Large Family

[HappyWife]

In past threads on this forum, she has been extremely insulting to people who have large families, making fun of their hair, clothes and the way they cook.

I commented on the cooking, etc of one famous large family.  Now who's exaggerating?

 Technically "people" can be as little as two and since you were making fun of Jim Bob and Michelle you were making fun of "people" who had large families. There was also another family I remember but cannot think of the name.
  I think it is safe to say that these families are such an issue for you that they got a mention in your siggy...no denial will help you now.

[ErinIsNotNice]

In past threads on this forum, she has been extremely insulting to people who have large families, making fun of their hair, clothes and the way they cook.

I commented on the cooking, etc of one famous large family.  Now who's exaggerating?

 Technically "people" can be as little as two and since you were making fun of Jim Bob and Michelle you were making fun of "people" who had large families. There was also another family I remember but cannot think of the name.
  I think it is safe to say that these families are such an issue for you that they got a mention in your siggy...no denial will help you now.

That signature was not written by me, it was from ggreg.

[HappyWife]

LOL...well just the same.
  Although I do agree with you on a lot of that particular circumstance. We have a duty to be good witnesses to our Faith, and some of that...well....um...yeah.

[Mommie2Boys]

So theoretically,  I can still take the pill and be open to new life? I don't think that's how it works.

You're right, that's not how it works. The Pill is taken to ENSURE there will be no new life regardless of that puny 2% failure rate. When you use NFP, since there is nothing unnatural to bar the production of new life, you always have to accept that there is room for error and that God could send a child if He wished. However, since the Church has not come out with a document explicitly defining the term "open to life", I think this is falling onto personal opinions and is a moot point. I think this will have to be a "agree to disagree" issue. ;)
 

Really, how many kids Andrea Yates had is irrelevant. The press just LOVED using the amount of kids she had as the reason for her breakdown, which I find silly. She could have done the same thing with only 2 children. Would we have then blamed her breakdown on the fact that she had "too many" children?

Actually, it's very relevant. Her breakdown was imminent, yes, but brought about all the quicker by the stress and by refusing medication so that she could "have as many children as God could possibly send". She and her husband held to this ideal even in the face of her mental illness. And now, because of their twisted thinking, all of those beautiful children are dead. There is only so far you can take the "as many as God will allow" mantra. Many families pull it off beautifully and are perfectly suited to it! However, that doesn't go for everyone.

[Jenn]

You're right, that's not how it works. The Pill is taken to ENSURE there will be no new life regardless of that puny 2% failure rate. When you use NFP, since there is nothing unnatural to bar the production of new life, you always have to accept that there is room for error and that God could send a child if He wished. However, since the Church has not come out with a document explicitly defining the term "open to life", I think this is falling onto personal opinions and is a moot point. I think this will have to be a "agree to disagree" issue. ;)

But you see, that has been my entire point. No matter what method you are using, if you are trying to avoid conception, then you aren't really being open to new life. I never distinguished between "natural" and "unnatural" methods. As I've said before, being open to life isn't just about physical things. It's also about your mindset.

Actually, it's very relevant. Her breakdown was imminent, yes, but brought about all the quicker by the stress and by refusing medication so that she could "have as many children as God could possibly send". She and her husband held to this ideal even in the face of her mental illness. And now, because of their twisted thinking, all of those beautiful children are dead. There is only so far you can take the "as many as God will allow" mantra. Many families pull it off beautifully and are perfectly suited to it! However, that doesn't go for everyone.

First of all, we cannot forget that Andrea Yates turned her back on Catholicism -the faith she was raised in.  Some trivia which is very revealing:

In the years preceding the quintuple-murder, Rusty and Andrea made the acquaintance of a sharp-tongued, volatile preacher by the name of Michael Woroniecki. He preached with fervor the wickedness of Eve and of all women, and insisted that if a mother did not bring up her children in the ways of Jesus Christ, she and her children were bound for Hell. Andrea Yates was captivated and convinced, and she would later reference some of Woroniecki's statements when she testified in court.

So this woman, who had been raised a Catholic, not only turned her back on her faith, but became a devout follower of a man who preached the wickedness of women among other things. I seriously doubt that her main problem was 5 children.

[ErinIsNotNice]

But you see, that has been my entire point. No matter what method you are using, if you are trying to avoid conception, then you aren't really being open to new life. I never distinguished between "natural" and "unnatural" methods. As I've said before, being open to life isn't just about physical things. It's also about your mindset.

If this is your thinking, then there is no point discussing the subject with you, because in your mind any avoidance of conception is wrong.  The Church disagrees however.

[Heliodora]

If this is your thinking, then there is no point discussing the subject with you, because in your mind any avoidance of conception is wrong.  The Church disagrees however.

The Catholic Church teaches, however, that avoiding pregnancy- for any reason that isn't grave is a sin.

[ErinIsNotNice]

If this is your thinking, then there is no point discussing the subject with you, because in your mind any avoidance of conception is wrong.  The Church disagrees however.

The Catholic Church teaches, however, that avoiding pregnancy- for any reason that isn't grave is a sin.

The Church's word is "just" not "grave".  Like a traditional priest told me, you don't have to be on death's door or homeless.

[Heliodora]

The Catholic Church teaches, however, that avoiding pregnancy- for any reason that isn't grave is a sin.

The Church's word is "just" not "grave".  Like a traditional priest told me, you don't have to be on death's door or homeless.

I have never, ever seen a translation that read, "just."  I have always seen the word "grave."  I suppose you like the word "just" because you can "justify" more.  Do you have the original Latin? 

You still haven't proved that, according to the Church, married couples must plan their families.

[ErinIsNotNice]

The Catholic Church teaches, however, that avoiding pregnancy- for any reason that isn't grave is a sin.

The Church's word is "just" not "grave".  Like a traditional priest told me, you don't have to be on death's door or homeless.

I have never, ever seen a translation that read, "just."  I have always seen the word "grave."  I suppose you like the word "just" because you can "justify" more.  Do you have the original Latin?  

You still haven't proved that, according to the Church, married couples must plan their families.

Here's an article about the mistranslation that lead to the use of the word "grave":
http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/bonilla.htm

It contains the original Latin.