NFP for Newlyweds

[morostheos]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 11:23 PM']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.
[right][snapback]716447[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So by your interpretation, the "whole duration of the marriage" doesn't start until after a couple's honeymoon is over?

[cmotherofpirl]

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.

Edited September 9, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[jmjtina]

well, i'm keeping all soon-to-be married, newlyweds, have been married X amount of years couples in my prayers.

God Bless all those families who strive to do God's Will and end up with getting pee in your face from your newborns!!!!!

*cough hsmom*

[toledo_jesus]

Argent, I'm with you on this. It seems silly to me to get married before you are completely ready to have kids, and therefore planning to use NFP for a contraceptive purpose is wrong, by my reasoning.

Also, Benedict, you quoted me about the use of NFP by Newlyweds being immoral. let me qualify that.
here's what I said, completely.

[quote]it is immoral for a newlywed couple to use NFP. I mean that's just not even giving it a chance.* edit of course, legitimate medical issues trump whatever I said. I agree, argent, that if two people aren't ready for kids they need to cool it with the marriage deal and go pray or something. and I don't mean emotionally ready, I mean that and economically ready. irresponsible otherwise.[/quote]

Now, when one speaks about using NFP, generally one means the contraceptive quality of it. It's nice to know that it can be used for the opposite, but let's face it: people liken it to Catholic birth control. I do feel it would be rash and immoral to enter into the Sacrament of Marriage without being prepared for the eventuality of children. Therefore, I feel that planning to use NFP from the word "go" is not only indicative of a lack of preparedness financially, but spiritually as well. No judgments here, but that's how I see it. Delay marriage until you are ready in every way, not just until you desire it.

I desire another 6 beers, maybe I'll just go drink them.

[Theoketos]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:52 PM']To clarify, I mean that it is immoral to intend to use NFP to avoid pregnancy, even for a limited time, at the time of the wedding.

So:
[b]Intending to practicing NFP to avoid a first pregnancy at the time of marriage is immoral, except for life-threatening medical reasons.[/b]

And I really can't think of a life threatening reason. Can anyone else?
[right][snapback]716049[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

War, extreme poverty, exodus....

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Sep 8 2005, 10:36 PM']War, extreme poverty, exodus....
[right][snapback]716464[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

those constitute grave reasons, in my book.

[kateri05]

he would simply say don't get married at all. keep in mind, those are ARGENT's words NOT the churchs.

sojourner, i have been married a few days over 8 months. i'm not sure what bearing that has on the discussion

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:23 PM']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.
[right][snapback]716447[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Not so fast! That's not at all what it says! He references medical, eugenic, and social reasons for postponing indefinitely. Hypothetically I may have known that I carry a gene for Tay-Sachs before I was married and my husband may have known that as well. By your explaination we cannot marry.

Thus, it is better to remain ignorant of things such as genetic conditions so that we can get married? I can't imagine that is Pius's intent. The circumstances were there before even if we weren't aware of them!

And even if we don't know about them and find out about them after, and after our initial consumation decide to postpone, in his arguement for the duration of the marriage indefinitely then the marriage is still valid....

[morostheos]

Thanks for the support Birgita

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:28 PM']So by your interpretation, the "whole duration of the marriage" doesn't start until after a couple's  honeymoon is over?
[right][snapback]716452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, that is my interpretation. I take a papal encyclical (Humanae Vitae) and the Catechism as higher authority than an address to midwives and thus the address should be interpreted in a way consistent with the higher authority. That is the norm for interpretation. Here is the Catechism:
[quote]
2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to [b]space the births of their children.[/b] 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:[/quote]

All of the authoritative sources either explicitly state that NFP is for spacing births or they are ambiguous, which means the ambiguous should be interpreted to harmonize with the explicit statements. This is especially true since Canon Law, the Catechism and Humanae Vitae all agree.
Also, JP2 in Evangelium Vitae talked about the vital duty of Catholics to build a culture of life. What sort of witness is it if faithful Catholics are postponing the great gift of children for years at the beginning of their marriage? It is easy to fall into a contraceptive mentality, an anti-life mentality. The path from "I love children but I can't have one now, maybe in a few years" to being closed off to children is a small one. This is very personal to me because I have three close female friends, one married for 3 years, one for 4 years and the other for 3 years (until she got divorced). All still have no children, are faithful catholics and practiced NPF from the honeymoon. In fact, I don't know of any NFP couple who hasn't practiced it from the very beginning. This appears to me to be an abuse.
If any of you can interpret Humanae Vitae or the Catechism or Canon Law differently, let me know.

Also, though it may be an immoral act, there is no sin if it was done in ignorance. And, since no one seems to talk about it, one is not culpable. And, since there is no instrinsic immorality for a married couple to practice NFP, people on the board should not take it so personally. We all do evil things out of invincible ignorance (we just don't know it, by definition).

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:40 PM']Not so fast!  That's not at all what it says!  He references medical, eugenic, and social reasons for postponing indefinitely.  Hypothetically I may have known that I carry a gene for Tay-Sachs before I was married and my husband may have known that as well.  By your explaination we cannot marry. 

Thus, it is better to remain ignorant of things such as genetic conditions so that we can get married?  I can't imagine that is Pius's intent.  The circumstances were there before even if we weren't aware of them! 

And even if we don't know about them and find out about them after, and after our initial consumation decide to postpone, in his arguement for the duration of the marriage indefinitely then the marriage is still valid....
[right][snapback]716472[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course, if you find out about the condition after, the marriage is valid. That is not in question and that is how I interpret Pius's statement. And his intent is not that one remain ignorant. His intent is that people enter into valid, fruitful marriages.
Since "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children" as the CCC states, then the couple should not marry.
This sounds unfair. But there are many medical conditions that require someone not to marry, most notably impotence. That shows the importance the church places on procreation in marriage.
[quote]Can. 1084 ß1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage. [/quote]
However, I am willing to say that the case of genetic disease is an exception (as I said there could be) to the rule. I am only saying that to practice NFP you need grave reason to not have children and there are very few cases, such as the Tay-Sachs case) where the grave reason against children would not also prevent you from getting married.

[argent_paladin]

Wait, why am I defending my interpretation of a 50 year old address by Pius XII, (before NFP existed) but everyone is ignoring the little document called HUMANAE VITAE, which explicitly supports my view?

If therefore there are well-grounded [b]reasons for spacing births[/b],....
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]. Humanae Vitae # 16

I responded to your obscure reference. Please do me the courtesy of responding to my important one.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:46 PM']Yes, that is my interpretation.[/quote]

Wow, if that's your interpretation, then what the couple is doing on the honeymoon is adultry.

[quote]Also, though it may be an immoral act, there is no sin if it was done in ignorance. And, since no one seems to talk about it, one is not culpable. And, since there is no instrinsic immorality for a married couple to practice NFP, people on the board should not take it so personally. We all do evil things out of invincible ignorance  (we just don't know it, by definition).
[right][snapback]716481[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I'm glad to know that my marriage is invalid and that I'm committing adultry since we have intended not to have children since the begining of our marriage, even though as our miscarriage shows, we have always been open to them.

I am not acting out of invincible ignorance and it is highly arrogant for you to suggest so.

Why do people get so offended by these arguements? Because you are suggesting that the marriages of orthodox Catholics whose marriages were prepared by and sanctioned by the Church are invalid.

[Benedict]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:34 PM']Also, Benedict, you quoted me about the use of NFP by Newlyweds being immoral.  let me qualify that. 
here's what I said, completely.[/quote]
Irrelevant. I removed your name and the rest of your post because I was not responding specifically to you but to the idea behind the quoted line.

[quote]Now, when one speaks about using NFP, generally one means the contraceptive quality of it.  It's nice to know that it can be used for the opposite, but let's face it: people liken it to Catholic birth control.[/quote]
I refuse to allow others to define terms for me.

[quote]Delay marriage until you are ready in every way, not just until you desire it.[/quote]
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9

Indefinite delay is not expected.

[morostheos]

Another one from EWTN
[quote]Is NFP overused?
Question from on 02-10-2002:
I am an 18 year old senior at a wonderful Catholic High School. I am very fortunate to be at a school that teaches the faith correctly and is perfectly in line with papal teachings (unfortunately unlike many Catholic Schools in my area). I am only confused about one issue: NFP! My diocese teaches that NFP, unless abused through overuse and the mentality of never being open to new life, is alright in all circumstances. However, I have read papal encyclicals that lean more towards the idea that NFP should be used merely as somewhat of a last resort and only in extenuating circumstances. Which is correct? Is it alright for every Catholic family to use NFP? Is that not somehow the same as contracepting merely in the sense that a couple can still decide the number of children they have? I understand the absolute evil of contraception and the major differences between that and NFP, but what is the correct interpretation of the Church's view on Natural Family Planning? Something about it makes me feel like we are still "playing God" so to speak. Thank you for your time!

God Bless! Laura
Answer by Fr. Richard Hogan - NFP Outreach on 02-12-2002:
Modern methods of Natural Family Planning have proven to help couples grow in virtue and in their faith. Some earlier (much earlier) papal encyclicals (especially as they were translated into English) cautioned couples that they could not "have recourse to the infertile periods" without "serious reasons." What the Church was teaching here is that NFP was to be used reponsibly with the proper motives and these were required as prerequisites. Since that time, the Church has learned through the experience of couples using NFP that it actually helps them grow in virtue so that responsibility is developed through the use of the methods. [b]Therefore the proper use of NFP is in most cases a result of couples using NFP.[/b] In light of this experience, the Church has not changed its teaching that NFP should be used for the right motives, but the Church realizes that NFP develops in the couples the proper motives.

As to your other point that through NFP couples can choose the number of children they will have and is not that "playing God?" No. God created the human fertility cycle with a predictability. He also gave us minds. He knew we would come to understand our fertility. He obviously wanted us to do that. Otherwise, He would have created our fertility so that it was completely random. God wants us to come to know ourselves and the world and then to employ that knowledge properly.

Thanks for writing. [/quote]

I have not studied canon law or natural family planning in an extensive or formal capacity, so I can't pretend to be able to point out the exact phrase that proves the point, but I instead trust the guidance of priests who I know to be orthodox and faithful to the teachings of the Church.

There are many, many responses to questions similar to this on over at EWTN and they all point to the same thing. Through the practice of NFP, couples gain the capacity to be truly generous and open to life. This DOES pertain to those who are not yet married in my opinion. How better to grow in your generosity to God than through marriage and practice of NFP?

You are correct that there is only a mention of spacing births, but there is also not an explicit mention that serious reasons are only valid after you've had one child. Therefore, it seems that this is your personal interpretation of the pertinent texts. I don't think it is fair to assume that all should have the same interpretation of this, especially when the texts do not state your point explicitly, it is at most implied, even if that. I'm not saying you are wrong (I do not have the necessary qualifications to judge that), but I do not see your logic as being flawless.