Q7. The Openness of the Married Couple to Life
Question 7a: What knowledge do Christians have today of the teachings of Humanae vitae on responsible parenthood? Are they aware of how morally to evaluate the different methods of family planning? Could any insights be suggested in this regard pastorally?
Either they are aware of it and ignore it, or they haven’t heard of it, so it isn’t relevant.
They make a moral evaluation according to their family needs and the best way to provide a secure and loving home for the child.
The best insight is to remind people that children deserve to have two parents who are committed to care for them for as long as the child needs their care. If they can’t commit to that, they should seriously consider not to have children. If they do decide to have children, they should be made aware of their obligation to society and the planet, there should be serious and compelling reasons, for them to have more than two.
The most important moral requirement that every parent should be made aware of is that the most important thing that you can give to your child, is your time.
7b: Is this moral teaching accepted? What aspects pose the most difficulties in a large majority of couple’s accepting this teaching?
Humanae Vitae offers no moral teaching. It interferes and does not attempt to address issues or problems that sexually active couples face. Instead it bullies and attempts to control. It is something which Popes in the future will feel required to apologise for.
It is much more serious than the Church bullying people to eat particular food on particular days of the week for years, and then changing its mind. Humanae Vitae proposes a lifestyle that is unethical, immoral and corrupt, destroys families and damages children.
7c: What natural methods are promoted by the particular Churches to help spouses put into practice the teachings of Humanae vitae?
It is doubtful anyone would be able to tell you these days. If you have to ask, you are more out of touch with the laity that anyone has so far imagined.
Question 7d: What is your experience on this subject in the practice of the Sacrament of Penance and participation at the Eucharist?
I have never confessed it as a sin, as it wasn’t one. I have never done penance for acting responsibly. It has never affected my participation at the Eucharist.
Question 7e: What differences are seen in this regard between the Church’s teaching and civic education?
The Church teaches something irresponsible and impractical. Civic education teaches the facts that relate to the act and the relationship, sufficient to allow the student to make an informed and intelligent decision about a most important part of her/his adult life.
Question 7f: How can a more open attitude towards having children be fostered? How can an increase in births be promoted?
Prospective parents must be told that God is part of everyone, and as such, they will know what is right or what is wrong. Thus they will see that a child has the right to be loved and cared for not just ‘born’.
Prospective parents must be told that they alone have the right to plan for and decide when and how many children they should have. They must accept the responsibility for all their actions, and having a child is the most serious action they will ever take.
The planet’s resources are finite. Access to resources are unequally spread. The population will double in 50 years, if every country reduces its current birthrate. If everyone is to aspire to the standard of living enjoyed by any member of the clergy living in a developed country, the birthrate must be severely limited not increased.
Any suggestion that an increase in birthrate is a good idea shows that the Church is a bigger anachronism than I ever expected. The Extraordinary Synod lives in an imaginary world and is possibly considering colonisation of Mars.
This ridiculous notion is over 2000 years old, it was a Jewish idea to increase the population of God’s chosen people. Has the Church issued its forward projection? When will its indiscriminate breeding stop?
The Extraordinary Synod must be that same committee that invented a camel, when what they needed was a horse. I would love to meet one priest who thinks that an increase in births should be promoted — only an ill–informed committee that couldn’t wait to go for lunch, could vote for such an idiotic and irresponsible idea.