Nfp, Babies, And College Students

[Slappo]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1753514' date='Jan 16 2009, 08:54 PM']I think it needs to be known that St. Therese's parents abstained was because they were trying to live a Josephite marriage, because they believe that was the high road. They originally wanted to live in a religious life, so when they got married they abstained. Later on a priest advised them to refrain from abstaining(lol).[/quote]

The principle still stands though... although the primary purpose of marriage is pro-creation, it isn't necessary for marriage... Josephite marriages existed.

[quote name='Luthien' post='1753514' date='Jan 16 2009, 08:54 PM']Also, I think that it is odd how one would say that marriage isn't JUST for pro-creation, so you can avoid it and focus on the unitive aspect, but if one were to seperate the procreative aspect from the unitive, they are seen as nothing but loveless breeders. Im not trying to be confrontational, just trying to spread a thought.[/quote]

I agree, which is why contraception is not okay and NFP is. Contraception avoids and even removes the pro-creative aspect, NFP allows for it. They cannot be separated which is why NFP can't even be used with a contraceptive mindset EVEN if the situation is one where NFP would be permitted.


[quote name='Luthien' post='1753514' date='Jan 16 2009, 08:54 PM']Babies are a huge responsibility, there is no question. But lots of "poor" people have children, people that still have student loans, and work at Home Depot. I know of 3 couples in this type of situation. Its hard, but its definantly doable. There are reasons for NFP, like illness, dire financial situations, or mental health of the parents. I would definantly talk to a solid priest about this, because I don't think anyone here is qualified to tell you what you should do in your situation.

I do want to add (Im not sure if you saw this in my topic) that my husband and I are currently expecting our first, with no health insurance (applying for state coverage) and no job. We didn't plan it, we also have not been able to get pregnant our whole marriage (April '07) but God chose the most inopportune time to bless us with a child. We did not expect, nor did we plan for this to happen. I also could not be happier, or more hopeful.

I hope you don't take this post as an attack, I really just want to help. [/quote]

I'm not at all against being "poor" and having children, and I disagree with using NFP for the purpose of getting OUT of debt. However I would think that an astronomical amount of loan money (which many college students these days are stuck with) could hinder the fiscal responsibilities of children, and therefore a decision to lessen them to a more reasonable level before the pursuit of a family begins could be acceptable. Quite honestly, I'd go right from using NFP to reach financial reasonableness, to using it to conceive. By all means I want children, but I also want fiscal responsibleness.

The question is, if it isn't fiscally responsible to conceive a child at that time, although if one arose, by necessity parents could provide, is it okay for a couple to get married and practice NFP.


I want to talk to one of the friars here on campus who is a moral theologian about my particular situation, but I also think it is an interesting topic that would promote intellectual conversation (one that I may present my seminar for theology on).

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753536' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:11 PM']It just seems so sad-paraplegia is a good example of a case where someone may be unable to have intercourse-that they have to be alone. -Katie[/quote]

They don't have to be alone, they just can't get married in the church. If they can't have sex, then they can't sin by living together, and if they can have sex, they can get married. My mother has lived for over 20 years with a man without being married to him. He's on heart medicine so they "can't." Thanks so much mom for sharing.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Luthien' post='1753514' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:54 AM']I think it needs to be known that St. Therese's parents abstained was because they were trying to live a Josephite marriage, because they believe that was the high road. They originally wanted to live in a religious life, so when they got married they abstained. Later on a priest advised them to refrain from abstaining(lol).

Also, I think that it is odd how one would say that marriage isn't JUST for pro-creation, so you can avoid it and focus on the unitive aspect, but if one were to seperate the procreative aspect from the unitive, they are seen as nothing but loveless breeders. Im not trying to be confrontational, just trying to spread a thought.

Babies are a huge responsibility, there is no question. But lots of "poor" people have children, people that still have student loans, and work at Home Depot. I know of 3 couples in this type of situation. Its hard, but its definantly doable. There are reasons for NFP, like illness, dire financial situations, or mental health of the parents. I would definantly talk to a solid priest about this, because I don't think anyone here is qualified to tell you what you should do in your situation.

I do want to add (Im not sure if you saw this in my topic) that my husband and I are currently expecting our first, with no health insurance (applying for state coverage) and no job. We didn't plan it, we also have not been able to get pregnant our whole marriage (April '07) but God chose the most inopportune time to bless us with a child. We did not expect, nor did we plan for this to happen. I also could not be happier, or more hopeful.

I hope you don't take this post as an attack, I really just want to help. [/quote]

I think this post is great.

I also want to say that I don't think St. Therese's parents actions of abstaining are to be held up as a reason why it should be ok to go into a marriage with the idea of trying to abstain. There reasons were very different, and in the end they were told they shouldn't be doing it.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1753539' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:14 AM']They don't have to be alone, they just can't get married in the church. If they can't have sex, then they can't sin by living together, and if they can have sex, they can get married. My mother has lived for over 20 years with a man without being married to him. He's on heart medicine so they "can't." Thanks so much mom for sharing.[/quote]

Yeah, I suppose I can understand that, to some extent. I've known a few older couples who lived together as companions, I suppose it could be comparable to that. I think I still feel a little sad, though, that maybe a person would still wish to be married and have that "officiality" and such. Church marriage requirements are more complex than I had thought. -Katie

Edited January 17, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1753539' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:14 PM']They don't have to be alone, they just can't get married in the church. If they can't have sex, then they can't sin by living together, and if they can have sex, they can get married. My mother has lived for over 20 years with a man without being married to him. He's on heart medicine so they "can't." Thanks so much mom for sharing.[/quote]
Wow, that actually never occurred to me!
Is this the way lawyers think?

For whatever reason, this just made my day.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1753533' date='Jan 17 2009, 12:09 AM']canon law is clear that if no consummation is possible, there can not be a marriage in the church. I had a client who was paraplegic, and he had to get a letter from his doctor that he could still consummate with assistance. They basically had their wedding night at the doctor's office. They ended up having a couple of kids that way. I didn't want a lot of the details.[/quote]

So the Church refuses an impotent man to marry due to something biological that he has no control over?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1753548' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:21 PM']So the Church refuses an impotent man to marry due to something biological that he has no control over?[/quote]
More or less.
You're looking at it from only one perspective though.
The fact is that they cannot have intercouse, therefore cannot be open to life.
Same as homosexuals, in one way of looking at it.

[Luthien]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1753538' date='Jan 17 2009, 03:13 AM']The principle still stands though... although the primary purpose of marriage is pro-creation, it isn't necessary for marriage... Josephite marriages existed.[/quote]

I guess I was just clarifying their situation. Just think of it, if they had continued their lifestyle, St. Therese would never had been born!



[quote]I agree, which is why contraception is not okay and NFP is. Contraception avoids and even removes the pro-creative aspect, NFP allows for it. They cannot be separated which is why NFP can't even be used with a contraceptive mindset EVEN if the situation is one where NFP would be permitted.[/quote]

I know, I just thought I'd throw it out there.

[quote]I'm not at all against being "poor" and having children, and I disagree with using NFP for the purpose of getting OUT of debt. However I would think that an astronomical amount of loan money (which many college students these days are stuck with) could hinder the fiscal responsibilities of children, and therefore a decision to lessen them to a more reasonable level before the pursuit of a family begins could be acceptable. Quite honestly, I'd go right from using NFP to reach financial reasonableness, to using it to conceive. By all means I want children, but I also want fiscal responsibleness.

The question is, if it isn't fiscally responsible to conceive a child at that time, although if one arose, by necessity parents could provide, is it okay for a couple to get married and practice NFP.[/quote]

Get a good job, and pay off the loans piece-meal. The thing is, hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans will not be cut substatially in just 2 years. I know people who are in their mid-30's still paying off their loans. I agree with getting on your feet financially, but within reason. Loans are just a fact of life these days.


[quote]I want to talk to one of the friars here on campus who is a moral theologian about my particular situation, but I also think it is an interesting topic that would promote intellectual conversation (one that I may present my seminar for theology on).[/quote]

Yeah, I like this topic, Im just attempting to bring a slightly different viewpoint to the table.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753550' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:23 AM']More or less.
You're looking at it from only one perspective though.
The fact is that they cannot have intercouse, therefore cannot be open to life.
Same as homosexuals, in one way of looking at it.[/quote]

What if a couple were unable to procreate themselves but were very much willing to adopt? -Katie

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1753548' date='Jan 16 2009, 09:21 PM']So the Church refuses an impotent man to marry due to something biological that he has no control over?[/quote]

To put it bluntly, yes.

If a man was in a war lets say, and a grenade took the lower half of his body off, I.E waste down... and he couldn't consummate his marriage... he can't be married.

As was said before, consummation is a necessary part of marriage. It is the completion of the sacrament. If the sacrament cannot be completed, then it does not take place. I.E they could take vows, but never consummate therefore there would always be grounds for annulment (which means the marriage hasn't happened).

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1753552' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:26 PM']What if a couple were unable to procreate themselves but were very much willing to adopt? -Katie[/quote]
Maybe you'd consider what CatherineM said?
That's beyond the scope of my understanding though. Can an unmarried couple who are not living in a state of sin adopt responsibly? My gut reaction would be yea, why not, but then again, gut reactions are wrong way too often for me to trust that.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1753548' date='Jan 16 2009, 11:21 PM']So the Church refuses an impotent man to marry due to something biological that he has no control over?[/quote]

Yeah. There was a well publicized case in Brazil a year or so ago. A lot of times, priests just don't ask, but this guy was in a wheelchair, so the priest asked, and once he found out, he couldn't validly marry them. There was a lot of protest about it.

[MithLuin]

It is true that impotence is considered an impediment to marriage.

But somehow I don't think that was the purpose of this thread.

This thread was to ask if a couple can use NFP to attempt to postpone having a child for two years while loans are paid off. And the answer is yes, with the caveat that of course you might have a child anyway, and you have to enter into marriage knowing that is a possibility. Two years is an awful lot of abstaining, and you would both have to be willing to make that sacrifice.

Here's what the Catechism has to say on the subject:

[indent]2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, 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."

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God. "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. 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:

[quote]When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.[/quote]

2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man's exalted vocation to parenthood."

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

[quote]Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.[/quote]

2371 "Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny." [/indent]

Basically, it's important to keep in mind that the relationship of marriage is meant to be a symbol or sign of the relationship between Jesus and the Church. Just as Jesus brings new life to his Bride, a marriage brings new life into the world.

Edited January 17, 2009 by MithLuin

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1753554' date='Jan 17 2009, 01:27 AM']Maybe you'd consider what CatherineM said?
That's beyond the scope of my understanding though. Can an unmarried couple who are not living in a state of sin adopt responsibly? My gut reaction would be yea, why not, but then again, gut reactions are wrong way too often for me to trust that.[/quote]

Yeah, this is very confusing. -Katie

[havok579257]

Don't listen to anyone who says if your not financially ready for a kid, don't get married. That is some of the worst advice ever. If God calls you to be with that person, then marry them. Denying God's plan for you to save up more money is still rejection of God's will. Me and my wife got married when I was still in school. We lived off of a her salary, a teachers salary for over a year. We has lots of debt when school was finally over and we had to tighten out belts during that year. Although Never once did it ever cross my mind to finish school and become better financially set before marrying my sole mate. God wanted me to marry her and I trust him to know whats best for me. God didn't want me to wait a year or two to get my finances in check, he wanted me to marry her and follow HIS plan for me.

Also any marriage could always end up the "Walk to Remeber movie" way. Your spouse could die with in a year of marriage. How foolish will it have been then to look at yourself and say, it was so worth it to put off the wedding because that 1 or 2 or 5 years of marriage I could of had is now gone forever, but that's ok because I am financially set now to have a kid. What's more important, God's way and the love of your life or money.

Go, marry and I wish you a long and happy time together.