Pandora's Nfp

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221342' date='Mar 28 2007, 03:47 PM']-Humanae Vitae

I searched humanae vitae for "causa iusta", it's not in there.

haha but I was obviously replying to the bottom of the first page without realizing the second page haha.

ken, Bro Adam is a parent

there is a period after one pregnancy in which to totally abstain from sex. why would one break from that period before being healthy enough to potentially conceive again? I don't see a good purpose to that... you should be busy enough with your newborn anyway.

serious reasons make it acceptable to use NFP, but serious reasons are not preferable. the ideal situation is one without serious reasons stopping you from having as many children as your natural process of marriage will produce. The ideal state of marriage is as is described in the paragraph of Humanae Vitae I quoted.
the total ideal is one in which your will does not attempt to excercise your will over when you do and do not have children. this is very clear from the Church's teaching of the primary purpose of marriage and sex, and the whole practice of marriage over the centuries of the Church. the more degree to which your conform your activity to the creative intention of God (and therefore the less degree you excercise your will over it) the more ideal your marriage is. of course, you can only do that when the situation economically, physically, and psychologically is okay for you to do it with this type of abandonment.

no matter how much I can agree about raising children to be potentially inexpensive in this way, I would say that one should not attempt this ideal unless they have a substantial economic stability. you don't have to be able to provide luxuries for the baby; but you shouldn't do it if it's going to spiral the whole family into economic struggle just to get by with two working parents in a small apartment. such situations necessitate NFP.

Again: if the Church says "ONLY use NFP if x conditions are present" and x conditions are economic, health, and psychological dangers and problems; then the direct conclusion is that: the ideal is for there to be none of these economic and health dangers, ergo the ideal would be to not have to use NFP. She permits NFP only when it is NECESSITATED; only when you're FORCED INTO IT by situations. I'm not trying to judge anyone's situations; I'll make the presumption that everyone who's using it is using it for serious reasons. But they should, if at all possible, try to make it so these situations are no longer a concern.

There is no precedent under Church teaching for the idea that it is ideal to use NFP. NFP is always spoken of in authoritative documents as only permissable in necessity.

Now, I assume the words "just cause" "iusta causa" are from the Catechism. Now, the source document of the Catechism provides the context by which this should be interpretted; it is clear to me that a "just cause" is a cause which is justified because it is keeping you from descending into the problems brought about by problems. It's a really neutral phrase; and from the source document of Humane Vitae it is clear to me that it's supposed to mean these problems, these serious reasons. Like: there can be a just cause for anger; but ideally that would not be present. the anger would be justified, but it'd be better if it didn't have to be justified. Christ was totally right in throwing over the moneychanger's tables, but it would have been better if the moneychangers had never set them up in the first place.[/quote]

What version of Humanæ Vitæ are you reading? The one found at the Vatican's site is different.

[Aloysius]

okay, so we're talking about two different paragraphs. I'm up in paragraph 10 where it says:

[quote]Si postea ad condiciones physicas, oeconomicas, psychologicas et sociales respicimus, ii paternitate conscia fungi dicendi sunt, qui aut, prudenti consideratione magnoque animo ducti, statuunt numerosiores suscipere liberos, aut, seriis causis moralibusque praeceptis observatis, animum inducunt ut, vel ad certum vel ad incertum tempus, aliam filium non gignant.[/quote]OR

[quote]In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives [literally: serious motives] and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.[/quote]

and you're in paragraph 16 where it says:
[quote]Si igitur iustae adsint causae generationes subsequentes intervallandi, quae a coniugum corporis vel animi condicionibus, aut ab externis rerum adiunctis proficiscantur, Ecclesia docet, tunc licere coniugibus sequi vices naturales, generandi facultatibus immanentes, in maritali commercio habendo iis dumtaxat temporibus, quae conceptione vacent, atque adeo nasciturae proli ita consulere, ut morum doctrina, quam modo exposuimus, haudquaquam laedatur.[/quote]Or

[quote]If, then, there are serious motives [literally: just causes] 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, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned, all these phrases indicate the same thing to me: that it's not preferable that there exist these causes which force couples to need to use NFP. but it's interesting to note the difference in what is being talked about in each paragraph, I suppose.

The first one, in 10, is talking about avoiding procreation for some determinite or indetermite time. The second one, in 16, is talking about spacing births (which, as I said, implies periods of avoiding procreation). I guess it's interesting that "just causes" are used for the idea of spacing births, while "serious motives" are used for the idea of avoiding procreation for some time. Every period of avoiding procreation, including those wtihin spacing birth, therefore, must be done for serious motives, which to me in the english language is the same as grave motives. but the overall spacing of births needs to have a just cause... so it really seems about the same to me. You respond, with just cause, to serious reasons that cause you not to want to procreate for some period of time. All and all, the presence of these serious reasons are not the ideal situation.

just to clarify: I've been using this:
English: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06hv.htm[/url]
Latin: [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_lt.html"]http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/...e-vitae_lt.html[/url]

All these translations are all saying pretty much the same thing. "serious motives" = "grave motives"... ever heard the phrase "serious sin"? it is synonymous with "grave sin". and both of those are things which would provoke a just reaction, and thus would be "just causes".

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1221353' date='Mar 28 2007, 06:57 PM']Anyway, as to my original question... I'm beginning to see a nice context by which a situation could plateau and NFP could cease to be used. It would be a potentially difficult transition, but if one got into a position where they could cease to use NFP then they ought to do so. I still wonder if I should contract marriage while planning to use NFP, because I am an idealist and would rather wait to contract marriage when it is ideal; however, I can definitely see contracting marriage that would use NFP at the beginning while working towards an eventual plateau when NFP would no longer need to be used.[/quote]

Have you talked to a priest about this, discussed it in marriage counseling, or with your future wife? Can you even be certain that you'll end up marrying this girl? A lot of priests were either in serious relationships or engaged before they eventually ended up in the seminary Anyway, I honestly wonder if a priest wouldn't advise you to marry at a time when you do have good reason to practice NFP because he may consider your seeking after this "ideal" situation to be an unhealthy beginning to the rest of your lives together as husband and wife. That's just personal speculation... I would defer to a good priest over my own opinion any day

[Aloysius]

haha tryin to snatch me up into the seminary huh? been down that path of discernment

the ideal is the preferable. if I feel I have an option to begin marriage five years later than I would want to but it would begin without the necessity of NFP, then that is obviously preferable. the primary purpose of marriage is procreation; the other purpose of marriage is only a purpose insofar as it brings together the potential parents in intimate love strengthening to the family; ie it is a purpose subservient to the purpose of procreation and family-building. the ideal, as far as Catholic Teaching suggests, is for NFP to not be necessary. If I can accomplish making NFP not necessary, I will do so in obedience to the Church. If I cannot, then we will use NFP until such a time as we are able to accomplish such a situation.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Okay, Al. Fair enough. I hadn't seen the paragraph 10 language. Thanks for showing me.

[marielapin]

I don't know if waiting until the "ideal" time NFP wise to get married is ideal. We waited four years to get married (we were in college) and I don't consider even that "ideal". It would have been better to have gotten married sooner, because waiting that long starts to get hard, and it becomes difficult not to put yourself in the occasion to sin. Even though we waited until marriage, we still struggled in the chastity department. So in our case, waiting was not even ideal.

Edited March 29, 2007 by marielapin

[Aloysius]

yeah, I'm not actually suggesting that all should wait until the ideal time (though I know there are those who would argue that, and they have my sincerest sentiments towards their position as I myself am also quite an idealist and would like to think such things could still be accomplished even though our society has gone to heckfire); I myself will probably search for the best way to plan a way to plateau the practice of NFP once we pass into a state where it is not necessary.

[kateri05]

al, i'm just not sure that you're understanding the objectives goods that come from using NFP apart from the whole child spacing thing.

as a woman, understanding how my body works, especially in conjunction with my husband's, is an amazing gift that God CLEARLY intended for us to have. and the communication element of NFP, EVEN WHEN you're not using it to space children is not to be discounted. and this is from the experience of someone who has used it for spacing/trying.

also, it is certainly possible to BE fertile, to not have conjugal relations with your spouse, and have it have nothing to do with your fertility even if you are aware of your fertility. sometimes it doesn't work out. so this idea, that once you know about your cycle and how it works, you are always doomed to "use" that information is.... crazy. at least from my perspective.

[Aloysius]

well NFP is by definition the planning of when and how many children you have.

knowledge of your cycle is different, it's a component of NFP. but if you can track your cycle without actually using NFP, that fits in with my idea of the ideal form of marriage. it just seems to me (someone with no experience actually being married, mind you) that if you know your cycle that's inevitably going to affect in some way when you make love; especially if your whole marriage began using your chart to schedule when to have and not have sex. but I suppose it is possible; I've just never heard any testimony of someone paying attention to their chart but not using it to plan or avoid children

[kateri05]

well here you have it. testimony.


first of all i charted for a long time before i even GOT married. sure, once i was engaged, it was with an eye to using it for child spacing purposes, but long before that i was charting to help MYSELF with my cycle. knowing about where i am physiologically has actually helped me spiritually to master my emotions during PMS and the fertile period. once i realized that i wasn't actually necessarily feeling a certain way because of circumstances, but because of hormones and other physiological forces, i was better able to control my moods and emotions. this helped my relationships, esp with my then bf, now husband, because suddenly, i wasn't a basketcase, or if i was, i could talk about it and deal with it more rationally. another objective good of NFP/charting/whatever is that it allows a woman to understand why she can be the way she can be sometimes


and while i am currently using it in an effort to "plan" a child, its not like the chart becomes the driving force of our lives. sure it can be, but so can the very idea of having a baby be with couples who go to the ends of the earth (with immoral means) to have babies at the expense of the unitive element of conjugal union. we know to "try harder" during a certain time, but sometimes the trying doesn't always happen and somestimes we're interested in "trying" in other random times of the month when conception would indeed be a miracle of God.

sure, if you're avoiding, charting will affect when or when you don't have conjugal relations, but um, thats the point of child spacing. to space. and that element has already been discussed throughout the thread so i won't babble

its all about perspective, balance, open communication and faith in God. and honestly, as a married woman, using NFP has helped the DH and i to achieve and foster all of those things. and i know the same is true of MANY MANY MANY couples who have used NFP. i get a magazine every 2 months loaded with similiar opinions/tales.


if NFP isn't for you or your spouse, thats fine too. but on many levels, its clear that NFP has objectives good to it, besides just a practical family planning function. and thats why the Church lets couples decide

Edited March 29, 2007 by kateri05

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1221103' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:19 AM']OK, to all the youngsters out there who aren't even married and/or who have no children:

Raising children costs a lot of money, even when not going for luxury baby items, etc. Yes, we can all simplify and get by with less, and that's a good thing. But doctor's visits cost money. Braces cost money. Shoes, even if not Nike's, cost money. And those are just the bare necessities of life, unless you consider braces a "luxury." How about pre-school, to give one's children a good start? Believe me, children are expected to come in to kindergarten already knowing their ABC's, numbers, etc. And what about college? How are you going to pay for that?

Yes, we can all live some kind of minimalist existence where we have a bed to sleep in, food on the table and a roof over our heads, and that's a beaver dam sight better than a lot of people in this world have it. But in 21st century America, if you want your children to have a future, you've also got to think about a host of extracurricular activities such as sports, music lessons, etc. to help your children be well-rounded individuals who can excel in a complicated world, not to mention finding their God-given gifts.

So, I'm not sure what counts as "grave," but being a responsible parent who can provide for the reasonable necessities - not "luxury" items - of life seems pretty good.[/quote]
I get somewhat annoyed when I hear this "expensive" line.
Brother Adam has 1 child, and I have raised 4. Kids are not as "expensive" as you make out. Flea markets and thrift shops provide excellent value when it comes to childrens clothes, toys, and shoes.
Head Start [i]is[/i] pre-school. After school lessons can be managed with planning. Kids can get jobs and start paying their own bills in high school - clothing, car, car repairs, and insurance. All my kids did "extra-curricular activities: band, track team, newspaper editor, biking, karate, choir, musicals, boy and girl scouts. My son is 21 and just got braces, with he pays for himself [$86 a month]
I had THREE kids in college at the same time, so I know a bit about that part. College comes with grants, loans, AND scholarships. One son starts grad school in the spring, one repairs cars, another works at a blood bank. My boys also know how to do basic carpentry, plumbing, electric and cars as a back-up. My daughter is a clothing designer and an online editor.She is learning cooking as her back-up. [ She gave up on the Marine Corp].
All of the above was done well below the poverty line.
So it can be done, you just have to decide what is important, what is luxury, and what you really need in life.

[kateri05]

yay cmom :

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='marielapin' post='1221662' date='Mar 29 2007, 04:43 AM']I don't know if waiting until the "ideal" time NFP wise to get married is ideal. We waited four years to get married (we were in college) and I don't consider even that "ideal". It would have been better to have gotten married sooner, because waiting that long starts to get hard, and it becomes difficult not to put yourself in the occasion to sin. Even though we waited until marriage, we still struggled in the chastity department. So in our case, waiting was not even ideal.[/quote]

It was hard enough with us, and we only had 1 yr, 8 months from dating to our wedding!

[quote name='kateri05' post='1221686' date='Mar 29 2007, 05:20 AM']al, i'm just not sure that you're understanding the objectives goods that come from using NFP apart from the whole child spacing thing.

as a woman, understanding how my body works, especially in conjunction with my husband's, is an amazing gift that God CLEARLY intended for us to have. and the communication element of NFP, EVEN WHEN you're not using it to space children is not to be discounted. and this is from the experience of someone who has used it for spacing/trying.

also, it is certainly possible to BE fertile, to not have conjugal relations with your spouse, and have it have nothing to do with your fertility even if you are aware of your fertility. sometimes it doesn't work out. so this idea, that once you know about your cycle and how it works, you are always doomed to "use" that information is.... crazy. at least from my perspective.[/quote]

And the communication part is indeed a blessing. As is understanding my mood swings (this helps both of us).

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1221727' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:27 PM']I get somewhat annoyed when I hear this "expensive" line.
Brother Adam has 1 child, and I have raised 4. Kids are not as "expensive" as you make out. Flea markets and thrift shops provide excellent value when it comes to childrens clothes, toys, and shoes.
Head Start [i]is[/i] pre-school. After school lessons can be managed with planning. Kids can get jobs and start paying their own bills in high school - clothing, car, car repairs, and insurance. All my kids did "extra-curricular activities: band, track team, newspaper editor, biking, karate, choir, musicals, boy and girl scouts. My son is 21 and just got braces, with he pays for himself [$86 a month]
I had THREE kids in college at the same time, so I know a bit about that part. College comes with grants, loans, AND scholarships. One son starts grad school in the spring, one repairs cars, another works at a blood bank. My boys also know how to do basic carpentry, plumbing, electric and cars as a back-up. My daughter is a clothing designer and an online editor.She is learning cooking as her back-up. [ She gave up on the Marine Corp].
All of the above was done well below the poverty line.
So it can be done, you just have to decide what is important, what is luxury, and what you really need in life.[/quote]
If you care to write a book on the subject, I want a copy...preferably autographed.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1221727' date='Mar 28 2007, 11:27 PM']I get somewhat annoyed when I hear this "expensive" line.
Brother Adam has 1 child, and I have raised 4. Kids are not as "expensive" as you make out. Flea markets and thrift shops provide excellent value when it comes to childrens clothes, toys, and shoes.
Head Start [i]is[/i] pre-school. After school lessons can be managed with planning. Kids can get jobs and start paying their own bills in high school - clothing, car, car repairs, and insurance. All my kids did "extra-curricular activities: band, track team, newspaper editor, biking, karate, choir, musicals, boy and girl scouts. My son is 21 and just got braces, with he pays for himself [$86 a month]
I had THREE kids in college at the same time, so I know a bit about that part. College comes with grants, loans, AND scholarships. One son starts grad school in the spring, one repairs cars, another works at a blood bank. My boys also know how to do basic carpentry, plumbing, electric and cars as a back-up. My daughter is a clothing designer and an online editor.She is learning cooking as her back-up. [ She gave up on the Marine Corp].
All of the above was done well below the poverty line.
So it can be done, you just have to decide what is important, what is luxury, and what you really need in life.[/quote]

I fully agree. All I'm saying is, don't be glib about the cost of raising children. I have three, one of whom required occupational therapy last year. Insurance didn't cover it. So, I could decide that OT was a "luxury," since it wasn't a life-threatening condition or anything of that nature. However, I would have done a disservice to my child, in my estimation, if I didn't provide him with the help he needed, [i]out of pocket.[/i] My older guy got braces last year. He was 8 at the time, so getting a job and paying for it himself obviously wasn't an option. Again, not "necessary" but a "luxury?" Also out of pocket, BTW, which is fine, that's what I'm here for. But multiply that by four, five or six, and suddenly I don't have those options. Roof over head, food on table, check. Crooked teeth, trouble with fine motor skills (which can have an extremely deleterious impact in school), check.

So, as you can see, my focus isn't at all on the iPods or Nintendos or $100 sneakers but on what I regard as the important necessities of life vis-a-vis my children's well being.

Over to you.