NFP marketing, is promoting it right?

[F_Marturana]

NFP is permitted because it respects all of the Church’s teachings on sexuality.

The Church teaches that each act of completed intimacy must be marital, unitive and procreative.

Using contraception breaks the unitive from the procreative. Using NFP doesn’t do that.

 

[omgriley]

God’s will to send you children" is an anti-science explanation. We know how babies are made. I explained the biology up thread. God doesn’t just send us children. We are co-creators with him, cooperating with his biology. It doesn’t just happen.

Well, that’s true --With the exception of one famous case in which God absolutely “just sent” a child.

God’s will for me is to know him and love him and spend eternity with Him. It’s not to have a certain number of children or to create a child this month.

We’ve been over this. The Church doesn’t ask married couples to always positively attempt to conceive children. I’ve already knocked down that straw-man.

Raise children, not keep having them.

Nice try, but this was me para-phrasing. Here’s the full teaching:

“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring, and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory” (CCC 1652).

“Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children” (CCC 2367).

Of course I can tell Him I’ve reached my limit. Absolutely.

No, you can’t. Especially without serious cause. To do so would be to close your marriage to the possibility of life, which is one condition of a valid sacramental marriage.

Are you married?

Do you have children?

What is your general age range?

Not. At all. Relevant.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Well, that’s true --With the exception of one famous case in which God absolutely “just sent” a child.

Um, no, the Blessed Mother cooperated and said “YES”. The idea that she had pregnancy thrust upon her is a very protestant notion,

 

[Bruised_Reed]

↓↓↓↓

That Elizabeth finally conceived her first child is not the same situation that Xantippe is describing. Elizabeth and Zechariah didn’t have kids with special needs, she wasn’t recovering from difficult pregnancies. Her womb was finally opened, as they say. Those of you critical of NFP use would have probably judged Elizabeth and Zechariah of having a contraceptive mentality because they didn’t have children.

 

[F_Marturana]

No, you can’t. Especially without serious cause. To do so would be to close your marriage to the possibility of life, which is one condition of a valid sacramental marriage.

You aren’t correct. Every marriage act is open to conception if the couple does nothing to separate the unitive from the procreative (ie uses contraception )

Also a marriage is valid or invalid from the beginning, not because they have discerned they can no longer have children.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

No, you can’t. Especially without serious cause. To do so would be to close your marriage to the possibility of life, which is one condition of a valid sacramental marriage.

A decision to never have children is the condition. A valid marriage doesn’t become invalid even if the reasons aren’t “just.”

 

[TheLittleLady]

Also a marriage is valid or invalid from the beginning, not because they have discerned they can no longer have children.

I am actually applauding you.

 

[F_Marturana]

Why thank you! :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

 

[omgriley]

When you keep reading GS, you stumble on this nugget:

Marriage to be sure is not instituted solely for procreation; rather, its very nature as an unbreakable compact between persons, and the welfare of the children, both demand that the mutual love of the spouses be embodied in a rightly ordered manner, that it grow and ripen. Therefore, marriage persists as a whole manner and communion of life, and maintains its value and indissolubility, even when despite the often intense desire of the couple, offspring are lacking.

I’m surprised you stumbled on it. In any event, I never said procreation is the sole end of marriage. I said it was the primary end. Nice try though.

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:

This is in complete harmony with my prior statements.

 

[PaulinVA]

Not. At all. Relevant.

Yes. It. Is.

You are on this thread telling people in their forties and fifties how they should or should have lived their lives. Your situation is extremely important.

Most people on this thread aren’t agreeing with you, but thank you for your perspective.

 

[omgriley]

Um, no, the Blessed Mother cooperated and said “YES”. The idea that she had pregnancy thrust upon her is a very protestant notion,

In the context of biological human procreation and “God doesn’t just send you babies” yes he absolutely sent Mary a baby. He overrided the way things are normally done. I’ve never heard a Protestant claim that God forced Mary to have Jesus, so…

 

[omgriley]

That Elizabeth finally conceived her first child is not the same situation that Xantippe is describing. Elizabeth and Zechariah didn’t have kids with special needs, she wasn’t recovering from difficult pregnancies. Her womb was finally opened, as they say. Those of you critical of NFP use would have probably judged Elizabeth and Zechariah of having a contraceptive mentality because they didn’t have children.

The point of the passage is to focus on the fact that nothing is impossible with God. Xantippe was describing her many burdens as somehow to excuse not being open to new life. With God, nothing is impossible.

 

[omgriley]

You aren’t correct. Every marriage act is open to conception if the couple does nothing to separate the unitive from the procreative (ie uses contraception )

Also a marriage is valid or invalid from the beginning, not because they have discerned they can no longer have children.

If you take someone like PaulinVA, who openly admits that they are not open to more children, then they are not living in accord with their marriage vows.

Im not questioning whether his marriage was valid or not, I’m saying in order for the marriage to be valid from the beginning they have understand and accept that marriage requires the couple to be open to children always, not just until you’ve “had enough”

 

[F_Marturana]

Bravo! (…16 characters…)

 

[F_Marturana]

1. You used the word valid
2. Who died and made you Paul’s conscience?

 

[omgriley]

You are on this thread telling people in their forties and fifties how they should or should have lived their lives. Your situation is extremely important.

Most people on this thread aren’t agreeing with you, but thank you for your perspective.

I’m not telling people what they should or shouldn’t do. I’m saying it is the teaching of the Church that married couples are required to always be open to new life. My situation is irrelevant because I’m not basing things off how I live my marriage. I’m concerned with what God’s Church says ought to be done in marriage. I frankly don’t care who agrees or doesn’t. The truth is the truth, take it or leave it.

 

[F_Marturana]

Being open to life does not mean actively trying to conceive. It means that each act is open to life and if a baby comes along, you accept the baby.

NFP is licit and a good thing. Abstaining from sex does not make the sex act a contracepted act.

 

[Xantippe]

No, you can’t. Especially without serious cause. To do so would be to close your marriage to the possibility of life, which is one condition of a valid sacramental marriage.

Being at one’s limit is a serious cause.

If that isn’t, what is?

 

[omgriley]

You used the word valid

Who died and made you Paul’s conscience?

1. “Required” for a valid marriage at the time of the marriage, is to know and accept the call to be always open to life. That doesn’t mean that his marriage is invalid now because at this point in his life he is not open to new life.
2. Nothing to do with conscience. I can’t judge his conscience, only his statements which reflect his actions. If someone shares with you that they are openly living in a way which rejects Church teaching, it is a matter of fraternal correction to point that out so that they no longer live that way. Obviously at this point, because of the vitriol, the conversation is unsalvageable.

 

[Xantippe]

Xantippe was describing her many burdens as somehow to excuse not being open to new life.

That’s what “serious reasons” look like.