of the Midwife

He is reasoning here that since it is permissible for serious reasons to abstain completely from the marriage act, it follows that under certain conditions, it could be permissible to have relations during the sterile period only.

bluebell

If that's true (and again, it may not be), then wouldn't that suggest that the Catholic church believes that controling the number of births in a family is fine as long as it's done in a certain way?

3DOP

Limiting numbers of births "as long as its done in a certain way" is also conditionally correct.

The Church reasons that if we are so designed as to naturally have many children, then it is ordinarily an expression of God's will, since He made us this way. Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae which continued the thoughts expressed by Pius XII. Pope John Paul II, also referring to his predecessors, in his series of Wednesday catecheses now generally known as The Theology of the Body, explains the difference between artificial and natural birth control:

The encyclical emphasizes especially that "between the two cases there is an essential difference" (HV 16), and therefore a difference of an ethical nature: "In the first case married couples rightly use a facility provided them by nature; in the other case, they obstruct the natural development of the generative process." (HV 16)

---Pope John Paul II, General Audience of Aug 8, 1984, compiled as Theology of the Body, Human Love in the Divine Plan, Daughters of St. Paul (1997), p. 395

[thesometimesaint]

3DOP:

One man conditional is another mans reason.

[bluebell]

bluebell

I was under the impression, though i could very much be wrong, that the Catholic church supported that limiting births via natural family planning (ie. not having relations during the women's fertile days each month) was completely fine.

3DOP

Hi bluebell,

That is conditionally correct. That is why I carefully expressed opposition to artificial birth control only, which is never permissible. Regarding the restriction of conjugal relations to the sterile period...---Pope Pius XII, 1951, Apostolate of the Midwife

He is reasoning here that since it is permissible for serious reasons to abstain completely from the marriage act, it follows that under certain conditions, it could be permissible to have relations during the sterile period only.

bluebell

If that's true (and again, it may not be), then wouldn't that suggest that the Catholic church believes that controling the number of births in a family is fine as long as it's done in a certain way?

3DOP

Limiting numbers of births "as long as its done in a certain way" is also conditionally correct.

The Church reasons that if we are so designed as to naturally have many children, then it is ordinarily an expression of God's will, since He made us this way. Pope Paul VI wrote the encyclical Humanae Vitae which continued the thoughts expressed by Pius XII. Pope John Paul II, also referring to his predecessors, in his series of Wednesday catecheses now generally known as The Theology of the Body, explains the difference between artificial and natural birth control: ---Pope John Paul II, General Audience of Aug 8, 1984, compiled as Theology of the Body, Human Love in the Divine Plan, Daughters of St. Paul (1997), p. 395

Good to know i wasn't completely out in left field.

Is this a question only of the types of birth control used then, because when speaking to other Catholics, it's never come across that way. It's always come across as if the object (controling births) is the problem and not the means (which kind of birth control is used).

If the LDS church came out that the number of children that a couple brings into the world is between them and God, though we should not limit our children for unrighteous reasons (what the church teaches right now) and that practicing NFP as birth control can be acceptable to God (different than what is currently taught concerning how to control births), then would Catholics still have a problem with that?

I'm trying to understand more clearly where the disagreement between our religions with this topic truly lies.

[katherine the great]

Satire, really.

I don't doubt there are people out there who might try to argue that. Its almost as absurd as arguing that LDS people practice birth control in order to shop at Nordstrom.

[thesometimesaint]

katherine the great:

Nordstrom's Rack maybe.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek.

[LeSellers]

I don't doubt there are people out there who might try to argue that. Its almost as absurd as arguing that LDS people practice birth control in order to shop at Nordstrom.

I believe that you are here putting words in my mouth.

Lehi

[3DOP]

Good to know i wasn't completely out in left field.

Is this a question only of the types of birth control used then, because when speaking to other Catholics, it's never come across that way. It's always come across as if the object (controling births) is the problem and not the means (which kind of birth control is used).

If the LDS church came out that the number of children that a couple brings into the world is between them and God, though we should not limit our children for unrighteous reasons (what the church teaches right now) and that practicing NFP as birth control can be acceptable to God (different than what is currently taught concerning how to control births), then would Catholics still have a problem with that?

I'm trying to understand more clearly where the disagreement between our religions with this topic truly lies.

Hey again bluebell,

Either can be the problem. If I understand you correctly, your hypothetical which would permit NFP only as the means would match my understanding.

However, the churches have to face the fact that we live in a world that is increasingly hostile to the fertility of human life, and we need to reiterate more than ever before how large families can be a great blessing to parents and to a society that frowns upon them. What 30 year old Dad with four kids wants to hear the snickers and smart aleck remarks of the typical people at work who have been taught that large families selfishly consume the earth's limited resources? It takes a bit of courage to ignore the opposition of the world in this matter. The churches have a responsibility to make sure that couples are refraining because of serious reasons, not embarrassment, or wishes for an unnecessary standard of material prosperity.