Natural Family Planning

[Era Might]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:57 AM']If these GRAVE reasons exist prior to the marriage, then the marriage should be postponed until the couple is in a more stable situation.

[right][snapback]908033[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, you keep making this claim, but you have yet to substantiate it.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:57 AM']That is not true. An elderly couple knows that they cannot have children before they even get married (and sometimes a young woman or man knows that they cannot beget or conceive children). The Church has no problem with them getting married, and she doesn't stipulate that they can only do so when they're able to afford to adopt.
[right][snapback]908032[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
They cannot get married if they are both completely closed to reality of children. Procreation (which includes the begetting and education of children) IS the primary end of marriage.

Most elderly couples have already had children in previous marriages.

...and how often does this really occur?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:58 AM']Again, you keep making this claim, but you have yet to substantiate it.
[right][snapback]908035[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Because it's common sense.

Do we have to go over the understanding of "grave" and what that entails?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:59 AM']They cannot get married if they are both completely closed to reality of children. Procreation (which includes the begetting and education of children) IS the primary end of marriage.

Most elderly couples have already had children in previous marriages.

...and how often does this really occur?
[right][snapback]908036[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

A barren or elderly women cannot be "open to the reality of children". They cannot have children. Period.

Yes, procreation is the primary end of marriage. But it is not the MEANING of marriage. When that end is unachievable (for prudential reasons, or biological, or whatever), it doesn't mean a couple can't get married. But they do have to remain true to the language of the body, which someone mentioned earlier.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:01 PM']Because it's common sense.

Do we have to go over the understanding of "grave" and what that entails?
[right][snapback]908037[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The question of "grave reasons" (which is not black and white anyway) is not what we are discussing.

What you claim is that a couple can't get married in the face of "grave reasons". Nowhere does the Church teach this, and I challenge you to show that it does. Otherwise, it is nothing more than your own personal speculation.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:02 PM']A barren or elderly women cannot be "open to the reality of children". They cannot have children. Period.

Yes, procreation is the primary end of marriage. But it is not the MEANING of marriage. When that end is unachievable (for prudential reasons, or biological, or whatever) it doesn't mean a couple can't get married. But they do have to remain true to the language of the body, which someone mentioned earlier.
[right][snapback]908038[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again, how often does this occur... and how often would it be that there were no previous children?

The meaning of marriage is not entirely separate from it's purpose. Procreation doesn't cease to be the primary end of marriage.

Again, natural infertility is FAR different from self-imposed avoidance of children.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:05 PM']Again, how often does this occur... and how often would it be that there were no previous children?

The meaning of marriage is not entirely separate from it's purpose. Procreation doesn't cease to be the primary end of marriage.

Again, natural infertility is FAR different from self-imposed avoidance of children.
[right][snapback]908043[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course it's not separate. But the end of procreation is not the JUSTIFICATION for marriage, as you are making it out to be. People do not get married to have children, they get married to share in the Sacramental coming together of two persons. As Alice Von Hildebrand notes in the passage cited, this coming together is "fruitful", but procreation doesn't justify marriage in itself. This is why "grave reasons" are not an impediment to marriage.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might

[toledo_jesus]

NFP should be used by spouses to avoid conception when their personal circumstances [b]truly [/b]constitute a [b]just cause[/b] for that avoidance.

"We got married and we can't afford them yet" doesn't seem just. Neither does "We want to work on us first."

NFP is not wrong, it's just only to be used in certain circumstances. Not by newlyweds! If a person gets married knowing they can't provide for children then they are at best irresponsible. Nobody's questioning whether the marriage would be valid...just whether it would be a mature, responsible, adult decision.

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:37 PM']NFP is not wrong, it's just only to be used in certain circumstances.  Not by newlyweds!  If a person gets married knowing they can't provide for children then they are at best irresponsible.  Nobody's questioning whether the marriage would be valid...just whether it would be a mature, responsible, adult decision.
[right][snapback]908084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So you are admitting that this is nothing more than your own personal opinion, and NOT the teaching of the Church? ("This" being the proposition that newlyweds can't make use of the bride's infertile periods.)

If so, I'm satisfied. That's all I want to clarify.

Edited March 10, 2006 by Era Might

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Errs Mightily' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:44 PM']So you are admitting that this is nothing more than your own personal opinion, and NOT the teaching of the Church? ("This" being the proposition that newlyweds can't make use of the bride's infertile periods.)

If so, I'm satisfied. That's all I want to clarify.
[right][snapback]908095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah, you show me where the Church specifically answers my question and I'll call myself satisfied as well. You've got as much supporting you as I do to support me.

And I said "shouldn't" make use, not "can't." It's approved by the Church and there is no Grave Reasons Police.

[Era Might]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 12:51 PM']Yeah, you show me where the Church specifically answers my question and I'll call myself satisfied as well.  You've got as much supporting you as I do to support me.

And I said "shouldn't" make use, not "can't."  It's approved by the Church and there is no Grave Reasons Police.
[right][snapback]908102[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't have to prove a negative. For example, if someone claims "The Church teaches Priests can't stick their fingers in their ears after they're ordained", I wouldn't have to prove "The Church here teaches that they don't". You've made the positive assertion, and you have to prove it.

If you personally want to argue that they shouldn't, that's fine. I disagree, and have layed out the reasons why (and why the Church DOESN'T teach it). But so long as we're clear that the Church has no problem with it, and people aren't made to feel like they're sinning or going against the mind of the Church, then all is well.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 11:37 AM']NFP should be used by spouses to avoid conception when their personal circumstances [b]truly [/b]constitute a [b]just cause[/b] for that avoidance. 

"We got married and we can't afford them yet" doesn't seem just.  Neither does "We want to work on us first." 

NFP is not wrong, it's just only to be used in certain circumstances.  Not by newlyweds!  If a person gets married knowing they can't provide for children then they are at best irresponsible.  Nobody's questioning whether the marriage would be valid...just whether it would be a mature, responsible, adult decision.
[right][snapback]908084[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

toledo -- you are unfortunately straying from the Church's position on this matter. Newlyweds can under certain circumstances practice NFP; so long as the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal union are prohibited.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 09:21 AM']Who the (expletive deleted as unbecoming of good little Catholic boys and girls) is Alice Von Hildebrand and why do I care what she thinks?[right][snapback]907986[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, the question is "Who is toledo_jesus and why does anyone care what he or she thinks?"

At least Alice von Hildebrand is a known author faithful to the magisterium and not some self-appointed theologian off the street trying to impose personal preferences as a matter of theology.

[Lil Red]

let's keep this nice & civil people....we don't want this thread to degenerate into an ugly thread like the last NFP thread.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 10 2006, 10:51 AM']  It's approved by the Church and there is no Grave Reasons Police.
[right][snapback]908102[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That's right, and you should not be trying to "flash your badge", either.

Since the Church has not given an official list of "grave reasons", the burden is not on Era Might, but rather YOU!!!!

Besides, where does this end? Are you going to be telling people whose wedding day just happens to fall in her infertile period that they should reschedule the wedding for a day that she is fertile???