NFP for Newlyweds

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:36 PM']War, extreme poverty, exodus....
[right][snapback]716464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


War should be a time of trying to get pregnant, extreme poverty usually is accompanied by hunger which actually increases fertility, guess that shows you natures vote on the subject there,

Exodus, yeah I might be able to see that but if one new they where going to have an exodus which was going to take more than a few months ( which is how long it would take for the pregnancy to get troublesome) then agian I think it would be prudent to postpone the marriage for a more appropriate time. That said Nomads have traveled on foot with pregnant women for the entire existance of man.

[argent_paladin]

"An annulment means the marriage ever existed.

So she was having sex with someone who was not, in fact, her husband.

We call that fornication.

Just because she is not culpable does not change the fact that what happened is exactly what fornication is - an unmarried couple having sex."

That is not the case. Talk to any canon lawyer. That is why I brought up the illegitimate child situation. I will substitute for you:

"An annulment means the marriage never existed.
So she had a child with someone who was not, in fact, her husband.
We call that an illegitimate child.
Just because she is not culpable does not change the fact that what happened is exactly what illegitimacy is - an unmarried couple having a child."

But, as we know, children of annulled marriages are, in fact, not bastards.
Neither did the parents fornicate. The marriage is assumed valid.
Here is another example. Imagine that there was an impediment discoved in a marriage, such as a defect of form (e.g. the marriage wasn't celebrated in a church). The couple can convalidate their marriage, which is retroactive. So, the couple wasn't fornicating until they made their marriage valid, but their marriage becomes valid back to the point of marriage.

This indicates that an invalid marriage is not the same thing as no marriage. That is a "null marriage." Again, consult a canon lawyer. The best book on the subject is "The Invalid Marriage" by Lawrence Wrenn. Basically, an invalid marriage is a real marriage but with serious defects. The terminology indicates such. An invalid as in a person, is a person who is ill, but still a person. Similarly, an invalid marriage is one with serious defects. The convalidation example is useful again. One cannot convalidate something that doesn't exist, but one can convalidate an invalid marriage.
But that is advanced canon law and not wholly relevant.

It is interesting to see, however, the reasons fornication is immoral. The Catechism:
[quote]Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children.[/quote]

Part of the reason fornication is immoral because it is not ordered toward the generation and education of children. As the pope has said, rape can occur in marriage and something analagous to fornication can occur between married couples as well. If the couple has intercourse not ordered toward the twin ends of good of spouses AND procreation, it is immoral.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:30 PM']I don't know, I think the fact that you and your potential spouse both carry the tay sachs gene that not getting married at all would be the more prudent act, one does not have a right to marry any one particular person.
[right][snapback]716645[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually DJ, I have changed my mind and I agree with you. The couple should not get married. No matter what the reason, a couple that intends to avoid having children by whatever means should not and I would say cannot get married because it is contrary to the definition of marriage.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I AM saying that if you do not feel prepared to procreate for a grave reason, that same grave reason prevents you from getting married because the intention to procreate (which is necessary for a valid marriage) is not there.[/quote]

And again, you make the same mistake I have discussed in previous pages: the intention to prudently avoid childbirth for a specific period of time is [i]not the same[/i] as a rejection of the procreative end of marriage as a whole.

The former is permissible by the Church, the latter is not.

The only reason you give for the couple to refrain from marriage is your conclusion that the couple has no intention to procreate. However, that conclusion is false, precisely because a couple who find it imprudent to have a child [i]now[/i] is by no means a couple that is not oriented towards procreation.

So, if a couple who does not deem it responsible to raise a child at the present moment can still be a couple whose intention is procreation (just not immediately), then it logically follows that there is nothing which would prevent them from marrying.

Now, if the couple thinks that their situation might change for the better in the near future, they may find that to be a good enough reason to postpone the marriage. However, if their situation could continue on for an unforseen amount of time, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with their getting married.






Also, just a humble comment:

we should all remember that, regardless of how solid we find our argumentation to be, not a single one of us here is the Magisterium of the Church, and, as such, not a single one of us here is authoritative, myself included. Charity and Humility are among the virtues which please Our Saviour the most, I pray that all involved in this discussion might remember them,

In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:24 PM']Jake that is not a reason, what conditions could there be that would justify the prevention of pregnancy that would not also be grave enough to delay marriage. An actual thing/condition.
Mind you I think "wanting" to get married is possibly the worst reason to do it, I rank arranged marriages  way way above tohose made just  becuase they participants wanted to.
[right][snapback]716638[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Its Jeff, lol, and in no way is my argument reducible to an argument-by-sentimentality.

If a grave reason exists that would justify the prevention of pregnancy, and that grave reason might very well persist for an unforseeable amount of time, there is, quite simply, no reason for the couple [i]not[/i] to get married.

Simply because a grave reason which would justify the [i]postponing[/i] (a much more accurately descriptive word than "prevention") of pregnancy exists, that does not mean that the marriage of the couple would not be oriented towards procreation.

As such, there is no reason for the couple not to marry.

Now, if the grave reason will most likely be resolved in the near/forseeable future, then it follows that the couple may want to postpone the marriage until such a time. However, even in a situation like this, there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with the couple getting married before that, it would simply be a questionable prudential judgement.

In Christ,

Jeff

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:53 AM']Its Jeff, lol, and in no way is my argument reducible to an argument-by-sentimentality.

If a grave reason exists that would justify the prevention of pregnancy, and that grave reason might very well persist for an unforseeable amount of time, there is, quite simply, no reason for the couple [i]not[/i] to get married.

Simply because a grave reason which would justify the [i]postponing[/i] (a much more accurately descriptive word than "prevention") of pregnancy exists, that does not mean that the marriage of the couple would not be oriented towards procreation.

As such, there is no reason for the couple not to marry.

Now, if the grave reason will most likely be resolved in the near/forseeable future, then it follows that the couple may want to postpone the marriage until such a time. However, even in a situation like this, there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with the couple getting married before that, it would simply be a questionable prudential judgement.

In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]716756[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I know it's jeff I was just really tired, 14 hour at work can get your brain tired, even mine :

And you didn't answer my question, can you give me a concrete example of a reason that would prevent be ligit to prevent pregnancy but not marraige. And I do not use postpone pregnancy for a reason, you are not postponing pregnancy from [i]that [/i]act you are preventing pregnancy from that act. NFP does not allow you to go back and have children from a previous sexual encounter or to have a sexual encounter at a time when you did not infact have one in the past so the pregnancy which might have resulted from said encounter is prevented, not postponed. The Child which would result from sex on tuesday the 4th is not the child that would result from wednesday the 18th, that pregnancy has been prevented, forever.

[Carrie]

I've read through the entire thread and all I can say is wow. Just wow.


I'm late in joining in the discussion and don't have much to add, but I will say that I am in complete agreement with Jeff, Birgitta, and kateri.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 9 2005, 09:13 AM']I've read through the entire thread and all I can say is wow.  Just wow.
I'm late in joining in the discussion and don't have much to add, but I will say that I am in complete agreement with Jeff, Birgitta, and kateri.
[right][snapback]716826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So can you put forward a grave reason which would be reasonable to prevent pregnancy but not to postpone or prevent the marriage.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 9 2005, 10:13 AM']I've read through the entire thread and all I can say is wow.  Just wow.
I'm late in joining in the discussion and don't have much to add, but I will say that I am in complete agreement with Jeff, Birgitta, and kateri.
[right][snapback]716826[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely.
and although my post was studiously ignored I'll repeat it.
I see nothing wrong with using NFP during the first year of marriage to postpone pregnancy.
Its hard enough to adjust to living with another person 24/7 without adding raging hormones to the mix.
Give the marriage a chance before you add the responsibilty of another human life to the mix.
And unless you are married already, please do not presume to know how difficult that first year can be.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 9 2005, 10:12 AM']Absolutely.
and although my post was studiously ignored I'll repeat it.
I see nothing wrong with using NFP during the first year of marriage to postpone pregnancy.
Its hard enough to adjust to living with another person 24/7 without adding raging hormones to the mix.
Give the marriage a chance before you add the responsibilty of another human life to the mix.
And unless you are married already, please do not presume to know how difficult that first year can be.
[right][snapback]716867[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I am already maried and adjusting to married life is hardly a "Grave reason". This has to be grave the same kind of stringent requirment needed to put someone to death. learning to live with your spouse does not apply.

[Brother Adam]

Both of you are merely expressing opinions. Ultimately neither are right or wrong until the Church says so :

Though I agree with DJ that adjusting is not a grave enough reason. But that's just my opinion.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Brother Adam

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Sep 9 2005, 10:17 AM']Both of you are merely expressing opinions. Ultimately neither are right or wrong until the Church says so :
[right][snapback]716869[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well the church has certianly made clear overthe century's that living with ones spouse does not qualify as grave.


and thank you for your agreement.

Edited September 9, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Carrie]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 9 2005, 12:11 PM']So can you put forward a grave reason which would be reasonable to prevent pregnancy but not to postpone or prevent the marriage.
[right][snapback]716865[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Grave reasons can be financial, psychological, medical, or otherwise.

I'm not going to sit here and play "what if this scenario occured" games.

The Church accepts the use of NFP. Nowhere does it state that NFP cannot be used by newlyweds. End of story.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 9 2005, 11:12 AM']Absolutely.
and although my post was studiously ignored I'll repeat it.
I see nothing wrong with using NFP during the first year of marriage to postpone pregnancy.
Its hard enough to adjust to living with another person 24/7 without adding raging hormones to the mix.
Give the marriage a chance before you add the responsibilty of another human life to the mix.
And unless you are married already, please do not presume to know how difficult that first year can be.
[right][snapback]716867[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm still deciding whether I would think it's a good reason or not, but I won't presume to know how tough it can be. I would guess that it's tougher for some than for others, though.

What I have noticed is that someone in this thread is arguing that the 9 months gestation time is enough "couple time"...just wanted to point out that that could hardly be considered "couple time"...first, at the point of conception, there's already a family there, with the stress, cares, health, and financial planning for at least 3 people involved. I hardly think that a pregnant couple enjoys that much time together that isn't focused on the pregnancy or at least has the pregnancy there. Even in the most intimate moments (during which, hopefully, there is no financial planning going on), there are three (or more in the case of twins, triples, etc.) people involved. All of us who were on the NFP phorum know very well the impact that pregnancy can have even on the most personal acts of a couple, the sex life.

I'm undecided on the whole issue...just wanted to point out that little thing, which is hardly even relevant.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 9 2005, 10:12 AM']And unless you are married already, please do not presume to know how difficult that first year can be.
[right][snapback]716867[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Just because I'm not married doesn't mean I don't have a pretty decent idea of how difficult a close, intimate relationship can be. There are other ways of gaining knowledge and wisdom (although I'm not claiming to have that, necessarily) than through direct experience.