Getting Married Young

[hasikelee]

I guess my post does sound restrictive on putting my self interests before God on how many children to have. In that case that would sound like sin. I guess the relationship in this matter should be the three us, my wife, I, and God deciding on how many children to have instead of just the two of us. Thanks for putting that out, I had forgotton about that.
I probably shouldn’t use religion as a research text book but pray on the matter and look at the more spritual meanings behind these issues. I used to study business and general world theology at the University before I dropped out due to my health. Having constant pain in my sinsues from the age of 14, ear infections, almost losing complete hearing in 60 secs, and face dis confirguation because of the fluid that hadn’t been detected in years even with the ct scans. Then you have the mental anguish on top of that. Too many doctor mistakes. Thank God for my wife and the Russian doctors. Once I’m done I may go to court and sue the Americans.
I’m sorry for venting but I prayed to God day and day for the pain to go away and even to the point I should lose my hearing. Doctors saying nothing is worng and laughing at me because I told them I had pain. Doctors don’t care about thier patients
Anyway, due to our fallen nature from Adam and Eve this stuff will happen.

Link21, I didn’t take your post as restrictive. Don’t we as humans naturally “plan” out our life? So long as we keep in mind that God might have other plans, it is nothing other than looking forward to life’s milestones.

I often say things such as how many kids I’d like to have. But I know in the back part of my head that the real answer is how many God has planned for me. It still doesn’t stop me from wishing for a certain birth order or planning for twins or picking out certain names. Those things can change easily enough.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

Actually, that would be a sin and an inappropriate use of NFP.

Yes, that would be an inappropriate use of NFP, but it’s not an inappropriate use of abstinence. Although God is free to cause couples to conceive any day of the month, He doesn’t force anyone to have sex. If you truly do not want a baby for awhile, you are free to abstain.

In my 20’s when a doctor told me that I absolutely couldn’t get pregnant for the 6 months of treatment before brain surgery, we made the decision not to have sex. Of course, the doctor provided birth control pills, but I refused. I thought if I was going to die soon anyway, I didn’t want to be committing any mortal sins. I thought my husband would be angry, but he decided that it would be easier to give up sex than face the guilt of killing his wife and baby because he wanted sex.

As another poster said, if you’re not ready to have kids, you’re not ready to get married. I think this settles the question of how old you have to be to get married. The answer is: old enough to accept the responsibility of having children and to give up anything (even your life) to raise them.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Do you know the specifics, and what they are? You can’t make this judgement.

You’re right: “I want 4 kids, the wife wants 2, so maybe we’ll compromise and just have 3” could have many other explanations. Care to provide them? I am curious and just can’t think of any.

 

[Michael_Saint]

To “leave it up to God” as you seem to be suggesting would be to stop charting altogether. And as I chart for health reasons (and all women can and should), I’m not going to do this.

You seem to forget that IF you have intercourse on what you think, for every reason, is an infertile day, that God still has every option open to His disposal with our bodies. Hence, my son.

Watch out before you make NFP sound like another method of birth control!

When the Popes say there are “grave reasons” to avoid pregnancy, I am all for this. And when you do practice NFP for “grave reasons”, you still ARE “leaving it up to God”. Indeed, I am “suggesting” we should do so. You are charting for the right reasons - good for you! Some don’t. That is who and what my argument is against.

I am well aware of how NFP works - that if you have sex on an “infertile” day, you can get pregnant. I would not be discussing this issue as I am without having known that. The brother of a friend of mine just had a child conceived during the “infertile” period.

NFP is NOT just another method of birth control - but I think you would agree that it CAN be used as just another method of birth control, with the same contraceptive mentality as the couple who wears a condom has.

 

[Michael_Saint]

Doctors saying nothing is worng and laughing at me because I told them I had pain. Doctors don’t care about thier patients.

Ah, wrong - SOME doctors do not care about their patients. Some do. (Notice, everyone, I did not use the word “most”).

 

[Michael_Saint]

Yes, that would be an inappropriate use of NFP, but it’s not an inappropriate use of abstinence. Although God is free to cause couples to conceive any day of the month, He doesn’t force anyone to have sex. If you truly do not want a baby for awhile, you are free to abstain.

In my 20’s when a doctor told me that I absolutely couldn’t get pregnant for the 6 months of treatment before brain surgery, we made the decision not to have sex. Of course, the doctor provided birth control pills, but I refused. I thought if I was going to die soon anyway, I didn’t want to be committing any mortal sins. I thought my husband would be angry, but he decided that it would be easier to give up sex than face the guilt of killing his wife and baby because he wanted sex.

As another poster said, if you’re not ready to have kids, you’re not ready to get married. I think this settles the question of how old you have to be to get married. The answer is: old enough to accept the responsibility of having children and to give up anything (even your life) to raise them.

A big fat BINGO to this post. Indeed, “abstaining” is absolutely legitimate, and was the normal course of avoiding pregnancy before NFP came along. John Paul the Great also advocated it in “Love and Responsibility”, and as something that CAN be done with God’s grace. Obviously, it may still be necessary for one to abstain.

Good for you for exhibiting such self-control. You see, everyone, it can be done.

Indeed, if you are not ready to have kids, you are not ready for marriage. After all, if the commitment to conceive and raise children is one of the primary ends of marriage, how can someone who is not ready for it contract a marriage? I mean, if you were not ready for the other ends of marriage - the mutual good of spouses and the remedy for concupiscence, you’d be a very imprudent person indeed to go ahead with the marriage!

 

[bookgirl32]

When the Popes say there are “grave reasons” to avoid pregnancy, I am all for this. And when you do practice NFP for “grave reasons”, you still ARE “leaving it up to God”. Indeed, I am “suggesting” we should do so. You are charting for the right reasons - good for you! Some don’t. That is who and what my argument is against.

I am well aware of how NFP works - that if you have sex on an “infertile” day, you can get pregnant. I would not be discussing this issue as I am without having known that. The brother of a friend of mine just had a child conceived during the “infertile” period.

NFP is NOT just another method of birth control - but I think you would agree that it CAN be used as just another method of birth control, with the same contraceptive mentality as the couple who wears a condom has.

I really don’t think it can ever be interpreted that way. Go back and read your theology of the body, or West’s commentary. I just read it last night (that part) by the way. Whether or not NFP is abused, it is NEVER a form of birth control, nor does it resemble it. Birth control seeks to interrupt and prevent God’s act in the marital act. You know this. NFP never does this, b/c birth control is never used. West even makes the point that the “artificial” should be taken out of the name of birth control period, b/c along with the “natural” in NFP it confuses the issue, and creates the false conclusion that they’re the same thing, one is natural, one is artificial. When having intercourse, even while abusing NFP, you are never interrupting God’s process.

It would be a sin to abuse it, not trusting in God’s will maybe, or putting your will above His own. But that sin is not the same as premeditatively planning to deny God the ability to create a life when you DO have sex. They are two different things completely. They may both be sinful, but they are not the same sin. Does that make sense? This is why I get so passionate about how NFP is talked about, b/c birth control is fundamentally wrong, and NFP, even while being abused, is not. In the case of NFP being abused, it is the avoidance of the pregnancy alltogether that is the sin, much like ignoring God on your vocation. Or not becoming a priest, even though you feel called to it and believe you are, b/c you want to be rich, or you want to be able to have sex. Does that make sense?

 

[bookgirl32]

Ah, wrong - SOME doctors do not care about their patients. Some do. (Notice, everyone, I did not use the word “most”).

Or, notice bookgirl .

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes, that would be an inappropriate use of NFP, but it’s not an inappropriate use of abstinence. Although God is free to cause couples to conceive any day of the month, He doesn’t force anyone to have sex. If you truly do not want a baby for awhile, you are free to abstain.

In my 20’s when a doctor told me that I absolutely couldn’t get pregnant for the 6 months of treatment before brain surgery, we made the decision not to have sex. Of course, the doctor provided birth control pills, but I refused. I thought if I was going to die soon anyway, I didn’t want to be committing any mortal sins. I thought my husband would be angry, but he decided that it would be easier to give up sex than face the guilt of killing his wife and baby because he wanted sex.

As another poster said, if you’re not ready to have kids, you’re not ready to get married. I think this settles the question of how old you have to be to get married. The answer is: old enough to accept the responsibility of having children and to give up anything (even your life) to raise them.

This is what we did after the birth of my son. I had a Pulmonary Embolism and was immediately put on blood thinners, which are not okay with pregnancy. We could’ve used NFP, but we weren’t completely comfortable with our own ability to use it yet since we’d only had about three days to use it (we got pregnant three days after we got married) before my son was conceived.

This blood clot thing COULD end up being a reason for us to use it indefinitely in our marriage if my next pregnancy would produce another blood clot. It’s kind of a “wait and see” thing.

 

[Link21]

I just wanted to make a point at the top about getting married young in my first forumn and how times have changed from getting married at 14 to 15 to eighteen with out parent’s consent. I did not try to imply that you should have eight children but that you plan on according to have them and when by NFP. I guess control was a bad word to use in this definition perspective but that’s what I meant.
Also I think it was Saint Micheal that said summed it up nicely, “If you want to get married then you should be ready for children.” But I would say so you can marry young. At age 15 your considered an adult with in the church. However, times have changed and there’s more emphasies on getting a good education high school at least and marry at 18 or older.
Also, I do recongize when I have children I will be there for them to make sure that they are loved, natured, and happy.
Here’s an interesting fact, back during the mid evil days it was required that when a husband and a women got married that the women would have to have sex with the duke first. Before she could have sex with her husband. Then on top of that you could only have sex with your clothes on accept for one special part that had an opening. If you deviated from this rule, the wife could go up to the church and get an annulment of marriage against the husband. My wife learned this in college about the Catholic church. She even asked why there’s so many churches in the USA of different denominations? I said, "Because of the churche’s corruption on moral issues and abusing thier power. Don’t get this confused with doctrines because they have not been altered but perfected over the centuries so we may have a clearer understanding of what they mean. Anyway, I thought I’d tell you about how marriages were done along long time ago.
Now days that’s not considered a big deal or a sin.

 

[Michael_Saint]

I really don’t think it can ever be interpreted that way. Go back and read your theology of the body, or West’s commentary. I just read it last night (that part) by the way. Whether or not NFP is abused, it is NEVER a form of birth control, nor does it resemble it. Birth control seeks to interrupt and prevent God’s act in the marital act. You know this. NFP never does this, b/c birth control is never used. West even makes the point that the “artificial” should be taken out of the name of birth control period, b/c along with the “natural” in NFP it confuses the issue, and creates the false conclusion that they’re the same thing, one is natural, one is artificial. When having intercourse, even while abusing NFP, you are never interrupting God’s process.

Yes, I stand corrected. However, abuse of NFP, though it is not “birth control”, would still be a sin.

Yes, it makes sense - like I said, I teach Theology of the Body.
When I teach my section on NFP, I cite 7 reasons why NFP is different than Contraception. One of those reasons is the objective immorality of artificial means. The way I said it was inaccurate - but I was only trying to make a point that NFP can be abused, can be sinful, and can also be used with a “contraceptive mentality” (ie., that "we don’t want kids getting in the way of our [you name it]).

 

[Michael_Saint]

I just wanted to make a point at the top about getting married young in my first forumn and how times have changed from getting married at 14 to 15 to eighteen with out parent’s consent. I did not try to imply that you should have eight children but that you plan on according to have them and when by NFP. I guess control was a bad word to use in this definition perspective but that’s what I meant.
Also I think it was Saint Micheal that said summed it up nicely, “If you want to get married then you should be ready for children.” But I would say so you can marry young. At age 15 your considered an adult with in the church. However, times have changed and there’s more emphasies on getting a good education high school at least and marry at 18 or older.

Indeed, society has “delayed” our maturity, so to speak, and has pushed back the age at which we are ready for marriage. A girl can be 15 and ready for marriage - but that is rare in this society. So can a guy - but once again, really rare in this society. One hundred years ago, many men who were 18 could marry because they were already three or four years into their careers! Now, at 18 you are beginning a 4 year course before you can even begin a career. How times have changed.

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes, I stand corrected. However, abuse of NFP, though it is not “birth control”, would still be a sin.

Yes, it makes sense - like I said, I teach Theology of the Body.
When I teach my section on NFP, I cite 7 reasons why NFP is different than Contraception. One of those reasons is the objective immorality of artificial means. The way I said it was inaccurate - but I was only trying to make a point that NFP can be abused, can be sinful, and can also be used with a “contraceptive mentality” (ie., that "we don’t want kids getting in the way of our [you name it]).

I know what you’re saying, and I agree with you on abuse of NFP, but I still don’t think it can ever be used with a “contraceptive” mentality, ever. “We don’t want kids getting in the way” can just as easily be the way that NFP is abused, which is what you’re saying. “We want to have sex and make sure we don’t have kids therefore creating a barrier blocking God” is contraception. Those are not the same things. I know you think I’m nitpicking, but it’s important. It’s a big debate, and the notion that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality is false, and assumes that it in some way has something in common with contraception, which it doesn’t. Unless you’re using NFP and contraception at the same time, in which case it would cease to be NFP alltogether. If you teach Theology of the Body, don’t let this misconception go on!!

 

[Michael_Saint]

I know what you’re saying, and I agree with you on abuse of NFP, but I still don’t think it can ever be used with a “contraceptive” mentality, ever. “We don’t want kids getting in the way” can just as easily be the way that NFP is abused, which is what you’re saying. “We want to have sex and make sure we don’t have kids therefore creating a barrier blocking God” is contraception. Those are not the same things. I know you think I’m nitpicking, but it’s important. It’s a big debate, and the notion that NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality is false, and assumes that it in some way has something in common with contraception, which it doesn’t. Unless you’re using NFP and contraception at the same time, in which case it would cease to be NFP alltogether. If you teach Theology of the Body, don’t let this misconception go on!!

You are splitting the hair. When you are teaching these things to 18 or 19 year old kids, many of whom have not had much of a faith background at all, you sometimes have to “over-simplify”. I warn the students that I am going to oversimplify, and the trade-off for that being that things are not 100% accurate. Splitting the theological hairs are something that priests and spiritual directors can do for them later in their spiritual lives. If I explained it the way you have explained it, if I did that with the kids, I’d lose them.

This is a semantic issue. Perhaps I should not say “contraceptive mentality”. If we don’t say “contraceptive mentality”, what should we call it? An “anti-life” mentality? Maybe that would be better. You would agree it is an anti-life mentality, would you not?

But in all fairness, Jason Evert - a much greater expert than either of us - says this: “Despite all of these differences, NFP can be abused. Because it is so effective in regulating births, a couple could take on a contraceptive mentality and close themselves off from the gift of life. NFP must be practiced responsibly and only when there is just reason to do so” (pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=120)). Would you accuse a Catholic Answers apologist of misleading the teens and young adults who read his website? Perhaps you should email him your complaint and ask him to change it - or perhaps you should contact Catholic Answers yourself and ask them for a clarification on the issue.

 

[bookgirl32]

You are splitting the hair. When you are teaching these things to 18 or 19 year old kids, many of whom have not had much of a faith background at all, you sometimes have to “over-simplify”. I warn the students that I am going to oversimplify, and the trade-off for that being that things are not 100% accurate. Splitting the theological hairs are something that priests and spiritual directors can do for them later in their spiritual lives. If I explained it the way you have explained it, if I did that with the kids, I’d lose them.

This is a semantic issue. Perhaps I should not say “contraceptive mentality”. If we don’t say “contraceptive mentality”, what should we call it? An “anti-life” mentality? Maybe that would be better. You would agree it is an anti-life mentality, would you not?

But in all fairness, Jason Evert - a much greater expert than either of us - says this: “Despite all of these differences, NFP can be abused. Because it is so effective in regulating births, a couple could take on a contraceptive mentality and close themselves off from the gift of life. NFP must be practiced responsibly and only when there is just reason to do so” (pureloveclub.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=120)). Would you accuse a Catholic Answers apologist of misleading the teens and young adults who read his website? Perhaps you should email him your complaint and ask him to change it - or perhaps you should contact Catholic Answers yourself and ask them for a clarification on the issue.

I’m not arguing with you, and I understand what you’re saying. My concern is that it leads to a perception among non-Catholics (or Catholics that do not understand why contraception is wrong) that the Church is offering a “natural” form of birth control, which leads to the accusation that the Church is being inconsistent.

This is from an article from “This Rock” (from this site):

Attacks on the Church’s teachings on the transmission of human life usually come from those who want to justify artificial contraception. This group denounces the alleged “rigorism” or “obscurantism” of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, who have insisted, like all their predecessors, that it is always gravely sinful for spouses to interfere with the conjugal act to impede the possibility of procreation.

But there is a growing tendency among some to attack the teachings from the opposite direction. This group denounces Paul VI, John Paul II, and “the post-conciliar Church” for permitting and encouraging what is known generically as periodic continence or natural family planning. As is well known, these terms refer to the identification and exclusive use of the naturally infertile period of the wife’s cycle for having conjugal relations when a married couple has sufficiently serious reasons for wanting to avoid conception.

Ironically, the latter group often joins forces with “progressive” dissenters in claiming that there is no moral difference between NFP and the use of artificial contraceptives. Using the same epithet employed by many of their archenemies, they refer to NFP as “Catholic contraception,” claiming that if the Church were logically consistent, it would either allow all methods of birth regulation or forbid all methods.

The actual article is here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

My motive is not to confuse students (by the way, I think 18 and 19 year olds should be very capable of understanding the difference, you can tell it is NOT a method of contraception, even while being abused, and still make the point that it can very well be abused, they’re in college – at Franciscan University none-the-less – hopfully they’re up for understanding something that may be confusing), nor is it to defend abuses of NFP. It is a motive from problems like those mentioned in the above article.

Am I making sense?

 

[Michael_Saint]

I’m not arguing with you, and I understand what you’re saying. My concern is that it leads to a perception among non-Catholics (or Catholics that do not understand why contraception is wrong) that the Church is offering a “natural” form of birth control, which leads to the accusation that the Church is being inconsistent.

This is from an article from “This Rock” (from this site):

The actual article is here:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

My motive is not to confuse students (by the way, I think 18 and 19 year olds should be very capable of understanding the difference, you can tell it is NOT a method of contraception, even while being abused, and still make the point that it can very well be abused, they’re in college - at Franciscan University none-the-less – hopfully they’re up for understanding something that may be confusing), nor is it to defend abuses of NFP. It is a motive from problems like those mentioned in the above article.

Am I making sense?

If I were addressing non-Catholics, I would speak differently than I speak to the people on this thread. Jason Evert and I were (are) addressing the same audience. Hence the “over-simplifications” used by both of us.

Yes, I understand what you are saying - I don’t understand why you think I am not getting your point.

The sap and substance of that article you cited is contained in my replies on this thread and in what I tell my students, as I had mentioned previously. I tell them that even if NFP is abused, it is still MORALLY speaking in a different category than artificial contraception.

And I do NOT teach at Steubenville - John Paul II Bible School in Radway. The kids that attend JPII are a lot more wet behind the ears than the ones at Steubenville. If I was teaching theology there AND I had enough time I WOULD go into that much detail on the issue. I had 25 minutes to teach them NFP this year - what more could I do with such time restrictions?

 

[Rach620]

When the Popes say there are “grave reasons” to avoid pregnancy, I am all for this. And when you do practice NFP for “grave reasons”, you still ARE “leaving it up to God”. Indeed, I am “suggesting” we should do so. You are charting for the right reasons - good for you! Some don’t. That is who and what my argument is against.

This is a huge debate, but the correct translation is not “grave” reasons, but “just” reasons. “Just reasons” are necessary for avoiding pregnancy with NFP. I would find a quote if I had time…

NFP is NOT just another method of birth control - but I think you would agree that it CAN be used as just another method of birth control, with the same contraceptive mentality as the couple who wears a condom has.

Objectively speaking, NFP will *never *be the same as ABC. Subjectively speaking, I tend to think that even with the so-called ‘contraceptive mentality,’ using NFP trains the couple to regard the other with self-giving love. It puts married sexuality in the proper context, forcing husband and wife to be totally open to life at all times in a way which they can never be while using ABC.

I think it is no coincidence, for example, that my Creighton Model of NFP instructor tells me that the vast majority of couples using the Creighton Method to avoid pregnancy change their minds and begin using the method to achieve pregnancy within one year.

 

[Rach620]

Yes, I stand corrected. However, abuse of NFP, though it is not “birth control”, would still be a sin.

Yes, it makes sense - like I said, I teach Theology of the Body.
When I teach my section on NFP, I cite 7 reasons why NFP is different than Contraception. One of those reasons is the objective immorality of artificial means. The way I said it was inaccurate - but I was only trying to make a point that NFP can be abused, can be sinful, and can also be used with a “contraceptive mentality” (ie., that "we don’t want kids getting in the way of our [you name it]).

The issue here of what constitutes an “abuse of NFP” is what is in question, however. It might be helpful to look at how JPII says in the original TOB lectures that couples might use it immorally (this is especially in TOB 124-125, I think).:

125:3
The use of ‘infertile periods’ in conjugal shared life can become a source of abuses if the couple thereby attempt to evade procreation without just reasons, lowering it below the morally just level of births in their family. This just level needs to be set by taking into account not only the good of one’s family and the state of one’s health as well as the means of the spouses themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, the good of the Church, and even of humanity as a whole.
*Humanae Vitae *presents ‘responsible parenthood’ as an expression of a high ethical value. *In no way *does it *aim one-sidedly *at limiting, even less at excluding, children; it means also the willingness to welcome a greater number of children…

I really can’t find much more specific than that where JP talks about ‘just reasons’–maybe because I’m not searching closely enough, but that’s that.

What he really stresses is that without the *ethical dimension *of NFP, it does become a utilitarian method. What the Church calls us to is not the greatest number of children possible, nor to providentialism in planning and spacing births. It cuts both ways: you aren’t supposed to totally exclude God from your ‘decision’ as husband and wife to avoid pregnancy, but then again, you aren’t supposed to totally abandon any sense of reason or responsibility in planning and spacing births, either.

The couple using NFP is supposed to *already *be open to God’s will in their marriage; they are *already *to understand themselves as potential co-creators with God (a beautiful vocation!). The Holy Father stresses, though, that because NFP focuses on a virtue–continence–the married couple practicing it can grow in their understanding of their vocation and become more open to life than they already were to begin with.

I’m sort of rambling…I hope that was helpful…

 

[Emerite]

Nodito, Good luck with your marriage plans. I’d say, follow your hunch, and that true love lasts a lifetime – single or married. In hindsight, I’d recommend having the wedding when you both feel ready for it, and are not too concerned with the uncertainty of what other people would say, an unplanned child messing up career/study plans, etc. But I don’t necessarily mean waiting years until being financially comfortable and careers established. And, I think NFP for a few years until ready to assume parenthood responsibilities is OK, as well as for spacing children. Becoming a couple is an adjustment, and becoming parents, to me, is an even greater adjustment. But, here I’m saying “do as I say” and not “do as I do.” We’re celebrating our 50th wedding anniversary this year, having married young at ages 21 and 25, with veteran spouse still in college. The good thing is we’re now free to travel, pursue hobbies, financially secure, etc., after rearing our children and able to do what we enjoy. I did work, sometimes just part-time, for 28 years, and feel I didn’t have the greater career to match my potential. But Paul did well, and I now believe rearing children well and making a good home life is much underrated and very rewarding. The downside is the early years were sometimes difficult for us: only being able to afford basic necessities for several years, having a baby a year later, my health problems while keeping up with full-time job, home and caring for the baby while he studied a lot. One good thing, we lived in Vet Village on campus, were so happy together without lots of material things, and socialized with other young student families. My prayers go out to both of you. Whatever you all decide, I wish you a very happy, successful life together, blessed with wonderful, healthy children.

 

[David_Wani]

dear friends, to marry in young early year it’s the blessed marrage.
if it’s God will you can enjoy your marrage life. this can give some one chance of work at the end. give birth early and enjoy life long.