NFP for Newlyweds

[Sojourner]

[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]
I see what you're saying. However, for myself personally, I would not feel right standing before God and the church promising to enter into a fruitful marriage, while at the same time knowing that I'm planning to avoid the possibility of producing fruit for the foreseeable future. Just thinking about doing that makes me a little ... uneasy. Perhaps if I were in the situation, with a specific guy and the details of the situation in mind, I would feel differently. But right now, just on theory, it doesn't sit well.

[Birgitta Noel]

[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]

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:41 PM']possibly the marriage would be invalid because they don't know that it is one of the intrinsic ends of marriage.
[right][snapback]716391[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Those who get married intending to practice NFP for a limited time, are not ignorant of the ends of marriage!

[argent_paladin]

"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. "


That is EXACTLY what I am not saying. There is a significant moral difference between marrying and practicing NFP for grave reason (and I don't presume to judge your reasons) and deciding to use NFP before you get married.

It is just strange to me that someone would postpone consumating their marriage until the 6th day of their honeymoon because they are in a fertile period. An extended engagement or betrothal shows a greater respect for the ends of marriage.

Getting married with the deliberate intention not to have children is an impediment and invalidates the marriage.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:54 PM']I see what you're saying. However, for myself personally, I would not feel right standing before God and the church promising to enter into a fruitful marriage, while at the same time knowing that I'm planning to avoid the possibility of producing fruit for the foreseeable future.
[right][snapback]716407[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


But you're not really avoiding the possiblity completely unless you fail entirely to consumate the marriage. There is always a possibility. That's the thing, NFP is open to the possibility of life. It may be remote, but it's there. If we want to say that that's not being open enough then we have to resort to requiring the husband and wife to have sex all the time.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:56 PM']Those who get married intending to practice NFP for a limited time, are not ignorant of the ends of marriage!
[right][snapback]716411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Two things. One, I'm assuming that by "practice NFP" you mean "avoid pregnancy through the use of NFP." Am I right?

And, for the sake of discussion, if you're only intending to practice NFP for a limited time, why not wait to get married until such time as you don't have to practice NFP?

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:58 PM']"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. "
That is EXACTLY what I am not saying. There is a significant moral difference between marrying and practicing NFP for grave reason (and I don't presume to judge your reasons) and deciding to use NFP before you get married.

It is just strange to me that someone would postpone consumating their marriage until the 6th day of their honeymoon because they are in a fertile period.  An extended engagement or betrothal shows a greater respect for the ends of marriage.

Getting married with the deliberate intention not to have children is an impediment and invalidates the marriage.
[right][snapback]716416[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, you've just said exactly that. Even though I may have consumated the marriage immediately, I got married with the intention of not having children right away. I still have that intention. I don't intend to never have children.

You're basing your arguements here on intention. If you based them on ACTION it might hold. Becuase then to invalidate the marriage you would have to a) contracept - artificially, or b) never consumate the marriage.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:56 PM']Those who get married intending to practice NFP for a limited time, are not ignorant of the ends of marriage!
[right][snapback]716411[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

OK. so this theoretical couple says
"I know that procreation is an intrinsic end of marriage. I also know that I have grave reasons to avoid procreating. But I am getting married anyway."

That is completely illogical. If you have grave reason to avoid having children, that in itself is grave reason to avoid getting married.
My main problem is that it falls into the secular mentality. Most couples today don't have their first child untill well into the marriage (and they practice contraception).

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:59 PM']But you're not really avoiding the possiblity completely unless you fail entirely to consumate the marriage.  There is always a possibility.  That's the thing, NFP is open to the possibility of life.  It may be remote, but it's there.  If we want to say that that's not being open enough then we have to resort to requiring the husband and wife to have sex all the time.
[right][snapback]716417[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
You could say the same thing about any form of contraception (yes I know NFP isn't inherently a form of contraception). No form of contraception prevents pregnancy 100 percent of the time, so whenever you engage in intercourse you're taking some degree of risk of pregnancy.

[argent_paladin]

I will let the Magisterium speak for me:
[quote]If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for [b]spacing births[/b], arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives [b]the birth of another child is not desirable.[/b] And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Humanae Vitae # 16
[/quote]

I'm done. Rome has spoken.

[morostheos]

Pius XII said there are some circumstances where a married couple may be morally correct in avoiding having children even throughout their entire marriage. Are you suggesting that people in these situations should simply never marry?? Pius XII thought otherwise.....

[quote]There are serious motives [seri motivi], such as those often mentioned in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic, and social “indications,” that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act.[/quote]

(Pius XII, “Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives” (Oct. 29, 1951), in AAS XLIII (1951):
835-54. Trans. by Vincent A. Yzermans, The Major Address of Pope Pius XII, vol. I (St. Paul,
Minn.: Worth Central Publishing, 1961), 168-69.)

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I posted this at EWTN on the NFP questions forum:

[quote]Some friends of mine over on another Catholic forum are arguing over what is a moral use of NFP.  One poses the following situation: is it moral to use NFP to avoid children at the time (but not permanently) starting at marriage, or must a first child be born.

One side argues that a couple should try actively to conceive right upon marriage, because a couple should not be getting married unless they are ready, willing, and prepared for children.

However, for those who are poor, for instance, the preparedness factor means that they would be unable to marry indefinitely.

The other side poses this scenario:

"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 nothing but 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."

However, this seems to say that we should hold off children (while still being fundamentally open to life) indefinitely.

I'm a poor scrupulant, so moral judgments are difficult for me, but this matter has intrigued me for a long time.

God bless,

Micah[/quote]

Hopefully, we will receive a sound response.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:15 PM']Pius XII said there are some circumstances where a married couple may be morally correct in avoiding having children even throughout their entire marriage.  Are you suggesting that people in these situations should simply never marry??  Pius XII thought otherwise.....
(Pius XII, “Address to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives” (Oct. 29, 1951), in AAS XLIII (1951):
835-54. Trans. by Vincent A. Yzermans, The Major Address of Pope Pius XII, vol. I (St. Paul,
Minn.: Worth Central Publishing, 1961), 168-69.)
[right][snapback]716437[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
At risk of sounding like a broken record, Pius is talking about circumstances that arrive after the marriage, not before. There is a significant moral difference. Obviously, if the couple is medically sterile or infertile, they can still get married. But there wouldn't be an intention to avoid having children. But, as we say before, serious psychological motives make one ineligible for marriage. Intention to not have childen likewise makes the marriage invalid. But that intention must be present at the time of the exchange of vows. If it is after, it is still a valid marriage.

[morostheos]

But EWTN already had an answer....and I quoted it......

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:21 PM']I posted this at EWTN on the NFP questions forum:
Hopefully, we will receive a sound response.
[right][snapback]716445[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I hope you included a citation of Humanae Vitae #16, which is the source of all modern NFP teaching.