Pandora's Nfp

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1221954' date='Mar 29 2007, 10:28 AM']If you care to write a book on the subject, I want a copy...preferably autographed.[/quote]

lol that is funny.!!

its real simple Raf, be poor enough to tell your kids that they can have or do anything they want, but[i] they[/i] have to figure out how to get it. I could feed them and buy the basics, the rest was up to them. All my kids were working by 13, they started as bus boys and apprentice bakers. Until they could afford bikes they walked to work several miles each way. They saved for bikes, they saved for cars. Everything they bought they took good care of, because they paid for it. It was never easy for them, but they know the value of hard work and a dollar and all are very capable of taking care of themselves.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1221989' date='Mar 29 2007, 10:51 AM']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.[/quote]
We both agree then we know the difference between need and luxury.

Hijack is over, back to NFP.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1222048' date='Mar 29 2007, 09:40 AM']Hijack is over, back to NFP.[/quote]

Ouch

It wasn't [i]entirely[/i] a hijack . It was / is salient to the "grave" clause, IMHO.

[-I---Love]

"the Church teaches that sex in marriage has the primary purpose of procreation with a purpose subserviant to that procreative purpose of intimacy. increasing intimacy has the primary purpose of deepening the bond of two potential parents."

not to deviate from the main, but Al, what you said above is simply not the case anymore. Procreation and intimacy are now taught to be two equal purposes. JPII will definitely back me up on that one. He was way ahead of his times in Love and Responsibility (and even before that) when he wrote this. If you don't trust me (al cause I don't think you will) let me know and I'll find it...

anyways I think this understanding is very important because intimacy should not be downplayed. Intimacy is loving, which is in purity wholely of God.

And I have to agree w/ another that after a month of stopping NFP you are NOT going to be "tainted" by your knowledge of the fertility cycle. I have never met a women to be perfectly accurate w/ her period each month and furthermore even if this was the case fertility can still be changed due to other a dozen other factors not foreseen and out of anyones control. - hope that assures you

[Aloysius]

there is nothing said by John Paul II about the purpose of intimacy which does not totally fit into the paradigm of Catholic Teaching which makes intimacy a secondary purpose. it is a common misconception which makes John Paul's teaching place intimacy as an equal seperate purpose. intimacy is NOT a seperate purpose, it is a purpose which is INSEPERABLE from the procreative purpose. it is a purpose because it serves the procreative purpose, that's what links the two. Intimacy as a purpose is subserviant to the purpose of procreation.

[quote][b]The Council of Florence: Bull of Union with the Armenians [/b]
The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is asign of the union of CHrist and the church according to the words of the apostle: [i]This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church.[/i] (Eph 5:32) The efficient cause of a matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first (Primum) is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church.[/quote]

The Primary purpose is the procreation and bringing up of children. Now, before you say they were just listing in random order, notice how they begin lists of equal importance in the latin in the selfsame bull:

"Imprimis..." or "In the first place..." and then they begin to list many equal Councils which they are affirming.

But they said "Primum": it is clearly a list in order of importance signifying procreation as the primary purpose of marriage.

Moreover, note how the third good listed serves the first two; and how the second one listed serves the first. These are not seperate purposes, these are all pointed and ordered towards the purpose of procreation; which is how Vatican II speaks of marriage as [i]directed[/i] towards procreation.

[quote] [b]Vatican II De ecclesia in mundo[/b]
The institution of marriage and married love are, of their nature, directed to the begetting and upbringing of children and find their culmination in this...
Marriage, however, was not instituted just for procreation; the very nature of an unbreakable covenant between persons and the good of the offspring also demand that the mutual love of the partners should be rightly expressed and should develop and mature. And therefore even if children, often longed for, are not forthcoming, marriage remains as a sharing and communion for the whole of life and retains its goodness and indissolubility.[/quote]

This is all I'm saying: all the other purposes of marriage are directed towards the primary purpose.

[quote][b]Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI[/b]
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called.[/quote]

It is clear from the Humanae Vitae quote that the reason there is a unitive purpose to marriage is because of the primary purpose of procreation. The teaching of procreation as the primary purpose of marriage has never been changed or contradicted, it remains in tact as the point from which we must interpret all current teaching on the matter. It is inseperable: the unitive aspect makes the potential parents better and more close as potential parents. It is not a seperate purpose; it is a purpose subserviant towards the purpose of procreation. This of course does not mean that every act must be procreative; but the purpose of intimacy is to make the potential parents closer so that their family is stronger in love.

Here's a good long artical: [url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5822"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5822[/url]

from that artical:
[quote]Of the three purposes to marriage, namely procreation and raising offspring, mutual help of the spouses, and the remedy for concupiscence or the sexual urge, the primary purpose must be generation of children and the proper upbringing of them. Mutual help, although important in marriage, follows from procreation and is secondary to it. This is because the spouses need the constant support of each other while raising children to be virtuous people, as well as just meeting the material needs of daily life. Remedy for concupiscence, then, takes third place. If two people enter marriage with mutual help or the remedy of concupiscence as their primary purpose, many problems such as adultery may easily result.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

anyway, it's well established that knowledge of the cycle at one point does not taint you to know it for life; but it still would be a difficult transition to go from scheduling things based on the NFP cycle to no longer scheduling them on that basis; especially if your marriage begins with that schedule such that your whole marital life begins centered around these concerns.

[Birgitta Noel]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222355' date='Mar 29 2007, 05:00 PM']anyway, it's well established that knowledge of the cycle at one point does not taint you to know it for life; but it still would be a difficult transition to go from scheduling things based on the NFP cycle to no longer scheduling them on that basis; especially if your marriage begins with that schedule such that your whole marital life begins centered around these concerns.[/quote]

Al, let me assure you that the human sex drive and desire for marital intimacy does NOT make it hard to drop the disciplined scheduling of sex that NFP may require if one is trying to avoid children. Trust me, if I knew that we were in a position to have children no knowledge of my cycle would stop me from having sex when my husband and I desire it. The attraction is great and the desire is real.

Believe me, it is much harder to use NFP to avoid/space children. Once you are in a place to have children even if you're still charting all bets are off. There are other reasons you might not have sex, fatigue, illness, stress, traveling, etc, but knowing your cycle isn't one of them!

Remember, many couples who use NFP, even if they are initially using it to postpone children become MORE open to life than they were before they began using NFP. Thus, the reasons they may have been postponing children may start to become less grave as their desire for one another increases and they determine that their reasons weren't as grave as they first thought and they become more open to any children God may send.

Edited March 29, 2007 by The Little Way

[marielapin]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1222355' date='Mar 29 2007, 04:00 PM']but it still would be a difficult transition to go from scheduling things based on the NFP cycle to no longer scheduling them on that basis[/quote]

Oh my goodness Al, let me relieve you on that score: it is NOT a problem! LOL! It is harder to START using NFP during your marriage when you have not practiced it early on than it is to stop practicing it. I have two friends who have confided this in me, that they wished they had studied and charted (not even necessarily to avoid conception) at the start of their marriage. Now they have had several children really close together and have tried to start using it and are finding it harder than they expected, being used to being freer with their relations.

[Aloysius]

haha I was obviously coming at this from a detached intellectual perspective... it totally makes sense now that I think about it in terms of practical application.

[Birgitta Noel]

HA, HA, I'm SO GLAD you're starting to understand.

[Aloysius]

yeah... but only insofar as yes, it can cease to be used easily enough. I still hold that Church teaching considers NFP as not-preferable; that it can only be used if some unfortunate situation necessitates it but otherwise it would be ideal to never have to use it.

[Birgitta Noel]

Might you be suggesting rather that it would be ideal to never have to use it to postpone and space children?

Why would it be less than ideal to use it to conceive children?

[Aloysius]

Because the ideal is to not excercise your will over when and when not to have children.

It seems to me that using it to conceive children would normally involve spacing children as well. if you're going through marriage without taking this into your own hands and find that you're not able to just conceive by just participating in the marital act under normal schedules, it'd be fine to plan to have a child. I have no problem with that. but automatically implied in the planning of children is USUALLY spacing and postponements, so if those aren't involved it's not less than the ideal to use it to plan to have children you wouldn't have conceived otherwise.

[Birgitta Noel]

BUT, remember we are CO-operators with God, CO-creators. That includes our will as well as our physical capacities.

Also, remember that some types of NFP can indicate health problems that if left untreated can lead to miscarriage etc. Using it also allows a woman to determine the actual date of conception which can prevent iatrogenic prematurity when inductions/c-sections are scheduled.

So, even if one is in an ideal situation there are still reasons to use it.

[marielapin]

Al, what do you think about adoption if you think that in having children we should not be trying to impose our will? If God plants the seed of wanting to have children, and if you are having issues conceiving, the first step (for Catholics) is to start using NFP to try, and taking your charts to your doc to see if there is a hormonal imbalance or something else that can be overcome in order for your fertility to return. Do you consider going to a doctor to correct a hormonal imbalance "imposing" your will? And isn't adoption the ultimate willing to have a child? You can literally decide if you want a boy or girl, what age they are when you get them, and even what race they are. You seem to keep forgetting that we are co-operaters with God. He plants the seeds but most of the time it is up to us to water and tend them (even weeding when necessary). God allows us use of own wills. Otherwise we would just be marionettes dancing about to God's will, waiting for Him to touch us with the baby stick. After all, you control whether or not you have sex. God does not. Is that not imposing your will?

Edited March 30, 2007 by marielapin