Benedict Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Oh no, we are at that point where the message board is a chat room. No, not Alpha. This is a girl from school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:59 PM']Oh no, we are at that point where the message board is a chat room. No, not Alpha. This is a girl from school. [right][snapback]716350[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ah...very well. Back to the original argument... "Everything you know is wrong!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedict Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Black is white? Up is down? Short is long? Everything I used to think was so important doesn't really matter anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:01 PM']Black is white? Up is down? Short is long? Everything I used to think was so important doesn't really matter anymore. [right][snapback]716353[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Well it's good to know that I'm immoral, irresponsible and irrational since my husband and I got married and have been practicing NFP since. But you're not the first person to tell me that. BTW, what if the woman is in a period of infertility on her wedding night? Should they change the date of the wedding? Isn't it St. Paul who says that it's better to marry than to burn with lust? I can think of lots of reasons not to wait. I also know couples who got married, intending to use NFP from the start and through the grace of marriage and the use of NFP they decided not to postpone conception, determining that they would be "more" open to life. But, I guess I'll just have to enjoy my ride in my handbasket. Jeff and Kateri, thanks for your efforts in this thread. (Now that I've got that off my chest I will say that an accusation such as that which was made originally seems to discount the truth about NFP considering that the couple even when using NFP is saying that they are open to the POSSIBILITY of having children. Most couples "take chances" when they use NFP, and they know that it's not 100% effective. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:54 PM']And I disagree with both of you on this point. You especially, Don John, know that I tend to be on your side in most every discussion that this phorum has, however, in this case, I think argent and you are interpreting this teaching of the Church in too rigorist a manner. As one of my previous quotes shows, not desiring conception on an individual instance of sexual intercourse is different from not desiring conception systematically - wedding night or otherwise. As such, just because a couple is not [i]immediately[/i] prepared to have children does not mean that they aren't of the proper disposition. That having been said, it is nowhere taught that a couple must be fiscally capable of responsibly rearing a child in order to get married - it only is taught that the couple must accept the fact that one of the ends of marriage is childrearing. In Christ, Jeff [right][snapback]716344[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I completly agree, "fiscally capable" is a ludicrus standard; of course I believe you are always fiscally capable if you have to be, certianly this is so in the first world. However, there is no way that you can convince me that someone is truely open to new life and a new marriage if you are starting it by intentionally trying to avoid life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:14 PM']I completly agree, "fiscally capable" is a ludicrus standard; of course I believe you are always fiscally capable if you have to be, certianly this is so in the first world. However, there is no way that you can convince me that someone is truely open to new life and a new marriage if you are starting it by intentionally trying to avoid life. [right][snapback]716367[/snapback][/right] [/quote] So a couple can engage in NFP for a given period of their married life, but that period simply can't happen to fall in the beginning of the marriage? Personally, I cannot justify such a position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kateri05 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 birgitta, my dear dear sister in Christ, you have BEAUTIFULLY articulated my very position. while we are fiscally unable at this time to have children (husband unpaid self-employed before i get the, you dont need a 3 figure income to have a kid lecture), NFP has TRULY made us more open and appreciative the gift of life than anything else. in fact, just this month, due to stress and travel, my period was a few days late and my first thought was i hope, despite the odds, we're pregnant. and of course, we weren't, God has a special plan for us and our hopefully future children, but without NFP, i don't believe that would have been my little secret hope. because we DO have faith that if God wants it for us, despite our income and my job, we would make a baby work. but responsibily postponing pregancy until we have steady income is NOT contraceptive in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 (edited) [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:19 PM']So a couple can engage in NFP for a given period of their married life, but that period simply can't happen to fall in the beginning of the marriage? Personally, I cannot justify such a position. [right][snapback]716371[/snapback][/right] [/quote] If one must have grave reasons to practice NFP, can you name any reason that one would be grave enough to practice NFP but not so grave as to avoid marriage. ( at least to postpone it.) Edited September 9, 2005 by Don John of Austria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='kateri05' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:20 PM']birgitta, my dear dear sister in Christ, you have BEAUTIFULLY articulated my very position. while we are fiscally unable at this time to have children (husband unpaid self-employed before i get the, you dont need a 3 figure income to have a kid lecture), NFP has TRULY made us more open and appreciative the gift of life than anything else. in fact, just this month, due to stress and travel, my period was a few days late and my first thought was i hope, despite the odds, we're pregnant. and of course, we weren't, God has a special plan for us and our hopefully future children, but without NFP, i don't believe that would have been my little secret hope. because we DO have faith that if God wants it for us, despite our income and my job, we would make a baby work. but responsibily postponing pregancy until we have steady income is NOT contraceptive in nature. [right][snapback]716372[/snapback][/right] [/quote] How long have you been married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:21 PM']If one must have grave reasons to practice NFP, can you name any reason that one would be grave enough to practice NFP but not so grave as to avoid marriage. ( at least to postpone it.) [right][snapback]716373[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Sure, let's say there is a couple who want to get married, but they acknowledge that they would be neglecting their parental duty if they had children in their given conditions. However, they have no reasonable or reliable way to determine when their situation will change, and it is feasible that the situation could persist for a long, long time. To refrain from marriage would be a mistake in such a case, because it reduces marriage to [i]nothing but[/i] the state in which children are produced, and fails to regard the unitive aspect of marriage as a good and desireable thing in and of itself. However, the couple getting married in this case does not give the couple the right to shirk their parental responsibility. As such, the couple in this situation, or one like it, should get married, and agree to use NFP until they are able to responsibly raise a child - which has always been their desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argent_paladin Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='kateri05' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:14 PM']but a family is two people, the man and wife. so an increase would be referring to a third. [right][snapback]716304[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That's exactly it. I am not talking about the man and wife. I am talking about an unmarried couple. They are NOT a family and thus are under morally different constraints. Thus, it is not against magisterial teaching to suggest that if a couple decides to practice NFP indefinitely from the beginning of their marriage, that is an immoral intention and possibly the marriage would be invalid because they don't know that it is one of the intrinsic ends of marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morostheos Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Ok, so you're not saying that NFP is immoral for newlyweds no matter what, but only that to practice NFP indefinitely throughout one's entire married life is immoral?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birgitta Noel Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I've been married 3 years. (Yes, I know you weren't asking me). We did consumate our marriage on our wedding night and have NFPed (loosely speaking, but pretty conservatively) since then. We have evaluated, and reevaluated our situation numerous times since then, and have always come to the same conclusion, not now. We have been pregnant. It was "unplanned" and before we knew we were pregnant we miscarried. I figured it all out in the same moment. Defining grave is something best left between oneself, one's husband, and one's spiritual director/confessor, and Christ. That said, you don't have to be practically living on the street to be unable to provide for a child. Personally, the fact that I am in graduate school, that we are DEEPLY in debt, and that I live in a different city every summer, make our reasons right now grave enough, and yet, we could financially support a child. I might have a nervous breakdown if we had a child though and quite truthfully my marriage might not be able to handle such a stress right now. Grave reasons differ for every person. And they can change from day to day. Young people struggle enough with chastity as it is. If they postpone marriage and are unable to remain chaste they are likely NOT using NFP. Why not marry, enter into this sacrament and grow in love with the benefit of the accompanying graces, and use NFP, knowing that the chance that a child might be conceived is small, but still remains. I am not saying that those using it are not using it with a contraceptive mentality. Maybe I am, but that's quite frankly no one's business other than mine. Thus, if I am damned to hell for that that is my problem. But by suggesting that marrying and using NFP is imoral you are basically suggesting that my marriage is invalid as our intention from the beginning has remained not to have children currently, not never, just not now. Ironically, we might have sex during a fertile time and still intend not to have children at that time, but we decide to have sex, regardless. Is that immoral as well? (I know this is faulty, but take it as rhetorical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argent_paladin Posted September 9, 2005 Author Share Posted September 9, 2005 [quote]So a couple can engage in NFP for a given period of their married life, but that period simply can't happen to fall in the beginning of the marriage?[/quote] Not exactly. [quote]Can. 1101 ß1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage. ß2 If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude marriage itself or any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such party contracts invalidly. [/quote] Thus, if there is a positive act of the will excluding the essential element of procreation from marriage, it is an invalid marriage. If the couple intends to practice NFP from the moment of marriage on, indefinitely, for the postponing of procreatioin, that is a positive act of the will. Clear? [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:38 PM']Sure, let's say there is a couple who want to get married, but they acknowledge that they would be neglecting their parental duty if they had children in their given conditions. However, they have no reasonable or reliable way to determine when their situation will change, and it is feasible that the situation could persist for a long, long time. To refrain from marriage would be a mistake in such a case, because it reduces marriage to [i]nothing but[/i] the state in which children are produced, and fails to regard the unitive aspect of marriage as a good and desireable thing in and of itself. However, the couple getting married in this case does not give the couple the right to shirk their parental responsibility. As such, the couple in this situation, or one like it, should get married, and agree to use NFP until they are able to responsibly raise a child - which has always been their desire. [right][snapback]716383[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In that situation, they should definitely not get married. It does not reduce marriage to nothing but procreation. It acknowledges that procreation is an intrinsic end of marriage that cannot be cast aside. CCC: [quote]1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."162 Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning [he] made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.163[/quote] Procreation is not an option for marriage. If one has the intention to not have children, one cannot validly get married, whatever the reason. Your mistake is that you divide the indivisible uniative and procreative ends. From Humanae Vitae: [quote]12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason. [/quote] Note, the unitive and procreative are both inherent to the marriage act. An intention against EITHER ONE, invalidates a marriage. This does not diminish the importance of the unitive aspect, in fact, they complement one another, as JP2 often emphasized. This is the central reason why same-sex marriage is impossible. There is no possibility of procreation. It is still unbelievable to me that I have to defend the truth that people who have discerned that they are not ready to have children should not get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts