argent_paladin Posted September 9, 2005 Author Posted September 9, 2005 [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] That's the whole point of this thread. NFP is licit for postponing pregnancy for a limited time. But not for postponing it indefinitely. [i]And not for intentionally postponing it before the marriage is transacted.[/i] Again, that is the moral difference. Again, Kateri, are you arguing that people who are unprepared/unable to have childen should get married? That would be saying that marriage ISN'T ordered toward the procreation and upbringing of children, which is against magisterial teaching. But then you can only be saying that people who ARE prepared and able to have childen can choose not to have them and use NFP, but that too is contrary to church teaching. Please explain your position.
homeschoolmom Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [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] They should become fit parents.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Argent, I would ask that you calm yourself a bit, and approach this discussion charitably. Your quotations of canon law are only sufficient to prove that a couple understand and accept that with matrimony must come an acceptance of the possibility and calling to childrearing. You, however, have taken this to mean that a couple must be prepared for [i]immediate[/i] childrearing - a conclusion that is not to be found in any of the cited documents. Moreover, your position is untenable simply on account of common sense, because you are, for all sakes and purposes, saying that a person who is not financially stable, and who has no idea when his situation will change, must stave off marriage indefinately. What it comes down to is this: [quote]Don't get married until you can support a family I find it hard to believe that anyone here is arguing with that position[/quote] Quite simply, I find this advise to be wrong. It would leave the poor and the unlucky out to dry, potentially forever. Rather, I would say: [i]Don't get married until you are willing to, and desire to, support a family.[/i]
Don John of Austria Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Oik' date='Sep 8 2005, 06:30 PM']Oooohhh Don John...You asked how it is tha NFP fosters love... [right][snapback]716250[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Lets just say I think that is quite a fluffy bunny approach to NFP not to mention a fairly inaccurate protrait of it.. NFP is not "NFP is the study and knowledge of the bodily powers through which we bodily express conjugal love." That is absurd. NFP is the use of that knowledge to obtain or prevent a pregnancy. Having knowledge is not natural family planning. As I said before I ahad all that knowledge before I ever concidered getting married, it's irrelevent to the actual act of NFP as I said NFP would be morally permissable even if there was a little machine that did all the work for you.
philothea Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:20 PM']They should become fit parents. [right][snapback]716314[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I was thinking of a couple I knew (of) where the father had Asperger's and couldn't handle the kind of disturbance children cause. They had a child anyway. Though the child and the husband were kept apart as much as possible it wasn't enough. The husband wound up killing himself. Obviously, for that couple it's not an issue anymore, but I can't help wondering if it couldn't have been handled better.
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote]Again, Kateri, are you arguing that people who are unprepared/unable to have childen should get married? That would be saying that marriage ISN'T ordered toward the procreation and upbringing of children, which is against magisterial teaching. But then you can only be saying that people who ARE prepared and able to have childen can choose not to have them and use NFP, but that too is contrary to church teaching.[/quote] Wrong again, you set up a false dichotomy. What is necessary for marriage is that both husband-to-be and bride-to-be understand that marriage has both unitive and procreative ends, and to accept this. A couple who accepts this wholeheartedly, but [i]at the current moment[/i] knows that it would be morally irresponsible for them to have children, can certainly marry and practice NFP with the understanding that this is only temporary until they can fulfill their parental duties responsibly. This couple's marriage is most [i]certainly[/i] ordered towards procreation and the upbringing of children, and you could never accuse them of using NFP for egoistic or utilitarian purposes. In Christ, Jeff
kateri05 Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 (edited) thank you Jeff. as usual, you articulated my jumbled thoughts far better than I ever could. how quickly the student surpasses the teacher although, you still do your best work in the quarry with a peanut butter smoothie! : Edited September 9, 2005 by kateri05
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 the only work that got done in the quarry was you and chris telling me to change my heathen ways
Don John of Austria Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:32 PM']Argent, I would ask that you calm yourself a bit, and approach this discussion charitably. Your quotations of canon law are only sufficient to prove that a couple understand and accept that with matrimony must come an acceptance of the possibility and calling to childrearing. You, however, have taken this to mean that a couple must be prepared for [i]immediate[/i] childrearing - a conclusion that is not to be found in any of the cited documents. Moreover, your position is untenable simply on account of common sense, because you are, for all sakes and purposes, saying that a person who is not financially stable, and who has no idea when his situation will change, must stave off marriage indefinately. What it comes down to is this: Quite simply, I find this advise to be wrong. It would leave the poor and the unlucky out to dry, potentially forever. Rather, I would say: [i]Don't get married until you are willing to, and desire to, support a family.[/i] [right][snapback]716325[/snapback][/right] [/quote] What is supporting a family, can anyone give a real definition of that, according to who's standerd, ect. I think the origional post was fairly specific this is in regards to people who have not yet had a child, specificly people who are just married. I think argent is right in the normal world things that are grave enough to intentionally postpone children are grave enough not to get married, argent didn't say that one had to try and get pregnant on ones wedding night butthat it was immoral to try not to get ppregnant on ones wedding night. I think he has a good point.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:32 PM'][i]Don't get married until you are willing to, and desire to, support a family.[/i] [right][snapback]716325[/snapback][/right] [/quote] This I agree with 100% Seeing as I will to and desire to... *whistles*
Guest JeffCR07 Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 8 2005, 07:45 PM']What is supporting a family, can anyone give a real definition of that, according to who's standerd, ect. I think the origional post was fairly specific this is in regards to people who have not yet had a child, specificly people who are just married. I think argent is right in the normal world things that are grave enough to intentionally postpone children are grave enough not to get married, argent didn't say that one had to try and get pregnant on ones wedding night butthat it was immoral to try not to get ppregnant on ones wedding night. I think he has a good point. [right][snapback]716336[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And I disagree with both of you on this point. You especially, Don John, know that I tend to be on your side in most every discussion that this phorum has, however, in this case, I think argent and you are interpreting this teaching of the Church in too rigorist a manner. As one of my previous quotes shows, not desiring conception on an individual instance of sexual intercourse is different from not desiring conception systematically - wedding night or otherwise. As such, just because a couple is not [i]immediately[/i] prepared to have children does not mean that they aren't of the proper disposition. That having been said, it is nowhere taught that a couple must be fiscally capable of responsibly rearing a child in order to get married - it only is taught that the couple must accept the fact that one of the ends of marriage is childrearing. In Christ, Jeff
Benedict Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Well now I am slightly angry reading through this thread. The last comment is used simply because it was the first I scrolled up to. [quote name='Name removed to protect the innocent']it is immoral for a newlywed couple to use NFP. I mean that's just not even giving it a chance.[/quote] To start, we do know that NFP is useful towards the conception of children, right? That the planning, communication, etc. etc. necessary to set up and continually track a woman's cycle helps couples grow closer, improves understanding, etc. etc.? And that for those reasons every couple should start using NFP as soon as possible? Natural Family Planning =/= wholly contraceptive method. Benedict, who is technically correct, the best kind of correct. ([i]This message was paid for by the "Mean what you Say don't Say what you Mean" committee[/i].)
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:54 PM']Benedict, who is technically correct, the best kind of correct. ([i]This message was paid for by the "Mean what you Say don't Say what you Mean" committee[/i].) [right][snapback]716345[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I love that episode! I want to go sing the song right now! Suffice it to say, "they poo-pooed my electric frankfurter...I am Bender, please insert girder..."
Benedict Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Why does this girl keep messaging me and keeping me from writing a post before a dozen more posts come into the thread. AAARGGHH!!!
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:57 PM']Why does this girl keep messaging me and keeping me from writing a post before a dozen more posts come into the thread. AAARGGHH!!! [right][snapback]716347[/snapback][/right] [/quote] It's not AlphaLBCutie, is it?
Benedict Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Oh no, we are at that point where the message board is a chat room. No, not Alpha. This is a girl from school.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 08:59 PM']Oh no, we are at that point where the message board is a chat room. No, not Alpha. This is a girl from school. [right][snapback]716350[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Ah...very well. Back to the original argument... "Everything you know is wrong!"
Benedict Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Black is white? Up is down? Short is long? Everything I used to think was so important doesn't really matter anymore.
Thy Geekdom Come Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 [quote name='Benedict' date='Sep 8 2005, 09:01 PM']Black is white? Up is down? Short is long? Everything I used to think was so important doesn't really matter anymore. [right][snapback]716353[/snapback][/right] [/quote]
Birgitta Noel Posted September 9, 2005 Posted September 9, 2005 Well it's good to know that I'm immoral, irresponsible and irrational since my husband and I got married and have been practicing NFP since. But you're not the first person to tell me that. BTW, what if the woman is in a period of infertility on her wedding night? Should they change the date of the wedding? Isn't it St. Paul who says that it's better to marry than to burn with lust? I can think of lots of reasons not to wait. I also know couples who got married, intending to use NFP from the start and through the grace of marriage and the use of NFP they decided not to postpone conception, determining that they would be "more" open to life. But, I guess I'll just have to enjoy my ride in my handbasket. Jeff and Kateri, thanks for your efforts in this thread. (Now that I've got that off my chest I will say that an accusation such as that which was made originally seems to discount the truth about NFP considering that the couple even when using NFP is saying that they are open to the POSSIBILITY of having children. Most couples "take chances" when they use NFP, and they know that it's not 100% effective. )
Recommended Posts