NFP for Newlyweds

[God Conquers]

I'd also agree with argent on this one...

So many faithful Catholics even don't want to wait... go sit in some cold water I say!

[kateri05]

[quote] except for life-threatening medical reasons. [/quote]

i believe the magisterium of the Church has said for grave reasons. which are more than just life-threatening medical ones. so, argent, until you qualify to speak on the magisterium's behalf, please do not presume to judge anyone else's "grave reasons."

[argent_paladin]

kateri,
The magisterium says "except for grave reason" in the context of a marriage that is open to procreation, presumably they have already had children. They were not discussing proper intentions at marriage. This involves validity. I say that it is not a proper to intend to practice NFP for an indefinite period begining on the wedding night, except for life-threatening reasons. It is a different question, that the Magisterium has not addressed, to my knowledge. Therefore, I am presuming nothing.
And in fact, as a moral theologian, I must presume certain things, including grave reasons. If we could never discuss peoples intentions or reasons, we wouldn't be able to do moral theology at all. This is one area where we have to judge.
And, in defense of the narrower exception, it is because the unmarried have a second option to practicing NFP: postponing the wedding. A married couple that is thrown into financial turmoil (losing a job perhaps, or a child is gravely ill) then they may judge that that is a grave reason for them to temporarily postpone pregnancy using NFP. However, if an engaged couple finds they don't have enough money to support a child, that is a reason for postponement, not for marriage and NFP.
I hope you appreciate the difference.
Also, we throw around the term "magisterium" but it is a more complex phenomenon than most think. It requires a careful analysis of level of teaching, frequency of teaching, how far back in history the teaching was explicated, the specific language used, etc. Not everything the Church says has equal authority (Dogma, doctrine, constitutions, councils, encyclicals, papal homilies, speculative philosophy of popes, etc).
And it IS our task to try to understand the meaning of "grave reason" as much as possible. The people of God need guidance in applying the principles the Church gives them. What should you (or a priest or theologian) do when asked what a grave reason is? Simply say "I don't presume to judge your grave reason?" That's not what they want or need.
This forum is for discussion, not for closing down discussion. We are speculating and at no time did I tell any specific person what their grave reason is or that they wrongfully interpreted it. This discussion is the lifeblood of theology, of "Faith seeking understanding" and you should not close down discussion.
If the only people on phatmass who were allowed to talk about church matters were those who were "qualified to speak on the magisterium's behalf" it would be a very quiet forum.

[Oik]

Dominicans are so dreamy...

[kateri05]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 05:05 PM']kateri,
[b]The magisterium says "except for grave reason" in the context of a marriage that is open to procreation, presumably they have already had children. They were not discussing proper intentions at marriage. This involves validity.  I say that it is not a proper to intend to practice NFP for an indefinite period begining on the wedding night, except for life-threatening reasons. [/b]It is a different question, that the Magisterium has not addressed, to my knowledge. Therefore, I am presuming nothing.
And in fact, as a moral theologian, I must presume certain things, including grave reasons. If we could never discuss peoples intentions or reasons, we wouldn't be able to do moral theology at all. This is one area where we have to judge.
And, in defense of the narrower exception, it is because the unmarried have a second option to practicing NFP: postponing the wedding. A married couple that is thrown into financial turmoil (losing a job perhaps, or a child is gravely ill) then they may judge that that is a grave reason for them to temporarily postpone pregnancy using NFP. However, if an engaged couple finds they don't have enough money to support a child, that is a reason for postponement, not for marriage and NFP.
I hope you appreciate the difference.
Also, we throw around the term "magisterium" but it is a more complex phenomenon than most think. It requires a careful analysis of level of teaching, frequency of teaching, how far back in history the teaching was explicated, the specific language used, etc. Not everything the Church says has equal authority (Dogma, doctrine, constitutions, councils, encyclicals, papal homilies, speculative philosophy of popes, etc).
And it IS our task to try to understand the meaning of "grave reason" as much as possible. The people of God need guidance in applying the principles the Church gives them. What should you (or a priest or theologian) do when asked what a grave reason is? Simply say "I don't presume to judge your grave reason?" That's  not what they want or need.
This forum is for discussion, not for closing down discussion. We are speculating and at no time did I tell any specific person what their grave reason is or that they wrongfully interpreted it. This discussion is the lifeblood of theology, of "Faith seeking understanding" and you should not close down discussion.
If the only people on phatmass who were allowed to talk about church matters were those who were "qualified to speak on the magisterium's behalf" it would be a very quiet forum.
[right][snapback]716205[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
i was by no means "closing down discussion," nor am i very appreciative of what appears to me to be a very condescending explanation of how the magisterium and the study of theology work. if you did not intend to be patronizing, and that was simply an internet misread, then please ignore that last sentence and i will no longer feel insulted.

as for the bolded portion of your post: you say "presumably." where is your cited proof that the Church is only referring to grave reasons for those who have been married for a while and already have a child? that is your interpretation, and as far as i am aware, does not appear in Church teaching.

next, you say that not immediatley trying to get pregnant somwhow violates the validity of the marriage. the church requires that the couple marrying be open to bearing children. as far as i have been taught, being open to marrying children does not mean that if you are not trying to conceive on your wedding night, than you are not open to life, thus were lying at the altar and thus have invalidated your sacramental marriage. no where, as far as i am aware, does the Church teach this.

i am not disputing your right to speculate on this, however, many here are speaking as though this is the position that hte Church holds on this matter, which is simply not the case, nor is it fair or truthful to present it as such.

[morostheos]

I found this on EWTN.....

[quote]Natural Family Planning - Serious Motives

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions… [Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae 16]

For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. 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. [Catechism of the Catholic Church 2368]

However, profoundly different from any contraceptive practice is the behavior of  married couples, who, always remaining fundamentally open to the gift of life, live their intimacy only in the unfruitful periods, when they are led to this course by serious motives of responsible parenthood. This is true both from the anthropological and moral points of  view, because it is rooted in a different conception of the person and of sexuality. The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator,  and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called "natural," confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of  married life with common accord and full self-giving. [Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life, 2.6]

Serious motives, just reasons, proportionately serious reasons. The Church teaches  the necessity of just or serious motives or reasons for couples to use the infertile periods of a woman's cycle for the purpose of spacing births. In doing so she is trying to insure that the natural methods of spacing children are used in a virtuous and loving way, i.e., unselfishly. Serious reasons mean important, or non-trivial, reasons, deriving "from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions" (HV 16). Just reasons are, likewise, reasons which correspond to the truth of marriage and the situation of the couple. It is the nature of justice to correspond to the truth. Both terms, serious and just, presumes there can be selfish, trivial or unjust reasons for using NFP, reasons not in keeping with the nature of marriage as a community of life and love.

With the increased use of NFP in recent decades the Church has discovered that the informed practice of NFP actually builds virtue. In other words, couples who have used NFP become unselfish by using NFP properly. Thus, the Church has learned that if authentic virtue is weak or absent at the beginning, using NFP properly instills it! Love is a choice in one's will to give oneself to another. But that choice is founded on the recognition of the dignity of the other as well as the dignity of oneself (who would give oneself to another if one thought the gift worthless?). Therefore, anything which leads to a greater appreciation of the dignity and value of human beings fosters love.

The human body is the expression or manifestation of the human person. John Paul II speaks of the body as revealing the person and when we express God-like acts through the body, the body is actually a physical image of God. Pope John Paul II goes so far as to say that the human body speaks a language. (Theology of the Body series, as well as Familiaris Consortio.) Since we are created to act as God acts, and He LOVES, we are created to love as He does. Since we have bodies, and we express our acts in and through our bodies, God gave us a means of expressing love physically. Since true, authentic love is THE most God-like act possible for human beings (because it is the most God-like act), and since the body has the possibility of expressing this love, the study of those powers of the body through which we can express an intimate self-giving love will reveal more about the person and even about God than the study of other aspects of the human body.

[b]NFP is the study and knowledge of the bodily powers through which we bodily express conjugal love. NFP, therefore, reveals the dignity of both spouses to one another. In revealing this awesome dignity, it fosters love as well as a deep and abiding respect in each spouse for himself or herself and for the other. It also builds an unbelievable longing to share the infinite goods of human life with others, i.e., with children. NFP then builds a respect for human life. With this respect in place through the use of NFP, any decision by a couple to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid will be made for a good reason. It is not that serious reasons are not necessary—they are. But, a couple practicing NFP after taking the classes and knowing the method, practicing their faith attending Church and receiving the sacraments, with an active prayer life, and conscientious about the religious education of their children, will, if they decide to avoid a pregnancy, have serious reasons.[/b] This is what was meant by saying that virtue results from using NFP. It should also be noted that NFP couples generally discuss whether or not to try to achieve a pregnancy every single month. This re-examination also builds a respect for life.

Pastors routinely try to persuade engaged couples to use NFP after they are married. Most engaged couples, however, will tell the priest that they want to avoid a pregnancy, at least for awhile. Pastors are very pleased if they are able to convince the couple to use NFP. As the experience of the last twenty or thirty years shows, NFP helps build marriages with authentic love. What happens is that the general attitude of these couples to avoid a pregnancy is contradicted by the specific attitude of each marital act which is open to life. Eventually the specific attitude changes the general attitude and couples often surprise themselves by giving life to more children than they ever thought possible. [/quote]

[philothea]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 04:41 PM']We have basically exhausted on thread on NFP, but I find this issue quite provocative.  Here is my assertion:

[b]Practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy before one has concieved a child is immoral, except for life-threatening medical reasons.[/b]
[right][snapback]716026[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
While thinking about what other people ought or ought not to be doing is one of my least favorite things, I can't see anything wrong with the assertion.

[philothea]

Hey, here's a question I never see answered:

What about people who turn out to be unfit parents? What should they do?

[Oik]

[quote]NFP is the study and knowledge of the bodily powers through which we bodily express conjugal love. NFP, therefore, reveals the dignity of both spouses to one another. In revealing this awesome dignity, it fosters love as well as a deep and abiding respect in each spouse for himself or herself and for the other. It also builds an unbelievable longing to share the infinite goods of human life with others, i.e., with children. NFP then builds a respect for human life. With this respect in place through the use of NFP, any decision by a couple to try to achieve a pregnancy or to avoid will be made for a good reason. It is not that serious reasons are not necessary—they are. But, a couple practicing NFP after taking the classes and knowing the method, practicing their faith attending Church and receiving the sacraments, with an active prayer life, and conscientious about the religious education of their children, will, if they decide to avoid a pregnancy, have serious reasons.[/quote]

Oooohhh Don John...You asked how it is tha NFP fosters love...

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:28 PM']Hey, here's a question I never see answered: 

What about people who turn out to be unfit parents?  What should they do?
[right][snapback]716246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ah, that is a different subject. and illustrates the moral difference between deciding on NFP after marriage and before.
Let's say that after marriage the couple finds out that the mother (or father) has a serious mental illness that would prevent her from raising a child safely. That constitutes grave reason and they could practice NFP.
But, if they diagnosed this illness before the wedding, they could not get married. See canon law:
[quote]Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:


1ƒ those who lack sufficient use of reason;


2ƒ those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;


[b]3ƒ those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. [/b]

[/quote]
One of the essential obligation s of marriage is to raise children. The Church is serious about this. It sounds harsh, but if your fiance can't compentently raise children, she can't get married.

That is further proof that one shouldn't get married until one is prepared to raise children.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:39 PM']That is further proof that one shouldn't get married until one is prepared to raise children.
[right][snapback]716260[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

My question (and it's not a loaded one, I really want to know) is this: what constitutes prepared? Certainly a degree is reasonable, but not everyone can get one of those. A job, then?

Emotional readiness, of course, but from what I hear, you can never be "ready" on your own, but you make it by God's strength...

What constitutes "prepared"?

One more thing, the canon only addresses psychological preparedness...is there any more than that?

Edited September 8, 2005 by Raphael

[argent_paladin]

Again, turning to Canon Law:

Can. 1096 ß1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation.

Basically, the minimal conditions are that one can provide for the needs of ones family. I would say that it is necessary to have a proven work record, showing that one can provide financially for your family. One would have to have sufficient faith formation to pass down the teachings of the church to your children, since that is primarily your responsibility.
Basically sufficient physical, mental, psychological, social, and financial maturity is necessary. Basically if you are reasonably confident that you can raise children without risking their physical or moral safety, you are prepared for marriage.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:05 PM']kateri,
The magisterium says "except for grave reason" in the context of a marriage that is open to procreation, presumably they have already had children. They were not discussing proper intentions at marriage. This involves validity.  I say that it is not a proper to intend to practice NFP for an indefinite period begining on the wedding night, except for life-threatening reasons. It is a different question, that the Magisterium has not addressed, to my knowledge. Therefore, I am presuming nothing.
And in fact, as a moral theologian, I must presume certain things, including grave reasons. If we could never discuss peoples intentions or reasons, we wouldn't be able to do moral theology at all. This is one area where we have to judge.
And, in defense of the narrower exception, it is because the unmarried have a second option to practicing NFP: postponing the wedding. A married couple that is thrown into financial turmoil (losing a job perhaps, or a child is gravely ill) then they may judge that that is a grave reason for them to temporarily postpone pregnancy using NFP. However, if an engaged couple finds they don't have enough money to support a child, that is a reason for postponement, not for marriage and NFP.
I hope you appreciate the difference.
Also, we throw around the term "magisterium" but it is a more complex phenomenon than most think. It requires a careful analysis of level of teaching, frequency of teaching, how far back in history the teaching was explicated, the specific language used, etc. Not everything the Church says has equal authority (Dogma, doctrine, constitutions, councils, encyclicals, papal homilies, speculative philosophy of popes, etc).
And it IS our task to try to understand the meaning of "grave reason" as much as possible. The people of God need guidance in applying the principles the Church gives them. What should you (or a priest or theologian) do when asked what a grave reason is? Simply say "I don't presume to judge your grave reason?" That's  not what they want or need.
This forum is for discussion, not for closing down discussion. We are speculating and at no time did I tell any specific person what their grave reason is or that they wrongfully interpreted it. This discussion is the lifeblood of theology, of "Faith seeking understanding" and you should not close down discussion.
If the only people on phatmass who were allowed to talk about church matters were those who were "qualified to speak on the magisterium's behalf" it would be a very quiet forum.
[right][snapback]716205[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Argent, while I do not have much time to respond, what with my schoolwork, I would charitably direct you to Karol Wojtyla's work [i]Love and Responsibility[/i] both in his critique of the "Rigorist" viewpoint, which can be found in Chapter 1: Interpretation of the Sexual Urge.

More importantly, I would have you read the entirety of Chapter IV: Marriage, though it would be more beneficial for you to read the entirety of the book and familiarize yourself with the personalistic norm.

Then-Bishop Wojtyla has this to say:

[quote]There are, however, circumstances in which this disposition itself [the "sincere disposition to procreate"] demands renunciation of procreation, and any further increase in the size of their family would be incompatible with parental duty. A man and woman moved by true concern for the good of their family and a mature sense of responsibility for the birth, maintenance and upbringing of their children, will then limit intercourse, and abstain from it in periods in which this might result in another pregnancy undesirable in the particular conditions of their married and family life.[/quote]

The footnote to the above quote is also very telling on this issue, and leaves your condemnation of kateri's decision both audacious and meritless. It reads:

[quote]Avoidance of parenthood on a particular occasion of sexual intercourse cannot be equated with its avoidance or active prevention throughout a marriage. It is extremely important to take this into account.[/quote]

Thus, we see that, if a couple who sincerely desire children, but who, in good conscious, are forced to acknowledge the irresponsibility of having a child on account of particular circumstances, the only proper response is for this couple to engage in periodic continence. This is done with the understanding that this is not a disposition attributable to their marriage as a whole, but is, in fact, only a temporary decision until their particular situation changes.

Again, to all who post on this board, I would beg that we remember charity in dealing with others.

In Christ,

Jeff

[argent_paladin]

How many times do I have to say that [b]this thread [/b]is concerned with the [b]decision to marry[/b], not with the decision to have more children in a marriage! Wojtyla is clearly talking about abstaining within a fruitful marriage NOT deciding to abstain for an indefinite period before marriage. "any further increase in the size of their family ". It is a CRITICALLY important moral difference.
Therefore your points are without merit. Again, if a couple is in a circumstance described by Wojtyla, why would they get married? I believe that it is irresponsible and irrational. Once married, they have an obligation to one another and their family to be responsible, since they have no other choice.
BUT, an engaged couple HAS ANOTHER CHOICE! And that choice is to wait until they can adequately care for their first child before getting married. It's that simple:

[b]Don't get married until you can support a family[/b]
I find it hard to believe that anyone here is arguing with that position.

[quote]Can. 1055 ß1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and [b]upbringing of children[/b], has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. [/quote]

[quote]Can. 1096 ß1 For matrimonial consent to exist, it is necessary that the contracting parties be at least not ignorant of the fact that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman, ordered to the procreation of children through some form of sexual cooperation. [/quote]

[kateri05]

but a family is two people, the man and wife. so an increase would be referring to a third.