I am not arguing in favor of providentialism but I do fear many of us risk being too cautious when it comes to discerning whether we can welcome another child into our family. Most of us know nothing of real poverty and yet we let the smallest hardships convince us to limit our family size! Have we lost sight of how rich we are? Most of us have multiple cars (even one car is an indication of incredible relative wealth!), a roof over our heads, grocery stores where we have access to unlimited amounts of food that we don’t even have to grow ourselves, electricity, running water, the list could go on forever!
Perhaps we are too wealthy. God has blessed us with such riches and still we persist in limiting his smallest blessings. What is a child worth? Surely a precious baby might be worth one less car or a smaller house. How about a home that is warmer in the summers and cooler in the winter? I suspect we are less in danger of being irresponsible than we are of being ungenerous. I fear our riches have blinded us.
Nutmeg, Remember, I am Switzerland.
I understand what the post you linked to is trying to say but her argument can be interpreted as being just as judgmental as the arguments from the other side have been interpreted mostly because it is difficult to determine who she is directing her comments at; contracepting couples who see birth control as a right or fellow practicing Catholics who have prayerfully chosen to use a Church approved method of natural family planning for the serious reasons that only they can know?
Who are we to determine what too wealthy is? Is my internet connection a luxury? How about new floors? Who are we to determine what is too cautious? We don’t know everyone’s personal situation? We don’t know how serious their reasons are?
Discussing the Church’s teaching with the understanding that these decisions are left ultimately up to the individual couple is allowable. Encouraging parents to be more generous is just as valid as encouraging people to be prudent since the Church encourages us to be both generous and responsible. The world wants only responsible parents as it defines “responsible”, and we as the culture of life are proud to respond to that with examples of generosity both large and small. But the world does not have a copyright on the concept of “responsible” or “prudent” and just because we want to combat the worldy notion of “responsiblity” doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss the Church’s teaching on the subject since they really are two different things. Encouraging parents to be generous in response to the culture of death surrounding us doesn’t mean that generosity is more important than the responsibility that the Church requires of us (not the world).
I know this is a touchy subject, and I am not trying to contribute to the heated debate, just the rational one. It may sound like semantics, but I think we really do need to pay attention to people’s definitions of terms and assume charity.
I think all she is saying is that it is easier for us to be responsible, and the error occurs more often in not being generous. And it is that overall "attitude" she is speaking out against. Not taking examples from any particular circumstance. I am not looking to bring this debate here, not because I am against discourse, but simply because I've seen every single blog post on this subject turn nasty in the comboxes. If people really feel the need to correct the errors of my ways, feel free to e-mail me. Comments are closed.
2 comments:
I am not arguing in favor of providentialism but I do fear many of us risk being too cautious when it comes to discerning whether we can welcome another child into our family. Most of us know nothing of real poverty and yet we let the smallest hardships convince us to limit our family size! Have we lost sight of how rich we are? Most of us have multiple cars (even one car is an indication of incredible relative wealth!), a roof over our heads, grocery stores where we have access to unlimited amounts of food that we don’t even have to grow ourselves, electricity, running water, the list could go on forever!
Perhaps we are too wealthy. God has blessed us with such riches and still we persist in limiting his smallest blessings. What is a child worth? Surely a precious baby might be worth one less car or a smaller house. How about a home that is warmer in the summers and cooler in the winter? I suspect we are less in danger of being irresponsible than we are of being ungenerous. I fear our riches have blinded us.
Nutmeg,
Remember, I am Switzerland.
I understand what the post you linked to is trying to say but her argument can be interpreted as being just as judgmental as the arguments from the other side have been interpreted mostly because it is difficult to determine who she is directing her comments at; contracepting couples who see birth control as a right or fellow practicing Catholics who have prayerfully chosen to use a Church approved method of natural family planning for the serious reasons that only they can know?
Who are we to determine what too wealthy is? Is my internet connection a luxury? How about new floors? Who are we to determine what is too cautious? We don’t know everyone’s personal situation? We don’t know how serious their reasons are?
Discussing the Church’s teaching with the understanding that these decisions are left ultimately up to the individual couple is allowable. Encouraging parents to be more generous is just as valid as encouraging people to be prudent since the Church encourages us to be both generous and responsible. The world wants only responsible parents as it defines “responsible”, and we as the culture of life are proud to respond to that with examples of generosity both large and small. But the world does not have a copyright on the concept of “responsible” or “prudent” and just because we want to combat the worldy notion of “responsiblity” doesn’t mean that we can’t discuss the Church’s teaching on the subject since they really are two different things. Encouraging parents to be generous in response to the culture of death surrounding us doesn’t mean that generosity is more important than the responsibility that the Church requires of us (not the world).
I know this is a touchy subject, and I am not trying to contribute to the heated debate, just the rational one. It may sound like semantics, but I think we really do need to pay attention to people’s definitions of terms and assume charity.
I think all she is saying is that it is easier for us to be responsible, and the error occurs more often in not being generous. And it is that overall "attitude" she is speaking out against. Not taking examples from any particular circumstance.
I am not looking to bring this debate here, not because I am against discourse, but simply because I've seen every single blog post on this subject turn nasty in the comboxes.
If people really feel the need to correct the errors of my ways, feel free to e-mail me.
Comments are closed.
Post a Comment