Life in a Nutshell
Got a comment on this post, which I only realized last night. I wanted to open it up for any to comment on, since I thought it was an intersting observation.
Here is the belated comment from "Anon" :
I agree with you that most people are selfish when it comes to children -- they don't want to be bothered and think of kids as a nuisance. A big Grrr to them!! (And wow, I can't believe what that silly woman said to you!)
However, I know that there are others out there (I'm one of them) who believe that there *is* such a thing as having too many, and it's not for selfish reasons at all. It seems to me that I'd be doing my kids a disservice if I had "too many", because I wouldn't have enough time to give them the one-on-one attention they deserve. They'd start to become lost in the crowd and would lose their own precious identity. I'm sure you've heard this before and disagree with me completely, but I thought I'd throw it out there. And BTW, I'm not talking about 6, 7 or 8 kids... but once a couple starts to have 10 or so, that seems to be a bit ridiculous. It then seems to become sort of a personal contest, kinda like, "Am I gonna get to hit #13??"
My mother had 6 and my DH's mother had 7. Each of my parents came from families with 10 kids. In other words, I know what big families are and I love being a part of them. I just think that there is a point where it starts to become not about the children anymore, but rather having children just for the sake of having them. (Sorry for rambling.)
Whaddaya think?
I have a few opinions...
My first thought was, are there really people who have kids for the notoriety? Then I remembered an encounter I had with a woman at my son's t-ball game, and she only had 4 kids! Her attitude was a kind of "yay me" and she proceeded to talk about her little charges as if they were possessions, not people. She was trying to develop this comraderie with me in our "crazy lives" of having all of these kids, yada yada. I just remember being totally horrified at the way she was depicting our (respective) lives, while noticing how utterly miserable her kids looked. Now, maybe the little guys were tired, but I was not impressed, and wanted no part in her world of big families. Again, and she only had 4, not 13!
I always wonder, how do you know when enough is enough? We're trying to do God's will, using NFP, being open to life, trusting Him to give us the grace to raise our children....but knowing we have limitations! When do we say, ok, I've reached the limit, without feeling selfish for calling it quits? I haven't reached that point yet, but I do have a friend who has 4, and they have reached that decision. And I'm dying to ask her, how do you know, but I guess that it's up to each family. I just hope that God makes it abundantly clear to me. The last thing I want to do is put my selfishness above His will for me.
Well, that was rather tangential. OK, anon, it's hard enough to make that decision for my own family; how could you even begin to point to another family and say that they have too many kids? Which child would you say should not exist? I'm not trying to be harsh, just wondering how one could form that opinion, unless you have an experience of dealing with a family that has "too many" children...
Anyone else?
7 comments:
As someone who grew up in a family of ten children, and who has known quite a few other people from similarly large families, I would have to say that this is simply not in conformity with reality. Having nine siblings did not mean any of us got lost in the shuffle, that we lost our sense of identity, or that we didn't get enough one-on-one time. I cannot think of a single respect in which it would have been better if my parents had had fewer children. Nor did other large families of my acquaintance have any such issues.
The more I think about this question, the more I do NOT agree with anon at all! I wish he/she would do a little more explaining.
I have not known a single instance where I would have thought, "That person has too many kids..." even the t-ball woman could obviously handle her family size. The question would have to become...but how well? And which one of us would be willing to undergo scrutiny to decide if we are "good enough" to be a parent? I certainly know my downfalls!
Furthermore,it seems to me that in all of the large families I know, the kids are normal, and well-adjusted, and, I would say, even more mature, than most!
And then there's the whole "God's Will" thing....and St. Katherine of Sienna being, what, #22 in her family?
I don't think the thing to consider here is how to decide whether or not someone has too many kids, but rather, are they following Catholic teaching regarding family size. One of my favorite authors, Dr. Gregory Popcak, has a great point in his book "Parenting with Grace", when he says, "No couple has the right to criticize or pressure another couple to have fewer or more children than God is calling them to have. It is the height of pride to ordain yourself to do what the Church, in her wisdom, prevents herself from doing." In other words, the Church doesn't give a magic number, so neither should we.
That having been said, however, we have to remember that virtue is in the mean. And we can recognize that mean and it's sinful extremes without judging. People who I like to call "providentialists" (people who embrace the Quiverfull philosophy about children) are just as much in error as people who contracept, in my opinion. Providentialists refuse to exercise the virtue of prudence (that all important virtue that directs the others) with regard to family planning, and they fall prey to the sin of presumption. The Church clearly teaches, through Gaudium et Spes, that couples MUST exercise the virtue of prudence over their decisions on family size. To close oneself off completely through contraception is wrong, and to refuse to use reason, prudence and good jugement about one's abilities, financial means, and particular family circumstances is wrong, too. Gaudium et Spes specifically says that the welfare of the children one already has, and ones that can be forseen, must be considered. Yes, we must be generous and selfless, but must exercise prudence too. I think many catholics fall prey to this 'providentialist' thinking....believing that if they completely abandon all family planning issues to God, He will absolutely provide for all they need. I don't think that's true...it's presumptuous, it's a refusal to use one's reason to consider the good of your family. It's like saying, "Well, if God wants me to have enough money to support my family, He will give it to me, so I'd better not interfere..better not try to find the best job or make a budget or anything. God is in control." Or if one was very ill, saying, "If God wants me to be healed, He will heal me. I won't interfere with His work in my life by consulting doctors or looking for treatments." We would never dream of abandoning reason and good judgement that way; why would we do this with regard to the most precious thing, our children?
I'm not saying all large families are like this. I withold judgement on ALL families, having been the target of judgement myself. But the Duggars are of the "Quiverfull" Philosophy, as you can read on their website. Many large Christian families are, and the philosphy simply is not in line with Catholic teaching. Therefore, I have a problem with it and families who embrace it, the same way that I have a problem with people who embrace contraception. 16 children all under the age of 17 does not seem prudent to me. I allow the possibility that they really did discern that God wanted this for their family. But I find it nearly impossible to see how these 2 parents are able to tend to the spiritual, mental, intellectual and physical needs of every single child in that family, and do it well. Simple math tells you that there are only 24 hours in a day, 2 parents, and 16 kids. Babies and toddlers need different kinds of time/attetion/bonding than school-age kids, than teens. My feeling is that somebody, by the sheer restriction of time, is getting missed. Unless all these kids are of the "easiest" kind, with no special or individual needs, I just don't see it. If they had a full time maid, cook, and tutor...then maybe. But she homeschools them all, and they do their own cooking and cleaning. We all know what that's like with 2 or 5, or whatever number you have. I've read their "typical day" description on their website, and it baffles me.
I guess I also have a problem with pro-life catholics who will latch on to any and every seemingly "pro-life" family or story, without discerning whether or not they are truly embracing catholic, pro-life teaching. Having as many babies as one can physically have, as fast as one can, is no more the ideal that the Church teaches than a perfectly contracepted family of 4. This is just a personal beef...I'm sure catholics do it because there are few enough examples of large families and pro-life families. But I'd like to see a litle discernment about who we 'canonize' like this.
Okay, way too long...but you asked for comments and discussion. :) These are just my opinons, from having seen families of every size...small and huge...close up.I just think that the important virtue of prudence is sometimes being completely abandoned when it comes to this issue, and Church teaching here being distorted.
Just FYI, I'm a different anonymous than the original anonymous poster, just to clarify.
Anon:
First of all, while it is true as a general principle that virtue lies in a mean, this in no way means that the virtuous action with respect to children is to have somewhere between none and as many as you can. This would be to completely misunderstand the principle; it would be like saying that the virtuous degree of charity is somewhere in between none and as much as you can show. Rather, it only implies that the virtuous action with respect to family planning lies somewhere between the extremes of being completely closed to life, and of producing children with no regard to one's ability to rear them.
I doubt the former interpretation is what you mean, though; more likely the latter manner is how you are applying the principle, and that is why you bring up the issue of prudence and Gaudium et Spes. However, you have not shown that the "Quiverfull Philosophy" is not, in fact, the most prudent course of action for many families. Gaudium et Spes in no way implies that parents should not adopt this philosophy; it merely says that in certain cases parents should, at least temporarily, refrain from bearing more children (assuming a moral means of doing so, i.e. contraception is forbidden even under such circumstances):
This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. (par. 51)
So, indeed, there are many couples who should not increase the size of their families. But there is no statement or even implication that all or even most families ever find themselves in such circumstances; in other words, there may be just as many or more families who never find themselves in circumstances under which the size of their families should not be increased (although of course the woman's limited time of fertility provides a natural limit that will be different for each family, as do many other natural factors). There are many families perfectly capable of more than adequately supporting and educating as many children as they can naturally bear. As I said in my first post, my own family of ten was such, as were others I have known. My father had no problems supporting us, and he was not especially well-to-do.
In short, what you say about parents needing to exercise prudence and judgment is true; however, you have not shown that there are not many families for whom the most prudent judgment to make is precisely to not regulate their childbearing at all. Such an attitude may be wholly in line with Catholic principles.
You are correct that my line of reasoning follows the latter, not the former, interpretation of the mean. Obviously, the mean here does not consist in finding the middle road between no children and "as many as one can naturally bear". If that were the case, then there would be an objective, "magic" number of children to shoot for. Obviously, not true. As I said, it is up to the couple, before their God, to discern His will for their family. No one else. And no one should judge.
And I concede that, yes, there certainly are families where it may be completely prudent for them to have and raise as many children as the woman can bear. I'm sure there are cases of this. And that's fine, as long as they have truly discerned this to be best for their families; it's not fine if there's a kind of "throw up their hands" attitude about it that indicates a providentialist attitude, a lack of prudence, and lack of reason and good judgement.Like they've just decided they're not going to worry or think about it at all. The Quiverfull people often move on to take the stance that even using NFP for a serious reason is sinful, and that's just plain against church teaching.
But I have to say, I think that it's probably harder today, in this modern age and in our American culture, to do this than in any other age in the recent past. Our economy is set up for the two-income family...I just read a study about how the prices of things, from appliances to food to cars to homes, are calculated based on a two-income household, even. So it's not impossible for this to be the case, but certainly hard. And I'm not talking about families who want to keep up with the Joneses or meet the status quo. Just getting by is difficult for a one-income, large catholic homeschooling family...we all know this from experience. I'm sure you're right, though, it can be the prudent path for some catholic families, but I disagree that it can be for most or many.
I realize that my standard for "meeting each child's needs" may be higher than others. We are strong believers in the emotional, spiritual, and intellectual (not to mention physical) benefits of Attachment Parenting. Extended, ecological nursing spaces babies in such a way that each child gets the time in arms and at the breast that he needs. It gives the mother the opportunity to recover physically from birth and prepare her body to nurture a new life in a healthy way. Co-sleeping creates a healthy attachment, along with extended nursing and baby-wearing. I agree with Sheila Kippley (of CCL) that this is God's design for mothers and babies, and a very good design for families. It provides a natural spacing of 2-3 years that is good for kids and for mothers. But that's me...I realize that not everyone goes this route, or is even able to (nursing difficulties, etc.)
But Michelle Duggar has been pregnant for 9 months out of every year for 17 years, going by her children's ages. I, personally, think that not even trying to meet the AAP's guidlines to nurse for a year is tantamount to not meeting the child's needs adequately. But who can say? Maybe she is trying to, but can't. I have no idea...can't judge what I don't know. I just hate to see families where the good of having children supersedes all the other goods that children have a right to...the best nutrition and attachment mom can give, the time/attention from a mother who isn't sick and exhausted with pregnancy, a coherent education if HSing, etc. I've been through it all, and I know how hard it can be. Again, just my own opinion and my own set of standards for raising my children "well". Obviously, not for everyone.
I'd like to extend my point about it being hard for large families in this culture...it sounded as if my only reason for this was financial. A biggie, of course, but other factors come into play. The generations before contraception was widely used and aproved were set up for large families. It was expected and socially accepted. A woman was praised for raising a large family. The support system was there to help the parents, extended family lived with or close by to fill in the gaps. It was just a very different time socially and culturally. That time is long gone and I believe it is harder than ever to have a large family today. Our society is much more mobile now, families are broken up and parents often must raise children without the help of extended family, in addition to trying to live on one income in a two-income world, and HS them in a culture that scorns home education and the catholic culture we are trying to cultivate. It's just a harder thing, is all I wanted to say, and parents have to take these things in mind when contemplating family planning. To quote Gaudium et Spes, No. 50:
"They will reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as their state in life. Finally they will consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself."
Wow. I have to say, this discussion has really opened up my mind! I never knew that there was such a philosophy as "Providentialism" or the 'quiver-full' way of life. I googled 'quiverful' and got this:
1) God is far better at planning our families than we are.
2) God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply.
3) The Christian church and its leaders universally condemned birth control
prior to the 20th century (and many well into the 1st half of the 20th
century). Read some of the writings of Luther, Calvin and many others,
besides the Catholic Popes - ALL were in agreement on this matter. Their
reasons for opposition to birth control were not just due to "artificial"
methods. They were opposed to the idea of Christians trying to limit their
families and taking this matter out of God's hands!
4) Notice what the Bible says about conception - how often we read of God
opening and closing the womb.
5) If children are truly great blessings, as God's word says they are, why
would we WANT to limit our blessings?
I got all of this from Quiverfull.com, click on 'clips' and then, 'why not NFP?'....
For the record, I obviously disagree with them (regarding not using NFP, not that children aren't blessings, or we shouldn't trust God!!)....more on this after I assemble my quotes from the Catechism, and Gaudium et Spes...
Post a Comment