St John Vianney - women having children
#1
Once in the confessional, St John vianney once stated
To a mother of a large family, who was expecting another child, he said with fatherly kindness and consideration:  "Be comforted, my child.  If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

Now they didn't have contraception or abortion in the 1700's, so can you go to hell for not having enough children?


 - it implies you can go to hell for not mortal sinning, but not living the life God intends for you?

So confused.
Reply
#2
Contraception and abortion have been around forever.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • MaryTN
Reply
#3
He said "who will," giving the possibility that it coult be in our times. He might mean those who don't have children out of selfishness, those who avoid conception, and those who use artificial birth control. If one does it out of love of God, of course it won't drag you to hell.
:monstrance:Deo Gratias et Ave Maria! :monstrance:
Pray the Rosary

A Dieu mon ame,
Mon arme au roi,
Mon Coeur a la dame,
Mon honneur a moi!
Reply
#4
As Vox mentioned, contraception (drugs and "potions" that cause sterility, not to mention barriers and coitus interruptus and other forms of onanism) and abortion have been around for all of Christian history and earlier.

It is the duty of married couples to bring forth children--that's their mission.  Births may be limited for a just cause by using just means.  But even strict and consensual complete continence to avoid children can be done for an unjust cause.  In other words, if a married couple chooses not to have kids for a selfish reasons, it would be a sin. From the Catechism:

Quote:2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
[Image: catherinesiena-1.jpg]
Reply
#5
(06-20-2018, 03:22 PM)popeinnocent1972 Wrote: Once in the confessional, St John vianney once stated
To a mother of a large family, who was expecting another child, he said with fatherly kindness and consideration:  "Be comforted, my child.  If you only knew the women who will go to Hell because they did not bring into the world the children they should have given to it."

Now they didn't have contraception or abortion in the 1700's, so can you go to hell for not having enough children?


 - it implies you can go to hell for not mortal sinning, but not living the life God intends for you?

So confused.

Contraception is mentioned in the Book of Genesis. God so disliked it that the person who practiced contraception died.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)