Which is the lesser of two evils—to bring undernourished children into the world for whom you cannot provide, or to practice contraception?

To bring children into the world and not to be able to provide for them is easily the lesser of the two evils. Better any temporal trials than sin by breaking God’s law. But you have no certainty that you will be unable to provide for the children God sends, or that they will be undernourished. There is such a thing as Divine Providence, above all for those who are faithful to Him. In fact God has a special Providence for large families. At best you are but making a conjecture which may never be realized; yet you talk of violating a certain obligation by contraceptive practices because of merely possible contingencies; contingencies which, even did they eventuate, could not excuse such conduct. But there is another alternative, involving discomfort to self, I know, but less than either of the two you mention. It is self-denial. You speak as if one had to choose either of your two alternatives. He need not. Mutual self-restraint is lawful. Anyway, if people do use their privileges, God absolutely forbids contraception. Nor will He send a mouth He cannot fill. Even it it meant poverty; even if an orphanage had to take care of me, I would prefer to be born and have my chance of eternal happiness with God. And I certainly thank God that, when it was my turn to come, my own mother did not say, “No more.”

Radio Replies Volume 1 by Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble MSC and Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty

🙏 PayPal Donation Appreciated

Select a Donation Option (USD)

Enter Donation Amount (USD)

Boost your faith with the help of the Catholic book we suggest below. It is a helpful resource that answers a lot of questions and can be shared with family and friends. #CommissionsEarned

The Case for Catholicism - Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections

Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you.
Scroll to Top