Nfp, Babies, And College Students

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1754250' date='Jan 18 2009, 08:59 AM']That is a grossly irresponsible frame of mind. Part of being Catholic is openness to life. To pursue marriage when, by one's own reasoning, one would not be able to responsibly care for a child's societal-material needs would demonstrate a lack of respect for one's spouse and family.

And yes, a vast number of Americans married without proper instruction - certainly without the proper perspective on faith - and, consequently, now face stresses and anxieties - occasions to sin - that really need not be there. I am convinced that if every American teenager was convinced that true love is open to life (and that anything less is therefore an abuse of sex), there would be few if any occurrences of fornication and everyone would patiently wait (as true love does) for a financially, psychologically, and spiritually appropriate occasion for marriage.

One should never rush into marriage anymore than one should fall into an erroneous presumption of who one's "soul mate" is before actually having married. You have probably heard some of the many stories of priests who were engaged, at one point thinking that they were looking into the eyes of their "soul-mates", only to discover their true call to the celibate life later.[/quote]


He NEVER said he could not care for a child, he said he could if he had to, he would make it work. How is this situation any different than a couple who can't afford another child at the moment so they use NFP for the time being? Answer: its not. Its the same exact thing. Should we then tell couples that if your in a financial hardship, they stop having sex all together? Cause if that's the case, the way the economy's going, no one will be having sex.


Ok, please expalin to me when a financial time for marriage? Numerous American's work theirs tails off and just get by from paycheck to paycheck. Numerous people on this board have shared their stories about just getting by. According to your logic, they shouldn't get married. So should only the rich get married now? Fact is, we have an ENOURMOUS amount of American's who are just getting by paycheck to paycheck and that is not going to suddenly change anytime soon. So should close to half of American's be content to never marry then? Your logic seems to imply just that. That to getg married without being financially stable is a mistake. Again, with the way the economy is, not many people in America today are financially set.

You can never base one couple off of another, because no two couples are the same. And I know from personal experience, you can figure out if someone is your soul mate or not before marriage. I did. Had I not know if she was my soul mate, I would not have married her. I married her because she was the one, the soul mate God sent me. At the time God put many obsticles in our way and instead of putting of marriage, we married and went through the struggles together and we are that much closer and stronger because we went through those trials together, not apart. I've been married for 2 years. If I had waited until I was finacially stable, I would not be married now and would not be able to get married for another 2-4 years. Trust me, never EVER does a day go by I wish I wasn't married so I could become financially stable. Somethings are more important that money in life, love is definatly one of them.

[MStar]

I had a couple of friends who got married last summer. They planned on not having kids for a couple of years, because he was going to dental school and she had to work to sustain them, but they had to get married then or else have a long distance relationship (but they'd already been dating 3 years or so). They were open to having children, but were doing their best to wait until he could support them so she could stay at home. They were so sure this was what they ought to do that they even abstained on their wedding night and a couple days after because she was fertile! And they talked to our priest a lot about it too, so they had his agreement.

[MStar]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1754455' date='Jan 18 2009, 12:59 PM']When it comes to discerning if you should marry someone or not, the real issue seems to be dating vs. courtship. Dating tends to be an exclusive relationship where people see each other for more superfical reasons like "Hey you're cute and I don't want to go to this movie by myself so do you wanna come with me baby?" and really don't discern if they should get married to each other or not properly, essentially basing their decision on romantic feelings.

Courtship on the other hand is having a boyfriend or girlfriend with the intention of possibly marrying them that goes way beyond the general getting to know you stage. Discussing topics such as children and parenting, careers, relationships with other family members, finances, dreams, hopes, etc. I'm no expert in courtship, just going by what I've learned about it so far. There are books on the subject that cover it more in depth.[/quote]

My boyfriend and I refer to our relationship as "dating", but I guess we really fit under the "courtship" part here. We were friends before we started "going out" and have talked about all that stuff. I think it's just easier to use the terms for "dating", but there's certainly different views that go along with discerning marriage or just "going out" to get to know someone.

[philothea]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1754398' date='Jan 18 2009, 01:52 PM']Long engagements can be frustrating to both parties, people can fall into the habit of acting married when they are not, and St Paul did say it is better to marry than burn.
If you arent ready to set a date you aren't ready to be married.[/quote]
Which is kind of ironic, when you consider that most parishes require [i]at least[/i] a year lead time for setting a date.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1754486' date='Jan 18 2009, 04:37 PM']...[/quote]

It is irresponsible to enter into marriage when you lack financial stability. If you cannot manage your money then how can you expect to manage a household? If you don't love your partner enough to wait until you can provide for the needs (not wants) of a family, are you really in a position to properly use NFP in the first place? Is it really loving to enter into a marriage by which you attach an extraordinary weight of debt around your partner's neck? Can you provide any quote or reference at all - even a single passage - that says it is acceptable to enter into marriage with the immediate intentions of using NFP for a long period of time while handling serious financial difficulty? Keep in mind that NFP is NOT to be used when it would be an occasion of sin for one of the spouses; the marital right must be provided in such cases, rendering NFP's practical efficiency (as both moral and effective as the NFP system by itself is) impossible to predict. If, therefore, a spouse finds grave enough reason that NFP would be necessary immediately and for quite some time after marriage, then can it really be said that entering into marriage in such a situation is a responsible, loving, Godly choice?

We must practice self-sacrifice in our efforts to maintain chastity for years - usually around two decades - before marriage. Is any less self-sacrifice and wisdom due to marriage preparation?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1754558' date='Jan 18 2009, 05:24 PM']It is irresponsible to enter into marriage when you lack financial stability. If you cannot manage your money then how can you expect to manage a household? If you don't love your partner enough to wait until you can provide for the needs (not wants) of a family, are you really in a position to properly use NFP in the first place? Is it really loving to enter into a marriage by which you attach an extraordinary weight of debt around your partner's neck? Can you provide any quote or reference at all - even a single passage - that says it is acceptable to enter into marriage with the immediate intentions of using NFP for a long period of time while handling serious financial difficulty? Keep in mind that NFP is NOT to be used when it would be an occasion of sin for one of the spouses; the marital right must be provided in such cases, rendering NFP's practical efficiency (as both moral and effective as the NFP system by itself is) impossible to predict. If, therefore, a spouse finds grave enough reason that NFP would be necessary immediately and for quite some time after marriage, then can it really be said that entering into marriage in such a situation is a responsible, loving, Godly choice?

We must practice self-sacrifice in our efforts to maintain chastity for years - usually around two decades - before marriage. Is any less self-sacrifice and wisdom due to marriage preparation?[/quote]


And again, I ask, so your saying most of American's should not be married or even get married because somewhere between 40 to 50% of American are right above the poverty line. Do you relaize how many people live pay check to pay check for most of their lives? What your saying, people should not get married unless they are financially stable. Basically it comes down to, the upper class can marry, but not the lower class. Your basically saying, no one who is poor should ever marry because they are not financially stable. Last I checked, no where in the bible or in catholisism does it say a requirment to marriage is finacial stability. Also last I checked, the church ok'd NFP for just this occassion. When a family would be under to much financial hardship to have a child, so they can use NFP. Couples use it now, the OP would be using it the same way.



I don't need to quote a specific passage at all in the bible to show where its been ok to marry if your not financially set because back when Jesus lived and before him, most people, unless very wealth, lived day to day for food and neccesities. According to you, most of the people during Jesus's time, should not have been married unless you were a wealthy person.


To deny marriage on the basis of finacial stabability would negate close to half of America and OVER half of the worlds population ever getting married, EVER.

We are also called to self sacrifice in marriage. Every person will bring baggage into a marriage. Be it fincial, emotional or whatever, its still baggage. In marriage you sacrfice for your spouse.

I'll give you a realistic observation. Had me and my spouse not got married before I finished school and instead waited until I was financially stable, we would not be married now and not for another 2-4 years. So explain to me how I made a mistake of marrying my wife. If you ask my wife, would she have preferred I come into the marriage financially stable and have us wait a total of about 6 years to get married, she would say no way. She would rather have to struggle with the debt I brought into our marriage then not be married for a total of 6 years before we actually set the date.

I then ask you, what about the person who makes just enough to stay above the poverty line. He will never be financially stable. So should that person NEVER marry? Should he spend the rest of his life alone because of money. Not because that's what God wants, but because of money? Money is not everything and let me tell you, if I had to be homeless for the rest of my life just to be married to my wife, then I would without hesitation. You SEEM to IMPLY you would be the opposite way. If God calls this man to marry, and he does not, then is he not sinning against God by rejecting God's will for him. I really don't think, when he meets Saint Peter in heaven, saying he wanted to make more money as a reason to reject God's will, will be an exceptable excuse.

[MithLuin]

Also, to be realistic, money is one of the issues that most couples fight about. My cousin married young, and he and his wife have separate bank accounts, in an effort to keep things from becoming an issue. I think it shows prudence to do that, even though my parents always shared money jointly and considered it 'ours', not 'mine and yours.'

I think that a couple has to discuss finances and be agreed on how they are to be handled before marriage. If one person has a lot of debt, how that will be taken care of needs to be out in the open. It wouldn't be fair or wise to just jump into marriage and assume that will all sort itself out eventually. Money can be used to control, manipulate, or cause resentment, all of which is pretty poisonous in a marriage.

You don't have to be wealthy or well-off to get married, any more than you have to be well-off to have a kid. You can make things work. But you have to be realistic and of the same mind - agreed on what sacrifices are necessary. If your plan for making ends meet is not to take a vacation at all for 4 years after the honeymoon -- that shouldn't come as a surprise to your spouse, who brings up wanting to go to the beach 6 mo. into your marriage, and is hurt when you continue to say 'no' to all such suggestions.

In other words, prudence should enter into a decision of when to marry, and both people should make the decision responsibly. But no, marriage doesn't have to be delayed until all your debts are paid, especially if it is going to be cheaper to pay one rent with two incomes .

Also, if you do have a child, that will alter plans, and may remove some options from your possible future. You need to be aware of that, and make your plans realistically.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1754558' date='Jan 18 2009, 05:24 PM']It is irresponsible to enter into marriage...[/quote]
It is better to marry than to burn.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='philothea' post='1754532' date='Jan 18 2009, 04:45 PM']Which is kind of ironic, when you consider that most parishes require [i]at least[/i] a year lead time for setting a date. [/quote]

Agreed! I want to know how some of you managed 6 or 7 month long engagements! My engagement, if and when it happens, will be a year long, and that's only because my parish enforces that.

[Thomist-in-Training]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1754558' date='Jan 18 2009, 05:24 PM']It is irresponsible to enter into marriage when you lack financial stability. If you cannot manage your money then how can you expect to manage a household? If you don't love your partner enough to wait until you can provide for the needs (not wants) of a family, are you really in a position to properly use NFP in the first place? Is it really loving to enter into a marriage by which you attach an extraordinary weight of debt around your partner's neck? Can you provide any quote or reference at all - even a single passage - that says it is acceptable to enter into marriage with the immediate intentions of using NFP for a long period of time while handling serious financial difficulty? Keep in mind that NFP is NOT to be used when it would be an occasion of sin for one of the spouses; the marital right must be provided in such cases, rendering NFP's practical efficiency (as both moral and effective as the NFP system by itself is) impossible to predict. If, therefore, a spouse finds grave enough reason that NFP would be necessary immediately and for quite some time after marriage, then can it really be said that entering into marriage in such a situation is a responsible, loving, Godly choice?

We must practice self-sacrifice in our efforts to maintain chastity for years - usually around two decades - before marriage. Is any less self-sacrifice and wisdom due to marriage preparation?[/quote]

I'm with you and Luthien who said [quote]There are reasons for NFP, like [b]illness, dire financial situations, or mental health of the parents. I[/b] 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.[/quote]

I think NFP isn't something you START by planning to use. If you don't feel you will have the money you wish to have to take care of a baby, then wait to marry... My parents were quite poor when they married and in their case it took a whole year before my mom conceived me, she quit working and everything was fine. In other cases too it's fine with one income. Also, you might want to think: if you are starting depending on two incomes, will you get into the mindset that you'll always need them to have a better standard of living? Maybe not, that thought just crossed my mind.

[Norseman82]

Here we go again.....

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1754604' date='Jan 18 2009, 05:54 PM']Also, to be realistic, money is one of the issues that most couples fight about.[/quote]

Of the divorces I did in my practice, almost all had money as a main or secondary reason their marriage fell apart.

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
[quote name='Winchester' post='1754422' date='Jan 18 2009, 12:25 PM']NFP and babies are okay. College students are not.[/quote]


[quote name='Norseman82' post='1754654' date='Jan 18 2009, 05:55 PM']Here we go again.....[/quote]
i know

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1754598' date='Jan 18 2009, 07:45 PM']And again, I ask, so your saying most of American's should not be married or even get married because somewhere between 40 to 50% of American are right above the poverty line. Do you relaize how many people live pay check to pay check for most of their lives? What your saying, people should not get married unless they are financially stable. Basically it comes down to, the upper class can marry, but not the lower class. Your basically saying, no one who is poor should ever marry because they are not financially stable. Last I checked, no where in the bible or in catholisism does it say a requirment to marriage is finacial stability. Also last I checked, the church ok'd NFP for just this occassion. When a family would be under to much financial hardship to have a child, so they can use NFP. Couples use it now, the OP would be using it the same way.



I don't need to quote a specific passage at all in the bible to show where its been ok to marry if your not financially set because back when Jesus lived and before him, most people, unless very wealth, lived day to day for food and neccesities. According to you, most of the people during Jesus's time, should not have been married unless you were a wealthy person.


To deny marriage on the basis of finacial stabability would negate close to half of America and OVER half of the worlds population ever getting married, EVER.

We are also called to self sacrifice in marriage. Every person will bring baggage into a marriage. Be it fincial, emotional or whatever, its still baggage. In marriage you sacrfice for your spouse.

I'll give you a realistic observation. Had me and my spouse not got married before I finished school and instead waited until I was financially stable, we would not be married now and not for another 2-4 years. So explain to me how I made a mistake of marrying my wife. If you ask my wife, would she have preferred I come into the marriage financially stable and have us wait a total of about 6 years to get married, she would say no way. She would rather have to struggle with the debt I brought into our marriage then not be married for a total of 6 years before we actually set the date.

I then ask you, what about the person who makes just enough to stay above the poverty line. He will never be financially stable. So should that person NEVER marry? Should he spend the rest of his life alone because of money. Not because that's what God wants, but because of money? Money is not everything and let me tell you, if I had to be homeless for the rest of my life just to be married to my wife, then I would without hesitation. You SEEM to IMPLY you would be the opposite way. If God calls this man to marry, and he does not, then is he not sinning against God by rejecting God's will for him. I really don't think, when he meets Saint Peter in heaven, saying he wanted to make more money as a reason to reject God's will, will be an exceptable excuse.[/quote]

I never said a couple had to enter into marriage debt free. I never said a couple has to be rich. Perhaps there is some previous baggage that you bring with you into this thread that causes you to read such statements into what I really did say. It seems that even asking questions, as I did in my last post, sends you into a fury. [i]Perhaps you are unable to answer those questions honestly without supporting my commonsense position?[/i]

Let's illustrate my position hypothetically:

Jim and Sarah live in an economically devastated country riddled with crime. Jim is uneducated but makes enough money - barely, but enough - to pay for the rent of an abandoned, rusty train-car in the nearby wasteland, and all minimum needs of food and clothing. He has a low debt-income ratio, having taken out a loan to buy a special haz-mat suit for a once in a lifetime job opportunity (given his background and capabilities) in scraping toxic waste from barrels. Now privately employed by a rich, Protestant entrepreneur and self-styled "missionary" named Mr. Ugly - who says that he is confident that Jim's responsibilities will increase gradually, along with pay - Jim hopes to earn $5,000 a year and have his debt paid off within three years. He also determines that he is capable of living off the remnants of dead animals near the barrels of waste, freeing up some extra income for another mouth to feed (should his new career not cause sterility). The overpowering stench of elderberries nauseates Jim with every step he takes, but he's a real saint about it and Sarah loves him for that. They visit their only local priest in a 500 mile vicinity, who assures them that sacraments don't matter since Vatican II and that the hip thing to do would be to shack up and sing Hindu songs like good, ecumenical, progressive Catholics should. They insist on being married and the padre reluctantly agrees.

Now. Are Jim and Sarah wealthy? No. Are they well-off by any stretch of the imagination? No. But Jim has worked out a plan with a budget that a budding family can subsist on (barely), does not have to worry about any debt that is too much for his income, and overall has responsibly considered that there would be no undue burdens laid upon his family (more than what they will have in their country and state of affairs, regardless) by marrying now. [b]In short, although Jim might use NFP to space his children, [u]the thought of having one does not overwhelmingly scare him, does not forcefully deter him[/u], does not cause him prolonged hesitation and serious questioning as to whether or not right now is the right time to marry Sarah; [u]he has made a plan, assessed his status and future risks the best that he is able, [i]and has made sure that his debt to income ratio would not threaten a budding family in accordance with that plan.[/i][/u][/b] Jim has used caution, care, and patience out of love and respect for his future family. Jim is read to marry Sarah!

...now if only they can pull their only local priest's nose out of that New-Age magazine...

Edited January 19, 2009 by Ziggamafu

[philothea]