Use NFP While Saving for House

  • Thread starter Thread starter sainthumbert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sainthumbert

Guest
I heard the following question and answer on Catholic Answers Live the other day and found it interesting and refreshing.

The question to Mother Miriam was as follows: What are your thoughts on the best way to assist couples in the first five years of marriage? During the second part of her answer, Mother Miriam stated, “Then the idea of being open to life, many young people or other people of different ages get married and they practice natural family planning because they want to put having a family for several years till they get settled. That is not the purpose of natural family planning. That is still being closed off to God and to one another. They must be open to life. Natural family planning is what God built into us but to be practiced for serious reasons, serious hindrances to having children. But if a couple gets married and they are selfish, and their intentions is on themselves, saving enough money to buy a house and all of that and being closed to children only allowing God in in their time, the marriage will not be a success.”

Catholic Answers Live
Mother Miriam of the Lamb of God
January 2, 2013 at about minute 46

It should be noted that the caller did not even ask about NFP. The caller was involved in a ministry that helped newly married couples during the first few years of marriage. Mother Miriam brought up the NFP topic.
 
The Church allows NFP for just reasons…but it doesn’t define what those reasons are. Every couple is involved in different situations. She brought up saving for a house. Is the couple already living in a house, and is saving up for a bigger, fancier house, for no other reason than they want it? Or is the couple living with family, in a single bedroom, and the family/couple wants them to move out? Two very different situations in which a couple is saving for a house.

I do not think using NFP while saving up for a house is always sinful, especially in the latter case I described above.
 
That would really depend ont he situation, as PP mentioned.

A couple living with family, unable to pay/earn enough for rent, are probably going to use NFP to avoid conceiving, I’d think.

Personally, DH and I were fine financially, just not settled down enough to decide where we wanted to build/buy, so we had our first while living in an apt.

If you are in the big city, I’d assume the norm may be to live in an apt/condo.
 
Something else we need to keep in mind is that people are marrying later (nearly 29 for a man and 27 for a woman, in the US). If my husband and I had waited until we were settled to have kids, then we may have missed out entirely on our peak fertile years. There are people who have “honeymoon babies” and then, for reasons unknown, are not able to have more. What if they had waited?

So we are busy restoring a house…and preparing for the arrival of our first child (a honeymoon baby!). 😃
 
It totally depends on the situation.

We had an infant and lived in a very small apartment. We wanted a house to grow our family further.
We used NFP to space kiddos and to become a little more settled.

We bought our house and our LO is nearing ten months…so, I’m still charting but we aren’t preventing anything from happening as of now.

Grave/serious reason requires prayer, spiritual guidance, discussions with your spouse, more prayer, sacraments and even more prayer.

You can’t just say…well, we can’t have kids now due to some arbitrary reason we deem “grave” or “serious” but must continually discuss the matter every month and allow God to be very present within your marriage.

I don’t think that NFP is a form of contraception because you are still practicing the marital act the way God designed it but I do think that couples can misunderstand exactly why they are abstaining in the first place and forget to look at the big picture of marriage.

Life isn’t about departmentalizing events into little boxes that are opened in a specific order. Not everyone goes to college, meets their future spouse at age 21, goes to graduate school, gets engaged, gets the dream career, gets married, climbs the ladder and buys the house and then has the 2.3 children or however many they “want” to have.

Life happens and we must be mindful of God’s plan for us and be open to his plan to us.
 
If you have the option to live in a place and with means that allow and could accommodate young children in reasonable safety, then the fact that you are not currently living somewhere that could accommodate children is not such a serious reason to put off children. OTOH, if having children now would mean putting them in an situation that is not safe enough for them, then that is a reason that NFP might be used while you work towards a situation that is suitable for children (even if it is less than ideal).

I have a friend who put off putting children because of a reason that, in retrospect, she says she doesn’t find so serious as she and her husband thought at the time. Although she did have three children, she said that if she had to do it all over again, she wouldn’t be so conservative about it, and would not have been so quick to use NFP to put off the likelihood of having children as she was.

From Humanae Vitae:
*Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.
*

That section of Humanae Vitae refers to a section of Gaudiem et Spes, which will be posted next…
 
A section of Gaudium et Spes footnoted in Humanae Vitae:
50. Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the begetting and educating of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute very substantially to the welfare of their parents. The God Himself Who said, “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) and “Who made man from the beginning male and female” (Matt. 19:4), wishing to share with man a certain special participation in His own creative work, blessed male and female, saying: “Increase and multiply” (Gen. 1:28). Hence, while not making the other purposes of matrimony of less account, the true practice of conjugal love, and the whole meaning of the family life which results from it, have this aim: that the couple be ready with stout hearts to cooperate with the love of the Creator and the Savior. Who through them will enlarge and enrich His own family day by day.

Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted. They should realize that they are thereby cooperators with the love of God the Creator, and are, so to speak, the interpreters of that love. Thus they will fulfil their task with human and Christian responsibility, and, with docile reverence toward God, will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. Thus, trusting in divine Providence and refining the spirit of sacrifice,(12) married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family.(13)

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.
  1. This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered.
To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love.

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14)

All should be persuaded that human life and the task of transmitting it are not realities bound up with this world alone. Hence they cannot be measured or perceived only in terms of it, but always have a bearing on the eternal destiny of men.
 
I am getting really tired of these threads.

The Church does not define serious or grave reasons. It does not delegate that task to internet nuns or parish priests or posters on internet forums.

It’s great to discuss how many cycles fit on the head of a pin, or how many children that person you see at Mass should have, but it all boils down to individual choice. What I consider grave might not be grave to you. It’s one of the few areas in Catholicism that is relativistic- I think that throws a lot of people for a loop.

So, 2% of Catholics practice NFP, and we spend so much time talking about their motives and reasons and how most must be sinning, somehow. I don’t get it.
 
There is never a "perfect "time to start a family.If a couple buys into the mindset that they need to put off having a family for whatever reason,they will find it more difficult to be open to God’s plan for them.My daughter and SIL are a living example of this.married for nearly five years,still no babies as he keeps coming up with different reasons to wait.In the mean time their marriage is in serious trouble ,my daughter is angry,sad and frustrated that she doesn’t have a baby… Mother Marium is a wise woman indeed.
 
I am getting really tired of these threads.

The Church does not define serious or grave reasons. It does not delegate that task to internet nuns or parish priests or posters on internet forums.

It’s great to discuss how many cycles fit on the head of a pin, or how many children that person you see at Mass should have, but it all boils down to individual choice. What I consider grave might not be grave to you. It’s one of the few areas in Catholicism that is relativistic- I think that throws a lot of people for a loop.

So, 2% of Catholics practice NFP, and we spend so much time talking about their motives and reasons and how most must be sinning, somehow. I don’t get it.

Definitely agree----👍👍👍
 
I am getting really tired of these threads.

The Church does not define serious or grave reasons. It does not delegate that task to internet nuns or parish priests or posters on internet forums.

It’s great to discuss how many cycles fit on the head of a pin, or how many children that person you see at Mass should have, but it all boils down to individual choice. What I consider grave might not be grave to you. It’s one of the few areas in Catholicism that is relativistic- I think that throws a lot of people for a loop.

So, 2% of Catholics practice NFP, and we spend so much time talking about their motives and reasons and how most must be sinning, somehow. I don’t get it.
Yes, somehow they read all those documents, yet miss the part where it says “The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God.” (Gaudium et Spes)
 
I am getting really tired of these threads.

The Church does not define serious or grave reasons. It does not delegate that task to internet nuns or parish priests or posters on internet forums.

It’s great to discuss how many cycles fit on the head of a pin, or how many children that person you see at Mass should have, but it all boils down to individual choice. What I consider grave might not be grave to you. It’s one of the few areas in Catholicism that is relativistic- I think that throws a lot of people for a loop.

So, 2% of Catholics practice NFP, and we spend so much time talking about their motives and reasons and how most must be sinning, somehow. I don’t get it.
That’s not the case at all. If people are serious about their faith, then they will discuss it. The Church does not define serious reasons for abstaining for sex within marriage, however it does leave the possibility that there are reasons which are not actually serious, that spouses use to justify avoiding children. To the extent that they do so, they are sinning buy closing themselves off to the gift of children without a just reason. It would be rather naive to think this doesn’t happen.

To the extent that there is the possibility for sin in the use of NFP, it is entirely reasonable to discuss it. What I find interesting when people attempt to discuss it is that they open themselves up to the accusation of “providentialism”. Yet the Church teaches, as quoted in the documents in the posts above, that it is laudable to trust in God’s providence. To the extent that some call this a bad thing, they depart from the teaching of the Church. On the other hand, there are times when it is unjust not to abstain, such as for the health of the spouse, or because you are financially unable to feed, clothe, and house another child. But as fallen human beings, we tend to define “serious” far too broadly, sometimes to the extent that it becomes a rationalization for selfish behavior. I say this from my own self-reflection, and those times when God blessed us with successive children, and my reasons didn’t seem quite so serious in retrospect for wanting to avoid them.

I would put this question up for consideration. If a reason is serious enough to abstain from intercourse during fertile periods, is it then serious enough to delay the wedding until the impediment to having children is removed? I would answer, “yes”. If it’s not serious enough to delay the wedding, it’s probably not serious enough to avoid intercourse during fertile periods.
 
What an incredibly intriguing position. As an advocate of NFP, I’ll really have to contemplate on this a bit more and possibly pray.
 
Yes, somehow they read all those documents, yet miss the part where it says “The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God.” (Gaudium et Spes)
And this, of course, is the crux of the matter.

As others have pointed out in countless other threads, given the self-denial required of those who practice NFP, they hardly seem the type of folks given to postponing children for selfish, trivial reasons.
 
And this, of course, is the crux of the matter.

As others have pointed out in countless other threads, given the self-denial required of those who practice NFP, they hardly seem the type of folks given to postponing children for selfish, trivial reasons.
Absolutely true. At the same time, though, there is also a tendency on the part of some to consider each and every decision to abstain to be for a serious reason. This is a statistical impossibility. To make the assumption that sin never happens within NFP makes it more difficult to discern correctly when it meets the conditions laid out by Church teaching. In fact, for all practical purposes, it pretends that conditions have not been laid out and bases this pretension on the fact that the Church won’t presume to strictly define them. The Church really can’t define it because there are too many variables. But a couple shouldn’t assume that because they are using NFP that each and every instance of abstinence is laudable.
 
Absolutely true. At the same time, though, there is also a tendency on the part of some to consider each and every decision to abstain to be for a serious reason. This is a statistical impossibility. To make the assumption that sin never happens within NFP makes it more difficult to discern correctly when it meets the conditions laid out by Church teaching. In fact, for all practical purposes, it pretends that conditions have not been laid out and bases this pretension on the fact that the Church won’t presume to strictly define them. The Church really can’t define it because there are too many variables. But a couple shouldn’t assume that because they are using NFP that each and every instance of abstinence is laudable.

That is not for you – myself – or anyone else to discern. The Church is clear – the discerning process/judgement-- is left to the couple – and only to the couple-- without anyone else stirring the pot.
 

That is not for you – myself – or anyone else to discern. The Church is clear – the discerning process/judgement-- is left to the couple – and only to the couple-- without anyone else stirring the pot.
But how is anyone to discern anything if they are given to believe that each and every act of abstinence is justified? There’s nothing wrong with discussing various situations where abstinence might be justified and situations where it might not be justified. That’s not being judgmental or interfering with someone’s judgment. It’s discussing the practical application of moral theology. Quite frankly, I think that such discussion is an aid to discernment.
 
But how is anyone to discern anything if they are given to believe that each and every act of abstinence is justified? There’s nothing wrong with discussing various situations where abstinence might be justified and situations where it might not be justified. That’s not being judgmental or interfering with someone’s judgment. It’s discussing the practical application of moral theology. Quite frankly, I think that such discussion is an aid to discernment.

Again – the Church does not appointed neither you or I – as anyones NFP “discernment” director.
 
Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God.

Does anyone know what the first sentence above means? Consult the interests?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top