NFP for Newlyweds

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:52 PM']...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....

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.

[right][snapback]716488[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Canon Law you quote does not say that the man cannot get married because he cannot have children. It says he cannot get married because he cannot have sex. He is physically incapable of completing the act, of consumating the marriage.

That shows the importance the Church places on the union of the man and wife in the sexual act in marriage which may result in the conception of children.

[Benedict]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:04 PM']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.[/quote]
I thought I said this several dozen posts ago.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 10:07 PM']I thought I said this several dozen posts ago.
[right][snapback]716513[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


LOL, probably But I missed it too!

[morostheos]

you did! I was just bringing it up again, since it's a good point and wasn't ever addressed properly.

[argent_paladin]

First, couples who have sex in an invalid marriage are not committing adultery. Neither are their children illegitimate. These are just hysterial arguments and distortions.
Second, none of the EWTN articles, to my knowledge, address the question directly. Which is "Is it immoral to marry without intending to procreate even with a grave reason?" Note, that is different from the question "Is it immoral to not intend to procreate even with grave reason?" If grave reason is found after marriage, one may of course use NFP. But if there is grave reason BEFORE marriage, one cannot, in most cases, marry because you don't intend one of the twin essential intentions.
Just because something hurts or is personal doesn't mean that it isn't true. I have yet to see a shred of evidence that explicitly says that a couple may get married even though the don't intend to have children but are physically able to. I have given example after example and citation after citation for my position. To reiterate:

I am NOT saying that one cannot practice NFP.
I am NOT saying that a sterile couple cannot get married.
I am NOT saying that if a newly wed couple encounters grave reason, they may not decide to postpone their first child.
I am NOT saying that there are very narrow life-threatening or serious genetic exceptions that would allow a couple to marry even though they intend not to procreate.
I am NOT saying that practicing NFP couples can gain the capacity to love and be open to life.

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. This is the long-held teaching and practice of the Church (I know this because there was no NFP 50 years ago and if you had grave reason not to have children, the only option was to postpone marriage).

[qfnol31]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:54 PM']It's interesting how we all agree so quickly, yet many faithful Catholics (or else they'd be using contraception) do exactly what we say is immoral. And I have never heard this mentioned, in all of my moral theology classes. Why not?  Is it because it is too hard, that enough people are ignoring the contraception rules and this is one battle that is not worth fighting? I really don't know.
[right][snapback]716055[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have...but he also said it would be immoral to marry if one person is known to be infertile.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 10:29 PM']First, couples who have sex in an invalid marriage are not committing adultery. Neither are their children illegitimate. These are just hysterial arguments and distortions.
[right][snapback]716546[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


My apologies, the term used should not be adultry, fornication rather. I NEVER said that their children were illigitimate, but I can see how you might infer that. Even if a marriage is annuled the children are not illigitimate.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Sep 8 2005, 10:30 PM']I have...but he also said it would be immoral to marry if one person is known to be infertile.
[right][snapback]716547[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Tell him to read his canon law:
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.


ß2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.


ß3 Without prejudice to the provisions of can. 1098, [b]sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage. [/b]

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Sep 8 2005, 10:39 PM']My apologies, the term used should not be adultry, fornication rather.  I NEVER said that their children were illigitimate, but I can see how you might infer that.  Even if a marriage is annuled the children are not illigitimate.
[right][snapback]716558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, it's not fornication either. A marriage is assumed valid until it is annulled.
Do you think that someone who has her marriage annuled was then actually fornication for years with her "husband" because her marriage was invalid?
Of course not.

[argent_paladin]

OK, here's another way to think about it:

The intention to not have children, and the intention alone, is enough to invalidate a marriage, regardless of the graveness of the reason or the means that are used to bring about this intention.

Thus, if you intend not to have children, even if it is for very good reasons, and even if you use moral means (NFP) the intention itself is still immoral.

Of course, this would be true in a marriage as well. But the fact that you have a child shows that you are open to marriage, so, if you are not using immoral means like AC, you can intend to not have children for a temporary period, or for grave reason, permanently. Of course, you don't actually have to have a child, you just have to have, at some point in the marriage, had conjugal relations without the intention against procreation.

[Birgitta Noel]

...nevermind

Edited September 9, 2005 by Birgitta Noel

[Benedict]

[quote]Do you think that someone who has her marriage annuled was then actually fornication for years with her "husband" because her marriage was invalid?

Of course not.[/quote]
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.

If she had unknowingly married her brother (separated at birth), would it be any less than incest? Again, they would not be culpable but objectively it is still incest - sexual relations between siblings.

Benedict,

who is once again technically correct (he hopes),

the best kind of correct.

[Birgitta Noel]

methinks you are correct

I have to go to bed, we'll continue this later....Goodnight Pham.

[Don John of Austria]

[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]


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.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:52 PM']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.

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.
[right][snapback]716488[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


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.