Natural Family Planning

[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???

[Lil Red]

okay pholks, this is from that other thread, where Raphael (Micah) submitted a question to the EWTN experts.

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=447676"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=447676[/url]
[quote]Please help settle a moral argument
Question from Micah on 9/8/2005: 

Some friends of mine over on another Catholic forum are arguing over what is a moral use of NFP. One poses the following situation: is it moral to use NFP to avoid children at the time (but not permanently) starting at marriage, or must a first child be born.

One side argues that a couple should try actively to conceive right upon marriage, because a couple should not be getting married unless they are ready, willing, and prepared for children.

However, for those who are poor, for instance, the preparedness factor means that they would be unable to marry indefinitely.

The other side poses this scenario:

"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 nothing but 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."

However, this seems to say that we should hold off children (while still being fundamentally open to life) indefinitely.

I'm a poor scrupulant, so moral judgments are difficult for me, but this matter has intrigued me for a long time.

God bless,

Micah
Answer by NFP Outreach on 9/15/2005:

It is not wrong for a newly married couple to postpone a pregnancy through the use of NFP for a time.

Further, if a couple is genuinely unable to support children (or a child), then they should definitely make use of the infertile times always with the intention of accepting a child should God give them one.

One caution, the authentic inability to support children is different from making sacrifices to support children. Some couples might think that they cannot support a child when, with a little planning and effort, they really could.

Thanks for writing.[/quote]

[Norseman82]

Another question for the "don't get married until you are ready to have a kid right away crowd":

Would you rather have a couple in a sacramental union but using NFP right away, or would you rather have them be fornicating pagan bums living in sin until they decide they are ready to have a kid?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Mar 10 2006, 01:21 PM']Would you rather have a couple in a sacramental union but using NFP right away, or would you rather have them be fornicating pagan bums living in sin until they decide they are ready to have a kid?
[right][snapback]908137[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is just plain ridiculous.

Calm down.

[quote]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.[/quote]
I'm at least hoping you've read enough Alice von Hildebrand to make this statement... you're doing the same thing Era Might did, making her say something she doesn't say directly.
Infer from the snippets that have been posted all you want, but you can't make the claim that Alice von Hildebrand would agree that newlyweds should use NFP... just as I can't turn around and claim she says otherwise.

I agree that Procreation is not the MEANING of marriage. But the meaning of marriage and the purpose of marriage are NOT separable, except in theory.

No one on this thread has stated, or even implied that those who get married and use NFP right away are Hellbound. That is not the argument. The argument is the APPROPRIATENESS of such a move. It seems, at best, to be unwise and irresponsible for two people to get married-- to "start" a family when they have no intentions of making good on that committment until a few years down the road, or whatevertimeframehaveyou. It is UNWISE to so such a thing.