Why does the legal body of the Catholic Church, support the overpopulation of our only planet, Earth? [etc.]

[Please note. This is a sequel to the very long thread called "OverPopulation." You may wish to read that thread and continue here. However quite a few messages from the original thread have been copied here to provide context and also because they contain statements/contentions/questions to which replies have not yet been made.]

-- Daniel Munoz (munoz_20_99@yahoo.com), August 31, 2000

Answers

Thank you for all the kind and serious answers ...

I must be quick, job and time are presssing.

Anyone who intends not to have a baby is going to consider all ways to prevent this as pursuing the same goal. And will give them the same name. Natural methods get put into that mix because of the intent and the results.

"every action is excluded which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or during its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes ... to render procreation impossible" We have here a two fold dilema. Either the people with the temperature gauge results and charts and such in their heads are acting against the above statement for they are trying their best to foil procreation, and if done in the best and most consistant way are going to foil it better than most other methods (if 99% is believed), OR all the other methods that are as good as or poorer than Natural are in, because they leave open the possiblity of procreation.

on another thing: attitudes both personal and societial do matter. So the church is cool to preach about bad things that lead to bad society attitudes. And the society needs to be alert to such, and to be challenged on this. But I have a problem with gateway situations. Marajuna use does not lead to harder drugs: association with marajuna sellers might. Yes we do not need another drug that is 'only as bad' as alchol, drinking has bad enought problems. But I really got that gateway message as the wrong message.

lots more reply when I have time. Keep up the (long) replies as you are inspired to do, John. Some does get through. You may be right about the change of heart and mind does not come easily, but this is educational. I have just re-read Mathew, and feel that I should get the Protestant viewpoints on why the RCC is not the thing to join. This sexuality post is the other problem I have with the church. Out of respect for this community I have kept my cry from the rant level that started this, but I still feel deaply about this, as you have had the courtasy to notice.

I have had a few profs that every thing I said they took wrong, and every thing they said they took wrong: not nessarily as mean, just totally missing the meaning of what was said. I am trying to be as careful with you, John, as with them. I have noticed that we missunderstand each other too often.

on another reply: The sisters did not do much but teach, and never checked my concludsions to their teaching. 1) I always regret my confirmation: I was half agnostic by that time, and if I had stronger convictions (and no doubter can but also doubt themselves) I might have said no, this is not a confirmation of my faith as I have little or none. 2) Some of the concludsions were funny, but are still a bit with me now. Another thread, and I have not the time to even reply to the two I have now. Thank You All, Sean

ps What the sisters fed me neither fed my heart nor my mind. They did not care for my mind except as a container. They should have tried to note what was fermenting there, but I might have not given access even then. The current catachism is a powerful tool from what I have seen of it: It is at least thick and has references both to the bible and to other teachings. It is a product of the followers of the unimaginative St.Thomas Aquinas, and suffers from what I feel he lacked, but it is so much better than a 10 page (or less, memory is not good) 'answers without backing of any kind' thing I got pre- vatican2 from the sisters and the same post V2 from the church.

my main problem with Aquinas is that he is trying to prove the existance of God, it seems to me. That was the way it was presented to me by my dad. He can't, he doesn't. He proves that the existance of God is not inconsistant with a artificial (and to my mind unimaginative) Aristotalian framework. Unimaginative means for each counter answer considered, I can come up with several not considered, and the counter-counter answer does not address even all good and possible the objections of the single counter answer. But the whole thing fans out so fast that no person can reasonablely do it. He did a good try, but fell short, as he must. And doing what he did lead to many good things.

Again, another thread, maybe someday. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 28, 2000.



... wanted kids are a wonder and a delight.

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 28, 2000.



When I use a rock to hammer in a nail, I call it a hammer. When I use a wrench to hammer in a nail, I may call it a hammer. I certainally call what I am doing 'hammering'. When I scratch my back with a pencil I may call it a backscratcher. Do you have trouble with this? When I use a device or method to achieve non-reproduction, or lower my chances of such, I am going to call that device or method contaceptive.

another topic, Probability math. I am a long time gamer. And I took the course twice. Got good grades the second time.

If method A protects a worker from 90% of radiation, and so does method B, why use both? Because to find the final quality of both you multiply the failure chances and subtract from 100%. Both would leave you with a (1-(.1*.1))*100= 99% blockage of radiation. Same math for any odds based system. Including reproduction. One friend said that for ensuring such the best way was a combo of things. We never did this, but it is a way of thinking if what you want to do is to ensure the better odds of something working. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 28, 2000.

Hi, Sean. A few quick points. I can want something good in itself, but I can use good or bad methods to achieve it. It's good for me to give money to the poor. I can use a bad method of doing so (robbing others), or a good method (persuading others to give, or providing part of my paycheck.) There are many such examples. It's good to teach kids not to lie. I can use a bad method (really beating them black and blue when they're caught in a lie), or a good method (using a more measured punishment, like grounding, and teaching them about God and how lies are hurtful to a society where people trust one another). So it's the same with spacing pregnancies. That can be good in itself, but I can use a bad method, where I deliberately frustrate the procreative aspect of the act, or a good method, where I simply refrain from sexuality if it would mean I would have to deliberately thwart the procreative nature of the act. Let's think about this. All a society has to do is make a single shift in one of its fundamental laws, and you have a radically different society. Here, we're talking about human sexuality. It's the nerve center of human life and society. The sexual drive is so strong, so powerful, leads so strongly to decisions, that, even though Freud was wrong about most things, he had a good point in emphasizing just how much sexuality affects us. Now, you take something that explosive, that powerful -- I mean sexuality -- and *that* is the means by which new human beings come into the world. It does make sense that if you swerved by a hair's bredth from sex/procreation, the way God set it up, society would turn toward a very different path. And so it has. With artificial contraception came fornication, rampant divorce, pornography, and unbelievable amounts of abortion. That profound spiritual principle, whereby sexuality and procreation kept their link, got severed, and our society shows it.

As far as what you said about the sisters, I agree. Catholic educators have a responsibility not only to teach, but to talk about the reasons for teaching. I sympathize with overworked teachers, of course. I'm just saying, this should be the goal.

As far as Aquinas, he was far from unimaginitive. He was a wonderfully imaginitive saint. He wrote many poems in addition to his theology. His theology may be the greatest cathedral of human reason produced. One of its great strengths is just the very way in which he answers objections, as you were speaking of. He goes so deeply into subjects it's truly amazing. A while back I went through everywhere in the Summa that he talked about "invincible ignorance," and by the end, I was just flabberghasted how subtle and well-thought through his position was.

Anyway, I'm going to do something a bit strange. Since you want to consider the Protestant position, I'm going to invite you to check out what is far and away the warmest, kindest, most intelligent Protestant site I have ever seen on the Internet. I would like you to see the strongest case they can make. The web address is here:

www.christian-thinktank.com

You will find of course, that even the brilliant and kind-hearted professor there (Glenn Miller) has no answer to the Catholic arguments, no way of knowing which books make up the bible, no answer for the fact that for the first 700 years, no Christian anywhere denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist, no answer to the legions of verses on Sacred Tradition, no verse that teaches sola scriptura, no rationale for Peter's primacy in the New Testament, no way of applying the verses on apostolic succession in the NT, etc. But he is a good man that I have great respect for, and he does a wonderful job of defending Scripture from charges of contradiction or immorality. Alright, good luck.

Love, Chris

-- Chris Butler (cbutler@butlerlinks.com), August 28, 2000.



I found a site that said that even Natural methods when totally succecssful and used for total success are sinful. Ironic.

Ladies only: If you had all the children you wanted, and chose not to have more, would that fact bother you when you have sex? Can you craft an answer that would clue me in? The Church said that you would be bothered. I need confirming evidence to believe it. Sean

Chris, That site had nothing on contraception. But it is a valued resource. Thank you, Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 28, 2000.



{A message sent to a contributor to this thread by the man who started the thread. Confidentiality was not requested. This message deserves to be open to replies from all, not just the recipient.}

Childbearing, Unfortunately, is not taught in all countries; The middle east are encouraged to marry a girl when she is 14.5 years old, this usually cost $27,500.00 (this is the lowest price, and is paid to the father, to do with as he see fit. Also, the girl is 99.% of the time not allowed to rejoin her family., but if the girl is physically endowed with beauty or physical exotic endowments, the price is higher. The more babies the better, this relates to sex somehow.

In reality, Arab men do not have to go past the sixth grade and Arab women do not have to go to school at all.. The key here is that middle east countries (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Iran, Afganistan, etc.) are kingdoms. The only children required to go to school are the sons and daughters of these royal families! Well this tells you where the knowledge base will be located. But without people, there is no country...

Childbearing requires the forethought; that bringing an innocent new born, with no ability to find food, clean itself, protect itself, nor educate itself, presents an extreme problem for the parents, which in turn requires an immense amount of 7X24 time to be provided by the parents to their child. This means BOTH parents.

What, I perceive you as saying is , "ALL of us humans; ( Africa, China, Pakistan, and India) are, at this moment, knowledgable enough and do apply, your therputic plan; STM/NFP for one year, and that somewhere between 1 and 15 husbands and wives will be unexpectedly blessed by the Lord.";

The Populations of the countries of ( Africa, China, Pakistan, and India) have not and are not concerned; and do not have a clue about what you are saying. Their Governments will not, and do not give/waste their Personal time, trying to educate their people, when they as the leaders, would much rather be drinking champange, eating fine foods, and driving in their Mercedes Benz's.

Also, what you do not know; The president of the United States cannot write any Check to pay for anything because the speperation of the Presidency and the Treasury, assures that the presideint gets paid as everyone else. The leaders of therse foreign countries ( Africa, China, Pakistan, and India ) can write their own checks for , even their own families...(This is why the government officials release all responsibility, from themselves, to the local populations, and unfortunately, when the man get's HORNEY, He porks the nearest female to him.

Daniel Munoz

-- Daniel Munoz (munoz_20_99@yahoo.com), August 29, 2000.



Hi, Daniel. Yes, the Middle East has terrible problems, though I feel your stereotypes are also unfair. But let's assume they were 100% accurate. NFP is a simple method that anyone can learn with a little training. The fact that NFp teachers do not have access to the Middle East is not an argument against NFP, any more than the fact that Chrsitians there sometimes do not have freedom of speech is an argument against Christianity.

-- Chris Butler (cbutler@butlerlinks.com), August 29, 2000.



The Church regards Natural methods sinful if they totally frustrate fertilty for the whole time of the marriage. I read this one on a Catholic site. It is consistant with the Church's stance. (So go get preganent and ignore any responsible birth practice?)

A friend of mine chose abstance in an arguement with his wife: he did not want kids. I helped change his mind. But maybe even that abstance would be sinful as it was divisive?

-- Sean Cleary (Sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), August 31, 2000.



Jmj

Sean, you told us that you read Humanae Vitae, the 1968 papal encyclical that explains why contraception is not an option. I ask you to read it again, this time very carefully. If you do, you will take note of many beautiful things, including this passage: "In relation to physical, economic, psychological, and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth."

It was subsequently explained by the same pope or a later one that the highlighted words could mean until the end of the spouses' fertility ... or that they could even mean throughout an entire marriage [in extraordinary circumstances, which I will explain if you wish]. What you read elsewhere (and apparently misunderstood) was the fact that an engaged couple cannot enter into a valid marriage covenant if they begin their lives together with the intention of being closed to all children, actively attempting to bar the possibility of fruitfulness, regardless of God's will. [NFP does not actively bar the possibility of fruitfulness.]

God bless you. John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), August 31, 2000.



Thank you for the clarification about NFP and ZPG [zero population growth] intentioned familys. The site did say that that was the exception, the message got garbled through me. The site said that even if NFP was used successfully with the intention of preventing all births, it was sinful. I found this consistant, more so than leaving it out. Maybe I can find that site again, but I have scrubbed my work files, and shipped them to where they are inconvient.

Sean Cleary

-- Sean Cleary (Sean_cleary@juno.com), August 31, 2000.

I said something to my mother in law about birth control the other night. I can't remember exactly what as I'm a bit fuzzy about the past few days but her response was that the church has changed its view on birth control. She mentioned this has been since/because of the Vatican II. I didn't get a chance to hear the rest of it as I was having problems at the time but I plan on talking to her about it some more tonight.

-- jackiea (jackiea@hotmail.com), September 02, 2000.

+
Hi, jackiea. I'm glad to see that you seem to be feeling much better.

It will be interesting to read what your mother-in-law says, because the Church has not changed its teaching.

The ancient teaching that goes right back to the first centuries was re-stated in 1931 by Pope Pius XI, after the Anglican Communion became the first Protestants to allow a little bit of contraception. Then, after Vatican II ended (1965), Pope Paul VI reiterated the traditional teaching in a 1968 encyclical (Humanae Vitae = Of Human Life).

One of our Catholic beliefs is that, when a doctrine in faith or morals has been consistently taught, in an "ordinary," everyday way, by all the world's bishops in union with the pope, we can be sure that it has been infallibly taught. The Holy Spirit protects it against being wrong. That was certainly the case of the teaching that referred to the use of contraception as a serious sin. Right up through Pius XI (1931) and beyond, this had always and everywhere been taught, so we can rest assured that it is certain. It us true that the Vatican has never formally declared that it is certain, but such a declaration may be forthcoming in our lifetimes.

Your mother-in-law may have been a bit misled by some of the prominent people who were recommending [some even just about demanding], between 1960 and 1968, that the pope permit the use of "the pill" (which had come on the market around 1960). But Paul VI determined that its use would violate the Ten Commandments in a serious way, just as all other unnatural forms of birth control have violated them.

'Bye, jackiea. Take real good care of yourself, please.
Love, John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 02, 2000.

Oops! I forgot to mention two things that were on my mind.

(1) The Fathers of Vatican II, in one of the most important documents of the Council, tell us about how the Holy Spirit protects from error the "ordinary, universal" teaching of the Church that I just mentioned.

(2) After the Church has taught authoritatively that an action (or inaction) is a sin against the Ten Commandments, it is not possible for the Church to change that teaching.

I believe that the Church has made it clear now that teachings against such controversial deeds as contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual acts are authoritative and could not ever be changed. If an act (or omission of an act) is immoral, it cannot become moral later in the history of mankind. You can see this very clearly if you try to imagine the Church attempting to declare that any of the following suddenly has become morally acceptable: lying in court, stealing, failing to help the poor, rape, arson, hating God, or abusing one's parents.

Such sins as the ones I just listed (joined, I believe, by contraception) are acts that the Church is incapable of declaring good, moral, or permissible, because they are prohibited by divine law (the Commandments). [The only thing the Church can change is her own disciplinary laws, such as rules pertaining to fast, abstinence, holy days of obligation, priestly celibacy, and the like.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 02, 2000.

+
Aw, here I go again, thinking of something else important to mention.

It has really been clear to me that all the priests of the Church, from pastors to bishops to the pope, are very well aware of how controversial is the teaching on contraception, how tough it is for some couples to accept it, and how tough it is for couples who have accepted it to persevere in it. No bishop in our lifetimes -- certainly none of the popes -- has been taking a condemnatory, domineering, hard-line attitude toward married couples, threatening them with damnation or even excommunication. Instead, everyone has been trying to be very kind, gentle, and understanding about the difficulties and challenges that couples face.

Please let me give an example of the kind of attitude I have been describing -- by quoting from the 1968 encyclical of Pope Paul VI, 'Humanae vitae':

"We do not at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons; for them as for everyone else, 'the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life.' But the hope of that life must illuminate their way, as with courage they strive to live with wisdom, justice and piety in this present time, knowing that the figure of this world passes away."

"Let married couples, then, face up to the efforts needed, supported by the faith and hope which 'do not disappoint  because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us;' let them implore divine assistance by persevering prayer; above all, let them draw from the source of grace and charity in the Eucharist. And if sin should still keep its hold over them, let them not be discouraged, but rather have recourse with humble perseverance to the mercy of God, which is poured forth in the sacrament of Penance. In this way they will be enabled to achieve the fullness of conjugal life ..."

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 02, 2000.

Jmj

Hi, Sean.
There are some things in your messages of August 28 (etc.) to which I have yet to respond.

------------------
You: "Anyone who intends not to have a baby is going to consider all ways to prevent this as pursuing the same goal. And will give them the same name. Natural methods get put into that mix because of the intent and the results. ... [T]he people with the temperature gauge results and charts and such in their heads are acting against [Humanae vitae], for they are trying their best to foil procreation ... When I use a rock to hammer in a nail, I call it a hammer. When I use a wrench to hammer in a nail, I may call it a hammer. I certainally call what I am doing 'hammering.' ... When I use a device or method to achieve non-reproduction, or lower my chances of such, I am going to call that device or method contaceptive."

Me: Chris Butler provided you with an excellent response to this, illustrating how there are moral and immoral actions that one can take (or refrain from taking) in order to arrive at a similar end. I would like to elaborate on that.

The media and other info sources that like to put down the Church and NFP have succeeded in persuading you (and many other people, including me for a long time) to believe that NFP is "Catholic contraception." You used their word again -- "prevent" having a baby -- and you also referred to "foil[ing] procreation" and "achiev[ing] non-reproduction."

one thing in discussing this topic with you, I would like it to be the fact that you would see that NFP does not "prevent" or "foil" anything. And that is precisely why it is a moral course to follow! Only an intentional, frustrating action, something that places an obstacle to conception, has the ability to "prevent" a couple's having a baby.

Those who use NFP properly, however, simply observe the natural timing of fertility (and the absence thereof) constituted intentionally by God himself -- and they do not "prevent" his overriding that natural law to create a soul when He wants to do so. Thus, their child-spacing is God's child-spacing, while those who use contraception impose a purely human anti-child shield and try [though they may not be aware of it] to prevent God from being a sovereign God. On those days that God wants the contracepting couple to have the gift (not "sickness") of fertility, they [though they may not be aware of it] tell him to take back his gift. Needless to say, it is seriously wrong to turn down a gift from God.

------------------
Sean, please find the paragraph, above, in which you'll find the following words: "So the church is cool to preach about bad things that lead to bad society attitudes." I must be honest with you and say that I do not have the foggiest notion of what you are saying there -- not just with the quoted words, but with the whole paragraph. About what do you think the Church is "cool to preach?" Why is there a reference to drugs and alcohol? What do you mean by "that gateway message?" Sorry if I'm being dense, but all this is a blur to me.

------------------
You: "The current catachism is a powerful tool from what I have seen of it: It is at least thick and has references both to the bible and to other teachings. It is a product of the followers of the unimaginative St.Thomas Aquinas, and suffers from what I feel he lacked, but it is so much better than a 10 page (or less, memory is not good) 'answers without backing of any kind' thing I got pre- vatican2 from the sisters and the same post V2 from the church."

Me: Almost certainly, you are thinking of the Q&A-style "Baltimore Catechisms," which most U.S. students (myself included) were given to study in the 1950s and '60s. There were various editions, and they increased in size as students grew older. The name comes from one or more local councils of American bishops in Baltimore in the late 1800s. I can assure you that the Baltimore Catechisms were not "10 page or less" handouts, but substantial booklets, especially for kids of older age groups. You can't compare those small books for children with the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the work of all the bishops of the world, compiled to inform adults and much older students. Had you been given the new catechism when you were in grade school, you would have found most of it far too complicated to understand. I'm curious as to why you are reminiscing about your school experiences, about having been give "answers without backing of any kind." Is this an indication that you think that you would have remained Catholic if the answers had had "backing" -- because you are at last finding out that "backing" really does exist?

------------------
You: "... wanted kids are a wonder and a delight."

Me: Yes, and the neatest thing of all is that all kids are "wanted." First and foremost, they are wanted by God, who would not otherwise have created their souls. (No one can force God to create a soul.) Second, once conceived, they ought to be wanted by their parents. But those who, unfortunately, are not wanted by their parents are wanted by potential adoptive parents. Chances are good that you have been led to believe by anti-life voices that there are vast numbers of little Americans who have no one to adopt them. As the national organizations promoting adoption will tell you, that is totally false. There are two million American couples waiting to adopt babies, but only 50,000 infants to adopt each year -- thanks to abortion and contraception. There are waiting lists for "minority" children and even for children with every kind of handicap. [Ironically, one of the reasons there are so many couples waiting to adopt is that many of them have become sterile due to abortion and contraception.] When you hear of kids waiting to be adopted, it is not babies, but much older orphans and abandoned children, for whom it is harder to find homes.

The phrase you used (wanted kids are a wonder and a delight) seems to be derived from propaganda that comes from the infamous population-control group known as Planned Parenthood -- "Every child a loved and wanted child" (or words to that effect). It is so sad to see that PP has made an impression on you, since they are no friend of the "child," but rather the nation's foremost provider of abortions (about 150,000 yearly -- and rising) and other horrible things. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, PP is the single most evil organization in the world, except for satanic cults. That may sound outlandish to you now, but if you were to have a chance to study PP in depth, as I have for more than ten years, I trust that you would come to the same conclusion.

------------------
You: "I found a site that said that even Natural methods when totally succecssful and used for total success are sinful."

Me: Yes, I have heard that there is at least one, recently founded fundamentalist Protestant sect that believes this. I believe that there is a woman surnamed "Pride" -- a former radical feminist -- who now thinks that couples should not use contraception and should not practice natural child-spacing, but should leave the number of children they conceive entirely up to God. The Catholic Church does not criticize anyone who rejects contraception and chooses not to use NFP, but she was founded 2,000 years ago (not 20) and she knows that NFP is licit in God's eyes.

------------------
You: "[A Catholic site I found] said that even if NFP was used successfully with the intention of preventing all births, it was sinful."

Me: You probably came across a reference to what is called "practicing NFP with a contraceptive mentality." This is possible and much discouraged. Imagine a couple who reject all chemical and device forms of contraception (pill, IUD, injection) because of side effects ... and who reject all barrier methods (condom, diaphragm, etc.) as "unreliable" or "unaesthetic" ... but who then choose to employ NFP to remain childless throughout marriage. They have a "contraceptive mentality," not an interest in child-spacing.

All right. Take it easy, and I'll see you later.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 03, 2000.

+
This note is for Daniel Munoz, who started the thread and later sent an e-mail message that was posted here.

Daniel wrote: "What, I perceive you as saying is , "ALL of us humans; ( Africa, China, Pakistan, and India) are, at this moment, knowledgable enough and do apply, your therputic plan; STM/NFP for one year, and that somewhere between 1 and 15 husbands and wives will be unexpectedly blessed by the Lord."; The Populations of the countries of ( Africa, China, Pakistan, and India) have not and are not concerned; and do not have a clue about what you are saying. Their Governments will not, and do not give/waste their Personal time, trying to educate their people, when they as the leaders, would much rather be drinking champange, eating fine foods, and driving in their Mercedes Benz's."

My response is this:
Daniel, I noticed that you did not tell us that you have special qualifications to be telling us about what is going on in Africa, the "Middle East" (Western Asia), or the "Far East" (Eastern Asia). I don't think that you mentioned having lived there for a long time, having carried out extensive studies, having been in the diplomatic corps, etc.. And so, I have to conclude that your comments are based on uncited, second-hand (or third-hand) accounts, stereotypes, and a bit of imagination on your part.

Here are just a couple of facts that contradict what you wrote. (I hope that you will change your mind entirely on this subject -- or at least that you will do careful research before posting messages.)
(1) You need not worry about overpopulation in Africa, which in many countries is shrinking devastatingly due to AIDS. In some countries, about a quarter of the babies die from AIDS contracted through breastfeeding. Mothers with AIDS are too poor to purchase milk for bottles.
(2) For at least 15 years, China has been extremely concerned about its population and has had a maniacally enforced one-child-per-family policy (two children in some rural areas). Furthermore, China has sent civil servants to the U.S. to learn about NFP, so that it can be taught to their people.
(3) In India, the Missionaries of Charity (Mother Teresa's sisters) have taught hundreds of thousands of women (including illiterate ones) how to practice NFP.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 03, 2000.

Hi John, I am giving this subject some thought, so my replies are slow. Two quotes: First from you: "You: "... wanted kids are a wonder and a delight."

Me: Yes, and the neatest thing of all is that all kids are "wanted." First and foremost, they are wanted by God, who would not otherwise have created their souls. (No one can force God to create a soul.) Second, once conceived, they ought to be wanted by their parents. But those who, unfortunately, are not wanted by their parents are wanted by potential adoptive parents. Chances are good that you have been led to believe by anti-life voices that there are vast numbers of little Americans who have no one to adopt them. As the national organizations promoting adoption will tell you, that is totally false. There are two million American couples waiting to adopt babies, but only 50,000 infants to adopt each year -- thanks to abortion and contraception. There are waiting lists for "minority" children and even for children with every kind of handicap. [Ironically, one of the reasons there are so many couples waiting to adopt is that many of them have become sterile due to abortion and contraception.] When you hear of kids waiting to be adopted, it is not babies, but much older orphans and abandoned children, for whom it is harder to find homes. " Actually the reality is sadly different. I would like it to be as you said, but it is not so. I know two couples who wanted to adopt. The minimum ante was $10,000. One raised the money, went to an honest agency, and got caught in the small percentage of such deals that are blown. The agency made it up and they have a kid. The other was a Catholic couple, did not have the money, did really want a kid. The are still childless. I have heard that there is an effort to change the laws so that the barriers are not so hard, but until they are changed, this is another ineffective method. On the other hand I am very glad of every effort that the Church has made to help this situation, and i hope that the efforts of the Church will be more effective. It took alot of prayer and patience before the Berlin wall fell.

Second quote is a quasi-quote, from memory: "Why did you baptise your unborn and dying child? It is not alive yet." If i remember this quote is from a priest in the third thread that came out of overpopulation. The one where Jackie lost her child. This makes me wonder if the Church is going to get its head together on this: it is either a child and alive, or your enimy (PP) is correct. So prenatal baptism is going to be the thing, or the church will lose the sense of consistancy that it has. random natter from: Sean I f

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 15, 2000.

Actually Sean I think the quote about baptizing an unborn babe is from one of jackiea's relatives (her dad I think??) NOT from a priest. No priest would ever say such a thing, at least if they were even minimally Catholic. So I can see why you are confused. Of course I am too lazy (as apparently you are too) to go back and actually check the thread. Honestly I just need to go to bed. But I'll bet you a smile and a handshake it didn't happen that way.

OK Night

Jane

-- jane ulrich (carlos.eire@yale.edu), September 16, 2000.

Jane, yes, you are correct. It was my father that said that. He referred to our child as an "inanimate object" and therefore, unable to be baptised. Thankfully, I didn't listen to him. :) I have to wonder....did he think of me as an inanimate object when my mother carried me in her womb? Hmmmmm....doubt it.

-- jackiea (jackiea@hotmail.com), September 16, 2000.

+
Hello, everyone.
What a week! St. John Chrysostom, The Triumph of the Cross, Our Lady of Sorrows, Sts. Cornelius and Cyprian. I'm exhausted!

Sean, I read your response to my comments concerning adoption.
You started by using the words, "Actually the reality is sadly different."
By using the word "different," are you saying that you believe me to be mistaken? Are you saying that there are plenty of babies to be adopted and too few couples wanting them?

Or did you accidentally confuse me? That is, did you mean to say the following? ... "John, what you said is correct. There are many couples who want to adopt, but very few babies. But the situation is made even more unfortunate by the fact that it is so expensive to adopt that only the wealthy can afford to adopt those few available babies."

Thanks in advance for clarifying this for me.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 16, 2000.

John, I am sorry that I am such a poor communicator. What I meant was a third alternative. The babys are there, in plentitude. The couples are there, in plentitude. The process of adoption selection eliminates too many of the couples. The result is much less then what I find acceptable adoption rates. So I applaud any agency or group trying to change this (like the Church), but mourn that as a solution it is inadaquate. Sean

-- Sean Cleary (sean_cleary@bigfoot.com), September 19, 2000.

Hi, Sean.
Thanks again for the clarification. Don't worry about the communications. We all are imperfect in that regard. We just persevere until we understand one another.

Unfortunately, your clarified position directly contradicts something I previously stated. Your alternative contains an wholly incorrect premise, namely ... "The babys are there, in plentitude." Since that is not true (as I will show in a minute), I recommend that you reconsider this matter after getting more information.

From an online encyclopedia's article on adoption comes the following: "Every one of the 50,000 babies annually put up for adoption at birth [in the U.S.] -- handicapped or not -- is immediately placed with a family. There are more than two million couples on the adoption waiting list. According to William Pierce, [former] president of the National Committee for Adoption [now called the National Council for Adoption], babies immediately adopted include minority babies, and infants with every imaginable disability and disease, including AIDS, Down Syndrome, and spina bifida. There are adoption and support groups for every known infant disease and birth defect."

The Internet site for the National Council for Adoption is at http://www.ncfa-usa.org/ [To navigate through the site, you would need to download and install a free "plug-in" (called Macromedia's Flash 4.0) after you get there. It takes just a few minutes to do this. Without the plug-in, you cannot see and operate the NCFA's main menu.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), September 20, 2000.