Nfp (to Prevent Conception) For Newlyweds?

[TheoGrad07]

Should couples enter marriage intended to practice NFP (to avoid conception) from the very beginning?

I understand and agree that sometimes, for "serious reasons," already-married couples may practice NFP to avoid conception. I firmly insist that these "serious reasons" should met objective standards, according to the guidance of the Church.

However, I wonder whether it is permissible for a couple to enter marriage intending to avoid conception (and use NFP to do so) from the very start of the marriage? If the situation is serious enough to justify the use of NFP to avoid conception, should the couple rather post-pone the marriage until circumstances are such that they can be open to fulfilling the procreative purpose of their marriage?

If the teaching on the ends of marriage did not change during the 20th century, then the procreative end of marriage is primary and should be respected as such. If the teaching did change, and the procreative and unitive ends are equal, then can one justify emphasizing the unitive end over the procreative at the start of a marriage?

A common example to help clarify: Suppose two Catholics in graduate school want to marry. Both are taking classes full-time, working part-time, and taking out (some) student loans to survive. While the woman is willing to postpone studies, completing is necessary for the man's career - he will have two to four years of course work left after they marry. If the woman were to conceive and stop working, it would be nearly impossible for the man to continue school while providing for his wife and child.

Should such practicing Catholics marry, intending to use NFP to avoid conception from the start of their marriage? Should they postpone the wedding until they are in a position to welcome children - a position that does not involve the man giving up his necessary schooling?

[Norseman82]

Is there a church requirement that a couple has to pop out a baby nine months after the wedding?

[qfnol31]

Is there a Church requirement that a couple has to be willing to pop out a baby nine months after the wedding?

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1454950' date='Feb 3 2008, 03:20 PM']Is there a church requirement that a couple has to pop out a baby nine months after the wedding?[/quote]

Not that I'm aware of - but I'm asking whether a couple should be in a position to accept such a child before they marry. And by "accept" I don't mean willing to make it work if it happens, although they mean to avoid it through NFP.

[Norseman82]

The "when is it OK to use NFP" debates here tend to get heated, so I think it is important to remember a few things early on.

First, the Church does state that the married couple must be willing to accept children, but I have yet to hear an [i]official[/i] timeline from the Church on when the first child (and subsequent children) has to be.

Second, to my knowledge, the Church, in its official pronouncements, has been vague over what it considers to be "legitimate" or "grave" or "serious" reasons, and to my knowledge has never produced an [i]official[/i] list. Individuals, whether it be contemporary authors or individuals on internet forums, have their opinions, but that does not necessarily translate into [i]official[/i] church positions. Until the Church is more specific about these and releases [i]official[/i] statements, it is important that we refrain from imposing personal preferences or speculations as [i]official[/i] theology or making people feel that there salvation is in jeapordy over personal preferences and speculations.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Norseman82

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm gonna lay it down.... cause the strict catholics who are strict in all but NFP have it coming to them.............

i think it's a bit hypocritical that they use NFP. especially newlyweds who could afford it and are middle class income wise, but choose to wait till they are more well off. i know many of these types of people.

it's also ironic, that NFP is touted as more effective tool that birth control. this claim is to entice ppl to use it instead. is hindering baby making the goal of NFP? i suppose if it's dire circumstances, then sure it's justified. but, if contraception worked better, theoretically, why couldn't you use that instead, if it's dire circumstances?

plus, if contracpetion doesn't work better, shouldn't they use that instead, given that life is more possible? i realize that it's a dire sitution, and they shouldn't be messing around with ineffective methods if it's dire......... but if it's dire, shouldn't they be abstaining in the first place? and the whole idea of a more effective method simply not needed completely? it seems if they'd be using NFP then it's not as dire, and could be using contraception as it's more open to life.

it seems like the ultimate response to no contraception is simply that it's inherently not the right thing to do.... not talking about effectiveness... not bc it causes you to be more open to life. (which, if that's the case.... what's the purpose again of no contraceptives, given that this seems to be the only real compelling reason) if it's not bc open to life, and the only thing left is an inherent wrongness..... isn't it simply unsubstantiated dogma?

the thing that i could see, but it's far fetched and ultimately doesn't work... is that God could at least be able to cause conception in people without the use of contraceptives. but, again, NFP is suppos to be more effetive birth control. God can't work with a condom in there instead... even when it's a lesser effective method, just because, apparnetly, a condom is there?
BUT if condoms are more effective method though, then this last argument would work better.

this whole no contraceptive business has some good points to it.... but ttaken to its end, usually ends up njot making any sense.


well... i suppose the idea is... if you could completely stop the chance of conception, that's wrong. i could see that reason compelling. that condoms are less effective isn't wrong so much bc it hinders life then, but bc you're trying to. i suppose i could see that argument. but, still, it's not always the the contraceptive method is more effective at hindering conception... so why is it wrong per se? what if you want to be more open to life with a lesser effective contraceptive, but don't want ot be too baby popping friendly?
it all goes back to an unsubstantiated "just because".


edit: well... if it's dire circumstances... then you shouldn't be having babies. true, the contraceptive might be better open to life, and it's not so dire that you're abstaining. there's a certain degree of risk v avoidance power that must be done. i suppose i could see the argument that the proper level is that level without artificial contracption.
BUT, this argument, while somewhat sound, is very grasping. every situation is different.... but, i suppose in a perfect world, when NFP would be needed... the situation would always parallel that of no contraception risk v. avertion analysis. this isn't a perfect world, but it could be i concede, and that's what we strive for. but, if it's not a perfectw orld, whouldn't we account the benefits and risk accordingly? it seems like a formalist v functionalist approach here. one's not necessarily better.
it's all very shady.

perhaps one day the CC will say... true, no contrception... but, given that that's for a perfect world, we conced that contraception could be used sometimes. given that our intent was for the perfect world... then, no contradiction in dogma has occurred. *bow, thank you, thank you.
or that no contraceptives is in a perfect world where NFP wouldn't even be needed. given that NFP is sometimes needed, we could be open to contraceptives to, in our non perfect world, as per a functionalist approach to our reality.

Edited February 3, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]BUT if condoms are more effective method though, then this last argument would work better.[/quote]
I would add to the end of this though... that, ppl use NFP with hte intention of being fully efective. that apprently is okay. so, if NFP isn't fully effective... but contraceptives would be... why not just use cotraception if it's fully effective if it was okay with NFP threores?


i guess i would add to that then... that perhaps the solution is not that contraception is okay, but that NFP should be used much less and in more strict circumstances. which again shows why i think those who use NFP but are fairly well off but are strict in everything else, are hypocrites.
but, to their benefit, i doubhe they really know how much they are, so it's not really tehir fault comletely. and i can't expect everyone to reach my level of understanding.

but ultimately.... contraceptives, some... will certainly be less effective. which goes back to all the arguments i've been making.

Edited February 3, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

so yeah... looking back at what i wrote... it boils down th the level of effectiveness of each. NFP is more effective than most, but not as effective as others. some would argue the right level of effectiveness is what exists without the contraceptives. but, for a theoretical arguent... if you had a contraceptive that was the same level, why would that be wrong per se? and two... someone is cushy living, but uses NFP, and someone else is in truly dire straights, but not so dire they'd need to abstain also uses it: why does each situation warrant the same level of effectiveness? it seems those more cushy should get lower effectiveness potential.
the bottomline, after all, is that they're all eliminating the possiblity of life, pretty effectively.
i don't see the basis of banning them ther than "just because" arguements. i'd like some insights as to how that might be mistaken of me.

[cmotherofpirl]

If you aren't ready to have children, you are not ready to get married.

[jeffpugh]

Lets not forget to put this important point on the table: the purpose of Marriage is to guide the other spouse to heaven. Children are the fruit. NFP used to delay the birth of a child is fine as long as it isn't for selfish motives. We're human beings, not animals who primarily mate for the survival of the species.

[Oik]

Thoughts on Marriage and the Marital Embrace

The marital embrace is not itself sinful and odious. What some do with it is, however. The marital embrace is blessed, sanctioned and exhorted by the Church. "Be fruitful and multiply" is a Blessing of the marital embrace by God Himself.
Of course, the marital act will be abandoned forever when His Kingdom comes. However, own those who have pledged themselves to celibacy and the monastic life are bound to this here and now.
Also, be very careful about generalization on this issue. Lust and desire are completely different (as I am sure you know). Any desire, however, must be rightly ordered. It seems to me that people very often confuse the desire to share the marital embrace and produce children with "hey I think your hot, I'm turne on, you think this too, we are married, let's do it" kind of approach to the marital embrace. Husbands and wives are not objects and the marital embrace is there for specific reasons.
Someone pointed out to me St. John Chrysostom seems to have some variant views on thse issues. However, a tiny quote doesn't really provide much at all. I need the whole context. All the Fathers often had a very precise point to be made and often talk about certain aspects of thier precise point by introducing other teachings.
Take for example St. Greogory Nyssa. A book called on the Soul and the Resurrection complies his thought about these matters. His main point is to prove to the pagan philosophers of his time the philosophical plausibility of the Resurrection am implausibility of reincarnation. In this book, he clearly states that one should not speculate about why God would create sexual organs if God did not want Adam and Eve to sin. This is because, according to St. Gregory, man wasn't supposed to sin, but did and God foresaw this. God creates the sexual organs as a way to reintroduce a bond that Adam and Eve will destroy by thier decision to sin.
The real kicker if the book, is that St. Gregory teaches that when we recieve our glorified bodies, we will be and have everything we had and were before we were glorified, but in a perfected way. We will be reassembled with the same things and materials as before, but, like metal in a fire, all the impurities will be taken out. The kicker is that we should not speculate about whether or not we will have sexual organs, accordong to St. Gregory. Why? He basically says not to ask or speculate because we shouldn't think about sexual organs as having a place in Heaven because we no longer need to procreate when we recieve our glorified bodies!
Thanks for enduing my message. I just want to say that seeing the marital embrace for procreation does not mean viewing it as evil or sinful.

Regarding a woman being fertile in infertile and the idea of not sharing the marital embrace after child-bearing years are over. What I can say to is two things:
1) Sts. Joachim and Anna had reached an age in which they no longer could have children (also the case with St. Elizabeth and the Holy Matriarch Sarah). The Protoevangelium of St. James recounts the wonderful faith and model of piety for us all in this situation.
2) My future wife told me something quite amazing recently. She said, "How can you refuse a donation?" How can we refuse a gift? "Faith, Hope and Charity, but the greatest of these is Charity." As Christians, we should all first and foremost live out this call becuase it is the greatest. This requires a constant evaluation and discernment to accept graciously the gift people give you. IN fact, the idea of Charity already extends to fasting in Eastern Christianity. If you are a guest in someone's house, you SHOULD NOT refuse thier hospitality during the fast, even if they offer you meat during the Great Fast.
Now in the context of my points, I want you to consider this point. The mutual gift of self requires actively giving each other to each other in marriage. This must be realized by married couples. Because spouses should be of one mind, they should strive for unity and communion so as not to harm the reality of two becoming one-flesh. They are one-flesh!
Now, these things transcend the elementry objections of lust, being forced or not being forced, feeling like it ot not feeling like it, sickness/health. These and other objections ALREADY fall short precisely because they start out with a problem or a break in communion between the spouses. As Christians, we don't view marriage as fundementaly flawed and full of problems. Rather, we start as the Blessing of the Church and continue thorugh by seeking out those things that help bring each other ever closer to the reality of becoming, yet already being, one-flesh AND becoming God (deification).

[jeffpugh]

Awesome post. We need a talk like that on a vocation panel

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1455147' date='Feb 3 2008, 11:51 PM']Lets not forget to put this important point on the table: the purpose of Marriage is to guide the other spouse to heaven. Children are the fruit. NFP used to delay the birth of a child is fine as long as it isn't for selfish motives. We're human beings, not animals who primarily mate for the survival of the species.[/quote]


Not according to CCC 1601: "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

I think the Church makes a pretty clear statement here. "The good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring" - doesn't quite sound like "guide the other spouse to heaven. Children are the fruit."

So, the dual end of marriage, as we are instructed by the Catechism, is for the good of the spouses and for procreation; notice it's a dual end, not "for the spouses" to the exclusion of the procreative purpose.

To rephrase: The question on this thread is whether the procreative end of marriage can be postponed from the very beginning of the marriage, or whether circumstances that warrant the use of NFP (for an already-married couple) warrant postponing the wedding.



On another note: I'd love to see someone make an intelligent argument for the use of NFP from the beginning of a marriage that includes citing some authoritative sources (i.e. sources from the Church on Catholic morality).

[XIX]

[quote]I think the Church makes a pretty clear statement here. "The good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring" - doesn't quite sound like "guide the other spouse to heaven. Children are the fruit."[/quote]
Funny...I think they sounds very similar to each other.

"The good of the spouses" = "Guiding each other to heaven." I probably would have said "each other" instead of "the other spouse," but I think that's just a matter of word choice.
"Procreation and education of offspring" sounds similar to "Children are the fruit." Maybe not exactly the same, but I certainly can't see how one contradicts the other. And children are one of the fruits of the marital act.

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='XIX' post='1455188' date='Feb 4 2008, 01:14 AM']Funny...I think they sounds very similar to each other.

"The good of the spouses" = "Guiding each other to heaven." I probably would have said "each other" instead of "the other spouse," but I think that's just a matter of word choice.
"Procreation and education of offspring" sounds similar to "Children are the fruit." Maybe not exactly the same, but I certainly can't see how one contradicts the other. And children are one of the fruits of the marital act.[/quote]

Sure, it sounds the same if you wish to generalize and not be precise. Guiding each other to heaven/mutual help of the spouses is NOT only about sex - and children are (usually) the fruit of good sex.