NFP and Honeymoon

[FrenchGwen]

You forgot about the self-appointed NFP police, who appear to have just shown up.

Question for the NFP police here who are acting all ex cathedra about what is and is not a legitimate reason to use NFP: what Church document spells out what is and is not a legitimate reason to use NFP?

you’re right, I’ve just had this feeling of getting scrutinized, my marriage laserized and found for “invalid”

 

[PaulinVA]

Your interpretation of the canons is incorrect. They must intend on the actual day of their marriage to form a “partnership, open to sexual acts that are procreative”, that is they must on the day of their wedding desire to have children.

To enter upon a marriage without the intention of the marriage on that day of fulfilling its primary purpose makes the marriage invalid.

The reason for this is because the ministers of a sacrament, in this case the couple must have the right intention for the sacrament to be valid, and it is their intentions on the day of the sacrament that is all important.

I disagree with how you are applying this.

You are saying a couple with unlimited resources, who plans to have a dozen kids, but decides to stay at their reception until dawn and then hop on the airplane to get to the port to drive to the ship for the honeymoon cruise and might not be alone for a while after that has entered into an invalid marriage because they aren’t having relations immediately?

Someone can have the intent of “forming a partnership, open to sexual acts that are procreative” and not actually have relations that night. Quite frankly, aren’t all marital acts without mechanical or chemical barriers to conception ordered towards procreation?

In your view of thinking, what is the maximum acceptable time period between the end of the wedding Mass and the start of the marital act? You must have some idea.

 

[Leonius]

You forgot about the self-appointed NFP police, who appear to have just shown up.

Question for the NFP police here who are acting all ex cathedra about what is and is not a legitimate reason to use NFP: what Church document spells out what is and is not a legitimate reason to use NFP?

Being with Pope Pius XII’s allocation to midwives it narrows it down quite a bit.

 

[Leonius]

I disagree with how you are applying this.

You are saying a couple with unlimited resources, who plans to have a dozen kids, but decides to stay at their reception until dawn and then hop on the airplane to get to the port to drive to the ship for the honeymoon cruise and might not be alone for a while after that has entered into an invalid marriage because they aren’t having relations immediately?

Nope that’s not what I said, its all about their intention during the sacrament, what actually happens after is not relevant.

 

[Norseman82]

Being with Pope Pius XII’s allocation to midwives it narrows it down quite a bit.

Source? Link?

 

[PaulinVA]

Nope that’s not what I said, its all about their intention during the sacrament, what actually happens after is not relevant.

Their intent, during the sacrament is to postpone the marital act for a day or two while they celebrate with friends and travel to their cruise.

The intent of the OP is to postpone the marital act until the wife is not fertile.

They both intend to form a “partnership, open to sexual acts that are procreative”, so, therefore, the sacrament is valid for both? Neither intend to attempt to “be procreative” within 24 or 48 hours of the wedding.

 

[ac_claire]

Leonius;5406220:

Being with Pope Pius XII’s allocation to midwives it narrows it down quite a bit.

Source? Link?

Here ya go: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12midwives.htm

 

[Leonius]

Their intent, during the sacrament is to postpone the marital act for a day or two while they celebrate with friends and travel to their cruise.

The intent of the OP is to postpone the marital act until the wife is not fertile.

They both intend to form a “partnership, open to sexual acts that are procreative”, so, therefore, the sacrament is valid for both? Neither intend to attempt to “be procreative” within 24 or 48 hours of the wedding.

Your example is not comparable, the imaginary couple are not marrying with the intention of deliberately trying to prevent new life from been created.

 

[PaulinVA]

Your example is not comparable, the imaginary couple are not marrying with the intention of deliberately trying to prevent new life from been created.

Neither couple is “deliberately trying to prevent new life from been created”. That’s the point. Both are open to life if it comes. Remember, the Church doesn’t require relations on any given night.

I think the more interesting point of your post is that your theory invalidates 95% of all Catholic marriages (the ones with a wife of childbearing age and they intend to use ABC).

Given that fact, I would think you’d be doing something about all of those invalid Catholic marriages and having those people abstain until they got rid of the ABC.

 

[Leonius]

Neither couple is “deliberately trying to prevent new life from been created”. That’s the point. Both are open to life if it comes. Remember, the Church doesn’t require relations on any given night.

Of course they are, if they are marrying but do not wish to start a family yet then what are they marrying for? Whatever the reason is it is not the correct reason they have perverted marriage from its primary purpose, from its very nature.

I think the more interesting point of your post is that your theory invalidates 95% of all Catholic marriages (the ones with a wife of childbearing age and they intend to use ABC).

What is your source for that information? Maybe you are right that would explain the huge increase in annulments been granted wouldn’t it. It’s not a theory of mine it is canon law that if you get married and are not open to life your marriage is invalid.

Given that fact, I would think you’d be doing something about all of those invalid Catholic marriages and having those people abstain until they got rid of the ABC.

Now you are making things up and calling them facts, I don’t personally know any married Catholics who use ABC, its not he kind of thing that tends to come up in polite conversation. What I do know is that if you openly tell a priest you intend to do that he will not marry you, at least if he is orthodox anyway.

 

[ac_claire]

Someone can have the intent of “forming a partnership, open to sexual acts that are procreative” and not actually have relations that night. Quite frankly, aren’t all marital acts without mechanical or chemical barriers to conception ordered towards procreation?

In your view of thinking, what is the maximum acceptable time period between the end of the wedding Mass and the start of the marital act? You must have some idea.

Paul, you are (perhaps unintentionally) misrepresenting what Leonius and others are saying. Abstaining on the wedding night is not in itself wrong. It’s the not being open to life part that is a perversion of the primary purpose of marriage. It’s the intention that we’re talking about; the heart.

In fact, abstaining on the honeymoon for certain other reasons is an old pious tradition in the Church:

As to the wedding night, it is an old custom for some couples to abstain from the marital act, dedicating the first night of marriage to St. Joseph (making the night “St. Joseph’s Night”), and performing some devotion to the Saint. This is in keeping with the spirit of Tobias who, with his wife, Sara, spent the first three days and nights or their marriage in prayer:

Tobias 8:4-5
Then Tobias exhorted the virgin, and said to her: Sara, arise, and let us pray to God today, and tomorrow, and the next day: because for these three nights we are joined to God: and when the third night is over, we will be in our own wedlock. For we are the children of saints, and we must not be joined together like heathens that know not God.

 

[PaulinVA]

Of course they are, if they are marrying but do not wish to start a family yet then what are they marrying for? Whatever the reason is it is not the correct reason they have perverted marriage from its primary purpose, from its very nature.

Nope. I’m not with you on that. Catholic.org says this about canon 1101, paragraph 2 “More commonly, simulation is partial: The individual excludes something essential to marriage, such as fidelity to the spouse or openness to having children.” If a couple plans to have children and will actively start trying in a year, but will be open to children right now, how is the canon not satisfied?

What is your source for that information? Maybe you are right that would explain the huge increase in annulments been granted wouldn’t it. It’s not a theory of mine it is canon law that if you get married and are not open to life your marriage is invalid.

Your theory is that if a couple contracts a marriage and is not actively trying to produce a baby immediately that partial simulation occurs and the marriage is invalid. Any couple using ABC is not actively trying, and is , indeed, thwarting the purpose of marriage at that time, even if they acknowledge that later they will try to have children.

I found a Boston globe article from 2006 that states: “The bishops said current events…, prompted them to speak out. They acknowledged that most married Catholics – 96 percent, according to their own estimate – use birth control…”

So, those couples are contracting invalid marriages? I would think they are the bigger problem.

Now you are making things up and calling them facts, I don’t personally know any married Catholics who use ABC, its not the kind of thing that tends to come up in polite conversation. What I do know is that if you openly tell a priest you intend to do that he will not marry you, at least if he is orthodox anyway.

Well, the article says 96% use ABC. NFP has a 3-5% rate in most surveys I’ve seen. So, most Catholics of childbearing age are using ABC.

 

[jilly4ski]

I got married after 5 years of dating (I wanted to finish college) I was enting law school the fall after getting married. I will be married a year on July 26th. Our son was born 2 weeks before my spring semester finals. I took me finals and did pretty well. I won’t say it was easy, It helped that the law school was really nice about the pregnancy, and my DH and all of my family was and is really supportive, even though we had moved far away for school. Our son will be three months old on our 1st anniversary. But it is a wonderful blessing. My DH and I decided after waiting all those years we did not have a compelling reason to not comsumate our marriage during our honeymoon.

Good luck on your disernment. Prayers for you and your future spouse.

 

[dsulpizio]

PaulinVA:
If a self identified ‘Catholics’ is using ABC, then Catholic they are not…they are dissenters and in essence, protestants, no better than Martin Luther.
This due to a failure of parents to practice and teach the faith and of priests to teach the faith for fear of being ‘unpastoral’.

To be Catholic is to accept and strive to live the tenets of Catholicism. Someone who is using ABC is not doing this and should have the honesty to identify themselves with a different religuous denomination. I’m with B16 on this…he prefers a smaller, purer church.

Again, if one is unwilling to become a parent upon marriage, do not get married and seek education of what a sacramental, Catholic marriage is actually supposed to be.

The more I read these forums, the more discouraged about the temporal state of God’s Church I am. It is being targeted from within, which is frightening.

 

[Footprints04]

I would appreciate if the tone of this thread would return to that which it started. I was not posting to start a debate on an already VERY orthodox decision to use nfp and NO FORM of birth control. I would appreciate if we did not get scrupulous on details whereas everyone posting does not know the details of my fiance’s and my relationship.

1. We have stated that we do NOT enter marriage with a complete mindset of “avoiding” pregnancy. Just that we would like to postpone it till we are more settled, a year or a little more at most. Though we would continue to pray MONTHLY as to God’s will in this.
2. We will not be using any form of artificial bc. Therefore, we are being open to life. And we are using our body’s natural rhythms that God gave to us. Women are not always fertile…God designed the woman’s body that way!
3. My fiance and I dated for 3 years and have been engaged for 2 years. We WILL NOT be waiting longer to get married. This is by far long enough.
4. Our marriage prep is being done by a deacon who is VERY respected with moral theology. We have discussed something similar to this (number of children) but I will also bring it up with him. He is incredibly strong in faith and refuses to witness marriages that are not being approached for the right reasons (ie: living together before marriage). My fiance and I have been meeting with him for over a year, and he has not expressed any concerns about how we approach NFP.

I appreciate those of you who are trying to answer what I asked, and offer your own situations rather than judging our motives. I stated several times in my post that we are open to children and we are approaching TTA with constant prayer!

There is another thread talking about marriage and concerns with NFP mindsets. If you could move the debate over there I’d appreciate it!

Otherwise, I’d love to hear what others have to say about their experiences etc. You have given my fiance and I a lot to talk about and I appreciate hearing of other couples that have approached similar situations. Thanks!

 

[mpi]

My fiance and I are getting married in December, and while it is a little bit early to say for sure, but it is looking likely that I will be fertile on our wedding night and a good part of the honeymoon.

We’ve discussed this at length, prayed about it and talked about it during our very long engagement (due to graduate school). We both think postponing a pregnancy at least until I graduate in May 2010 (though perhaps a little longer so I have time to work maybe a year to start paying off school loans) would be fine. Though we both agree that even with NFP, we have to be constantly praying for God’s will in our decision to be TTA or TTC.

While if a unplanned pregnancy occurs, the baby would be born in September 2010 which would not be something we absolutely couldn’t deal with…it is just not ideal since I graduate in May, and we move to another state in June/July. And hopefully I will be taking the 2 board exams to be a licensed pharmacist in June…plus hopefully starting a job and working for awhile.

Anyways, in this long post trying to explain my situation, I guess I’m trying to ask if any couples decided to abstain their wedding night and honeymoon because they thought it best to postpone a pregnancy. I’m worried about it, partially because I’m disappointed thinking of the sacrifice we’d be making during a time that should be special and romantic time for a newly wed couple as they make that transition in their relationship to husband and wife. I’m also from a family (even in my extended family) that thinks I’m crazy for not using some form of birth control or living together/being currently sexually active…and I can’t help but feel that it would hurt doublely knowing that we are making the “right decision” and are committed decision in this respect and yet we cannot even enjoy our honeymoon as husband and wife…

So anyways, complicated…but wanted to see if any other Catholic couples could offer their own experience and/or advice. Thank you!

Here’s an idea - make love to your husband on your wedding day. NFP to avoid pregnancy is sinful if there is not a serious reason for using it.

 

[Honus]

NFP to avoid pregnancy is sinful if there is not a serious reason for using it.

This thread has really drawn out the hardcore loonies. To the OP, there has been some great advice on this thread, but ignore these people who are out in left field.

 

[Footprints04]

It does NOT say ANYWHERE in Catholic teaching that you have to have sex on your wedding day.

I asked a priest exactly this at my marriage prep retreat, and he told me that that is not a requirement. Only if a couple hadn’t consumated the marriage after a year would this be considered morally concerning.

If you point out a teaching that says exactly that a couple have to have sex on their wedding night, I will believe you.

 

[Footprints04]

Honus–

Thank you! I agree there has been excellent advice on here otherwise.

 

[mpi]

This thread has really drawn out the hardcore loonies. To the OP, there has been some great advice on this thread, but ignore these people who are out in left field.

New people to a Catholic forum shouldn’t call someone a loony for essentially repeating the text of the Chatechism.

This a CATHOLIC forum.