Contraception???

[ThePilgrim]

Well, you did say that you agreed that any parent who did not pay for their child's college education was failing as a parent.

You say that you don't want your child to be enslaved to debt. That's laudable, but where does it stop? If a parent is a failure for failing to pay for their adult child's college, are they also a failure for not paying for their first house? After all, that's even more debt, isn't it?

I would say, rather, that a parent is a failure who does not teach their children personal responsibility, the fear of God, faith, and love, and also caring for the poor and needy.

To say that people who can't give their children everything that the neighbor children get shouldn't have kids (as someone else on this thread said) is silly. Should Christians during the time of the Roman persecutions, the Muslim persecutions, or during Communism stopped having children? Afterall, all they could promise their children (besides, you know, love and the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus) was discrimination, persecution, and possibly unpleasant death. I guess it was irresponsible for them to have kids in such circumstances, wasn't it?

Grace and peace,
John

 

[ThePilgrim]

Edited because the post it was referencing was edited

Sorry that took awhile to edit. It's been a busy couple of days.

 

[heart of peace]

Well, you did say that you agreed that any parent who did not pay for their child's college education was failing as a parent.

John,

I cannot address any other points in your post until you expressly point out where I agreed to this. This alarms me and I certainly want to make myself clear or edit if I did do this. I have searched this thread and cannot find where I declared parents are failing if they don't pay for education beyond high school.

Also, I sent you a PM, just wanted to make sure you receiced it.

ETA: I overlooked a portion of a member's post that I quoted. I have edited it to reflect what I did in fact agree with.

 

[OnTheWay]

My father was the first and only one in his family to go to college. He put himself through it. His parents had two children, and in spite of the fact that this was over 30 years ago when college was "cheap," there was no money for him to go. He got through alright.

50 percent of college freshmen do not return their sphomore year. Of those that do not return the largest share work full time in addition to going to school. Sure, some will make it through and many more can't.

I have 3 siblings. All of us are paying or paid our way through college. We all went to a semi-state school, some of us earned scholarships, some of us lived at home part time, and most of us held employment, as well as drawing from life savings and bonds given by our grandparents. It was stressful, but it's not parents being deficient! I certainly don't feel as though my parents lacked something for not giving me college money (much.)

Well sure you lacked something, the advantages in college (and choices of schools) that comes from not having excessive employment loads because of responsible parents. When I was born I was enrolled in a college saving program, at only $250 per month by the time I reached 18 there was nearly $54,000 simple from paycheck deductions. The total was over $75,000 with the plan's interest payments. Providing these simple things is not a great finanical hardship. It's simply a matter of being responsible.

I know a family of 6 who lives on about 14K a year.
I know a family of 12 that lives on probably less.

Sorry, I simply do not believe in the US a person lives on less than $2,400 per year (half of that for the 12). That might be a cash take home in addition to substantial government benefits. Which again is irresponsible.

And I beg to differ that life needs a undergraduate degree now. There's actually a shortage of "blue collar" employees because everything thinks they need to get a 4 year degree--but you'd make a lot more money being a mechanic than a teacher.

That because a mechanic doesn't get 4 months of vacation a year, every holiday/weekend off, and excellent government benefits. There's more to a pay scale than numbers that actually appear on the check.

 

[OnTheWay]

Okay, if you want, let's compare real world experience in such matters.

Firstly, to say that construction workers need 4 year degrees in engineering to meet all the codes is simply silly. Engineers don't do construction work. They may supervise it or help in the planning, but they're certainly not the ones getting their hands dirty and doing the work itself.

How do I know? I spent a year working as a Russian-English interpreter for a refugee resettlement agency, finding **legal** employment for **legal** refugees. I went with them on countless job interviews for all sorts of different professions and helped them to find real jobs with which they could support their families. Many of the refugees were highly educated back in the Soviet Union. Many weren't. It made very little difference for many of the jobs, especially in construction. Those kind of jobs didn't require extensive education, but they did require a willingness to work hard. And those who got the jobs and worked hard did well for themselves and for their families. It's good, honest, dignified work.

I also helped them find jobs as hairdressers, among other things. Yes, for those jobs, they want you to have gone through a training program, but they certainly don't expect or want a four-year degree.

So tell me... What's your real world experience with these kind of jobs? Or what real, practical knowledge do you have about poverty? Did you read a book about it once?

In Christ,
John

Construction work is sesonal in most places, dangerous, and to make any money at it one most take part in Union apprenticeship programs, or pay for the training through trade schools/community colleges. There's a very limited number of spots in apprenticeship programs, so most trades get their training through trade school. Trade school isn't significantly different than going to college. Being a go-fer on a construction site isn't much different than working retail, other than it does pay slightly more. Then again it's also a lot more dangerous.
To make a decent wage in this country one needs post high school education, it's as simple as that.

 

[choirfiend]

50 percent of college freshmen do not return their sphomore year. Of those that do not return the largest share work full time in addition to going to school. Sure, some will make it through and many more can't..

The fact of which perhaps supports my point, not yours. Many are ill prepared for college, or perhaps not cut out for it in the first place. Not everyone needs to go to college.

Well sure you lacked something, the advantages in college (and choices of schools) that comes from not having excessive employment loads because of responsible parents. When I was born I was enrolled in a college saving program, at only $250 per month by the time I reached 18 there was nearly $54,000 simple from paycheck deductions. The total was over $75,000 with the plan's interest payments. Providing these simple things is not a great finanical hardship. It's simply a matter of being responsible..

Because I was a National Merit Scholar, I was offered full scholarships at several schools. I was accepted both at prestigious private schools and large state schools that excelled at my degree program. I turned down those options to attend a program at my local university, which ranks within the top 10 in the nation for a variety of degree programs. One's education need not be overpriced to be effective.
Despite not paying for college for us, my parents were hardly irresponsible with money. In fact, they taught their children to be responsible with money and to work for the goals they have. I'm sure it would have been nice to not work during college--it would have given me a lot more time to go drinking, like those at my school who had everything provided for them-- but I managed to work part time, participate in the selective Honors program, participate in 3 performance ensembles that traveled regularly, graduate with an A-B average, and still have plenty of free time to hang out in the dorm and learn how to crochet. I don't think I would know what to do with all the extra hours in my day if I hadn't been working. I can't comprehend those who attend college and DON'T work--but perhaps that's because I never had to spend hours studying to do well.

For many people, $250 a month IS a substantial hardship, especially if they have even 2 or three children. I imagine that is doubly so for those who choose to have a one-income family so that they can responsibly parent, actually raising their children instead of seeing them for 2-3 rushed hours a day (if they're lucky.)

Sorry, I simply do not believe in the US a person lives on less than $2,400 per year (half of that for the 12). That might be a cash take home in addition to substantial government benefits. Which again is irresponsible..

They don't receive any government benefits--but they also don't waste much money. They're rather firm conservatives, and don't even favor government assistance programs. When the kids were young, they ate a lot of oatmeal, PBnJ, and wore a lot of handmedowns. Today, 2 children are in college, a third is a professional artist, and the fourth just qualified for States in the sport of his choice.
The family of 12 lives on a farm, and in a rural enough location that they grow much of their food and/or barter with the neighbors so everyone has what they need. Their lifestyle is extreme, but again, I'm reporting on their parenting, which has thus far created 10 loving, sharing, wonderful children.

That because a mechanic doesn't get 4 months of vacation a year, every holiday/weekend off, and excellent government benefits. There's more to a pay scale than numbers that actually appear on the check.

Teachers don't get 4 months of vacation a year, either. Not only do most pay scales only pay for the 9 months of a year that most teachers are in session, during the summer months most teachers have continuing education requirements to fulfill, paying out of pocket to attend graduate courses, seminars, or other certification programs, as well as do substantial planning for the following year.
Never mind the fact that few teachers only work 40 hours a week; most work between 50 and 60.

 

[jckstraw72]

but I managed to work part time, participate in the selective Honors program, participate in 3 performance ensembles that traveled regularly, graduate with an A-B average, and still have plenty of free time to hang out in the dorm and learn how to crochet.

i think the crocheting is the most impressive part

 

[choirfiend]

It's served me the most so far!!!

 

[Matrona]

Weeeeell... hasn't this thread gone to heck in a hand-me-down...

I think it's pretty dumb to call someone a bad parent for either paying or not paying for their children's college. Not everybody needs to go to college (and personally I think too many kids have been brainwashed into going when they aren't really suited). And for those who are suited, let's note that eighteen-year-olds are not always aware of the ramifications of taking on thousands in debt, or how difficult it can be to manage school and work. If the parents are in a position to help their kids, they probably should.

I worked part-time during some of college, and it did not make me a better person. It made me a depressed, exhausted, and sleep-deprived person who came within a razor's edge of flunking out, and had to study extremely hard for several more years to pull her GPA out of the toilet.

As for whether or not contraception could be permissible for parents who can't afford another child, I think it's time to recognize that families that would need to ask for this aren't like the Strawman family that takes yearly trips to Disney, is snobbish about hand-me-downs, and buys each kid a Mercedes on his 16th birthday. Imagine a family where both parents have to work, and they can't afford to have one income out of commission for childbirth and caring for a newborn. Or a family that will be unable to afford their health insurance if they have one more mouth to feed. Or a family where the parents have been unemployed for months and their savings are running dry. Most of you seem to think this is about families that are between caviar and peanut butter - what if it's a family that's between peanut butter and nothing? Who are you to tell them that their spiritual father has 'betrayed the patristic tradition', or whatever, by granting them economy to use barrier contraception while trying to preserve the family's unity?

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Just because you don't think college is a right is your opinion. DId you realize that college is free in Europe? There are other ways to teach one's child fiscal responsiblity and about spirituality without having to put them in a position of enslavement.

I respect your opinion and I would hope that you could do the same for me.

Forgive me for my straightforwardness.

Did you realize that in general our University system is much better here in the US?

Did you here the reports on the huge problems Germany is having right now becusae of their free education?

I think free education is great if it can be done. And, as I said in the same post you quoted me on, I think it is wonderful when parents pay for their children's education. As you said, there are other ways to teach fiscal responsibility.. and I enver suggested otherwise. However, there is nothing wrong at all with parents (even rich parents) expecting their kid to pay for every nickel of their college education and, in fact, there is a LOT of good that can come from that.

Although I don't suppor Obama, I DO like his idea of the $4000 credit... because people have to work for it. At least I like the theory of it.

I respect your decision to pay for your kids' education. My wife and I want to pay for 25% of it (or was it 50%??? I forget... my wife wears the pants in the decision lol), however, I am certianly not going to tell any parent that they "should" pay for anything of their kids after they are 18. I don't beleive they have a moral right to give financial aid to their children. I also don't beleive they have a moral right not to. I think its a very personal question.

However, almost anyone, if they REALLY want to, can go to college and get a degree (or at least, money is not the issue... perhaps circumstances are.. but not money)... it just depends how badly one wants it.

 

[heart of peace]

I am certianly not going to tell any parent that they "should" pay for anything of their kids after they are 18. I don't beleive they have a moral right to give financial aid to their children. I also don't beleive they have a moral right not to. I think its a very personal question.

I agree and I hope that I never suggested otherwise. I cannot tell you what you should be doing or anyone for that matter. I am not God nor am I your SF. I can only speak for myself and my beliefs of what I should be doing as a parent. College is not some unexpected expense that I do not know will come up in life. I would feel irresponsible if I was not a good steward over my finances to set aside a monthly amount while my child is young to pay for his education (and I strongly believe in education and how it is part of my responsibility to my child).

ETA: I wanted to address what my whole point was in regards to my initial commentary that took this thread on such a tangent, it's not even funny...well, maybe just a wee bit. Kidding!

Anyway, I completely disagree that financial reasons are not a valid reason for spacing children. Then to label a decision one's spiritual father agrees to as sin (as a poster did) is reprehensible. I cannot agree that a priest would advocate a sinful lifestyle. This would not help us achieve theosis!! If one receives economia from their SF, then it ceases to be a sin in that person's life. Each of us have our own personal journeys and what may be sin to someone's journey may not be sin to another person. Our SF understands that we are humans living in a physical world. For some, not granting economia may very well hinder the person's journey to theosis although they'd be having all the kids that they could ever muster. What is that but a legalistic view?

 

[ThePilgrim]

I agree and I hope that I never suggested otherwise. I cannot tell you what you should be doing or anyone for that matter. I am not God nor am I your SF. I can only speak for myself and my beliefs of what I should be doing as a parent. College is not some unexpected expense that I do not know will come up in life. I would feel irresponsible if I was not a good steward over my finances to set aside a monthly amount while my child is young to pay for his education (and I strongly believe in education and how it is part of my responsibility to my child).

ETA: I wanted to address what my whole point was in regards to my initial commentary that took this thread on such a tangent, it's not even funny...well, maybe just a wee bit. Kidding!

Anyway, I completely disagree that financial reasons are not a valid reason for spacing children. Then to label a decision one's spiritual father agrees to as sin (as a poster did) is reprehensible. I cannot agree that a priest would advocate a sinful lifestyle. This would not help us achieve theosis!! If one receives economia from their SF, then it ceases to be a sin in that person's life. Each of us have our own personal journeys and what may be sin to someone's journey may not be sin to another person. Our SF understands that we are humans living in a physical world. For some, not granting economia may very well hinder the person's journey to theosis although they'd be having all the kids that they could ever muster. What is that but a legalistic view?

I edited my earlier post. Sorry it took so long. I haven't really been on here much for the last couple days, because of work and other commitments. You can go ahead and reply to the other stuff now

Grace and peace,
John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I agree and I hope that I never suggested otherwise. I cannot tell you what you should be doing or anyone for that matter. I am not God nor am I your SF. I can only speak for myself and my beliefs of what I should be doing as a parent. College is not some unexpected expense that I do not know will come up in life. I would feel irresponsible if I was not a good steward over my finances to set aside a monthly amount while my child is young to pay for his education (and I strongly believe in education and how it is part of my responsibility to my child).

ETA: I wanted to address what my whole point was in regards to my initial commentary that took this thread on such a tangent, it's not even funny...well, maybe just a wee bit. Kidding!

Anyway, I completely disagree that financial reasons are not a valid reason for spacing children. Then to label a decision one's spiritual father agrees to as sin (as a poster did) is reprehensible. I cannot agree that a priest would advocate a sinful lifestyle. This would not help us achieve theosis!! If one receives economia from their SF, then it ceases to be a sin in that person's life. Each of us have our own personal journeys and what may be sin to someone's journey may not be sin to another person. Our SF understands that we are humans living in a physical world. For some, not granting economia may very well hinder the person's journey to theosis although they'd be having all the kids that they could ever muster. What is that but a legalistic view?

So.... I just didn't get why you seemed to have the need to get defensive. I don't understand what I did originally to put you on the defence and seem somewhat offended.

 

[Philothei]

I agree and I hope that I never suggested otherwise. I cannot tell you what you should be doing or anyone for that matter. I am not God nor am I your SF. I can only speak for myself and my beliefs of what I should be doing as a parent. College is not some unexpected expense that I do not know will come up in life. I would feel irresponsible if I was not a good steward over my finances to set aside a monthly amount while my child is young to pay for his education (and I strongly believe in education and how it is part of my responsibility to my child).

ETA: I wanted to address what my whole point was in regards to my initial commentary that took this thread on such a tangent, it's not even funny...well, maybe just a wee bit. Kidding!

Anyway, I completely disagree that financial reasons are not a valid reason for spacing children. Then to label a decision one's spiritual father agrees to as sin (as a poster did) is reprehensible. I cannot agree that a priest would advocate a sinful lifestyle. This would not help us achieve theosis!! If one receives economia from their SF, then it ceases to be a sin in that person's life. Each of us have our own personal journeys and what may be sin to someone's journey may not be sin to another person. Our SF understands that we are humans living in a physical world. For some, not granting economia may very well hinder the person's journey to theosis although they'd be having all the kids that they could ever muster. What is that but a legalistic view?

I do not think that anyone here disagrees that it is a matter to be taken to your SF. And I do not think that it is anyone's business but yours and your SF. You do not have to apologize for that at all. Of course it would be legalistic if we do the "one size fits all" business...

 

[Christos Anesti]

I know it's bad form to resurrect old threads but I had a question about this topic and came across it.

Anyways. What is the difference (morally, spiritually , etc) between natural family planning (say making use of natural cycles to avoid pregnancy) and using a barrier? Isn't the end result the same- sex without pregnancy? I heard on Catholic radio they said that using a condom shows that you are "not open to new life". Couldn't that same charge be leveled against those who only have sex when they know it wont end in pregnancy though? I'm not seeing much of the difference they are both means to enjoy sex while drastically reducing the possibility of pregnancy.

 

[Julina]

so does this mean that infertile couples should never be allowed to have sex?

 

[MariaRegina]

Well, since I was an instructor of Natural Family Planning for three years before I became Orthodox, I will say that for those who use NFP, and who are open to life, there are times when they are not sure, and so they take a chance and can get pregnant.

Sometimes wives have become pregnant when they thought they were having infertile mucus. Because of extended sperm life, they conceived when they were taught conception was impossible at that time. However, nothing is impossible with God. These babies are considered miracle babies, but groups like PP consider them a method failure.

That is the major difference.
What is considered a method failure with pro-contraceptive minds is considered a child in NFP.

 

[MariaRegina]

so does this mean that infertile couples should never be allowed to have sex?

Good question, Julina.

It might be best if you started a thread on that question alone.

Include post-menopausal women too.

 

[buzuxi02]

so does this mean that infertile couples should never be allowed to have sex?

Whats impossible with man is possible with God. Such a couple should pray to St Irene Chrysovalandou and remember the Theotokos parents.

 

[127.0.0.1]

Deleted.