When is NFP morally acceptable in marriage?

[Consecrated]

vluvski:

To clarify my own statements in light of frogman’s, I did not mean to imply that our marriage would be stifled by children when I spoke of time to grow. I merely meant that we are considering the possibility that responsible parenthood and fulfilling our vocation could involve growth that is best or only achieved before having children.
If one feels called to have a large family (and my fiance and I do), then I kind of think there is much to be said for waiting so the couple and the family do not go emotionally or financially bankrupt because the parents blindly decided to start having children right away.
To make a blanket claim that having children at the very beginning of a marriage is mandatory seems inconsistent with Church teaching. For one thing, I would expect the Church to have already made such a statement if that was the only interpretation of the meaning of marriage and the obligation of our wedding vows. It also denies the (only?) “definitive” teaching on family planning, which is that it is up to the prayerful consideration of the couple. God knows what is in our hearts, and for what motives we choose to delay or achieve pregnancy.
It seems to me, like almost everyone has said, prayerful discernment between the couple and God is the key to making a moral decision on the matter. Educating yourself on the teachings of the church, as well as getting opinions from other respectable Catholics who are loyal to church teachings, is part of that, but ultimately, no one but you can tell you what is best for you. It is the hope of every good Christian that your understanding of what is best for you coincides with God’s Will for you, and you must trust in your own ability to prayerfully discern and not live in fear of making a wrong decision.

If you’re in need of still more reading material , allow me to suggest “Husband and Wife” by Fr. Paul Wickens, published by TAN. It’s a quick read, very concise, and I believe a wonderful addition to the reading of every Faith-centered, morally conscious couple. Among other topics relating to having a successful Catholic marrage, Fr. Wickens covers in crystal clear language this very question of when periodic continence is permitted within marriage. For more sources of definitive teaching on this subject, you can also refer to a list he has compiled of several different Documents of the Magesterium promulgated in the last 100 to 150 years in which periodic continence is allowed. I haven’t read the documents, but they are certainly worth a look.

One note: The CCC uses the term “periodic continence”, a traditional Catholic term, to describe the process of refraining from intimacy during the fertile time to avoid becoming pregnant. This is opposed to the term “Natural Family Planning” or “NFP”, which implies that the couple is in charge of “planning” their family. From what I’ve read in this thread, we all agree that God is the one in charge!

I don’t believe that frogman80 was making a “blanket claim that having children at the very beginning of a marriage is mandatory seems inconsistent with Church teaching.” It seems to me he was attempting to state clearly that the Church has a teaching on the appropriate use of periodic continence that includes “the prayerful consideration of the couple”, but also gives the couple the guidelines with which to make the right decision. **Thus: periodic continence and the delaying of children is permitted for the correct reasons (serious physical and economical situations, etc-- frogman80 already mentioned those), and that the couple should pray and discern humbly together with a good priest whether or not their reasons are correct. ** And the couple should also not “freak out”! Like you said, vluvski, “It is the hope of every good Christian that your understanding of what is best for you coincides with God’s Will for you.” We all must be constantly praying for proper understanding of ourselves and for humility, before and especially after marriage.

Be at peace in the Heart of Mary.

 

[Catholic2003]

frogman80:

Yeah… I respectfully have to nit-pick your post here. (I in no way wish to be offensive towards you… I promise ) I also feel the need to clarify my position a bit.

No offense taken. I feel we are all just here to help each other get closer to the truth.

frogman80:

Yes, this situation can happen, and yes, major marital problems might be a good reason to “postpone” a pregnancy. But do you personally know a couple this has happened to?

I know a few couples this happened to. One couple had triplets within a year of being married, and the workload taking care of them was more they could (or did) handle together.

frogman80:

Were they a faithful couple?

They were Jewish, but faithful.

frogman80:

Was their marriage founded on faith in God? Did they have major marital problems before they got pregnant? What were the terms of the pregnancy? Was the couple open to life?

They were actively trying to get pregnant. I don’t think they had enough time being married to develop major problems.

frogman80:

Was it really having a child that caused the divorce, or was the marriage already in shambles?

The wife complained that the husband didn’t help enough with the triplets. The husband felt less inclined to help because of the constant nagging. The situation escalated in this way until they divorced.

frogman80:

In a good marriage a child will bring a husband and wife closer together.

I agree. My only point is that not all couples are going to have a good marriage on day one, immediately after the wedding ceremony. It may take them a while living together to build a good marriage.

I’m not saying all couples are like this. I’m just saying that some couples do need time together to grow closer before children come on the scene. Perhaps especially couples who were in a long-distance relationship up to the wedding. In any case, this is something that the couples need to discern themselves with prayer and thoughtful consideration.

frogman80:

God bless you and Mary keep you!

And you as well!

 

[BibleReader]

vluvski,

START USING NFP ON HONEYMOON NIGHT #1.

NFP takes PRACTICE, SKILL. You need to begin practicing NFP while you are young and stupid and still have the resources to make a mistake.

Then, AFTER you have used NFP successfully for two or three years, and it’s a well-inculcated habit, then throw away the rules and chase each other around the house.

 

[mlchance]

Catholic2003:

The wife complained that the husband didn’t help enough with the triplets. The husband felt less inclined to help because of the constant nagging. The situation escalated in this way until they divorced.

“The situation escalated.” That’s a nice way of saying neither person bothered to care enough about their children and their marriage to make things work.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Catholic2003]

“The situation escalated.” That’s a nice way of saying neither person bothered to care enough about their children and their marriage to make things work.

Yes, but since they are both my friends I thought I would say things nicely.

No one is perfect. Real marriages are made from real people who have real flaws. My point is that the “serious reasons” (HV 10) or “well-grounded reasons” (HV 16) or “just reasons” (CCC 2368) apply to actual, imperfect couples, and not to idealized couples with perfect relationships.

In my friends’ case, I honestly believe that if the wife had had a year or two to “train” her husband into helping out more around the house before the triplets arrived, then their marriage would have survived. (Of course, a perfect husband would have been perfectly trained on day one.)

Furthermore, delaying the marriage would not have made matters any different. Until they started common life as a married couple, the husband wouldn’t have any impetus to start changing.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

The Holy Family is the ultimate model to strive for. Did they have 12 kids? No… but they were completely open and obedient to God’s will. God says Joseph / Mary {fill in blank}… Joseph and Mary say yes Lord. They put their complete trust in Him.

That’s an interesting example to give, considering your feeling that procreation is the main goal of marriage. In your own words:

The Sacrament of marriage is not “finalized” (finalized may not be the right word) until it is consummated.

But Mary and Jospeh never consumated their marriage and never had any children of their own (with the obvious exception of the Son of God)? Yet we Catholics fully accept their marriage and their parenthood over Jesus.

Mary and Joseph still loved each other and grew closer through their marriage. So again I argue that the purpose of marriage is to join husband and wife for life as one. And then hopefully that union will one day come out as a physical person. Procreation is way up at the very top of the list, but again I would argue that it is number 2, second only to unification.

 

[frogman80]

MariaGorettiGrl:

Quote:
The Holy Family is the ultimate model to strive for. Did they have 12 kids? No… but they were completely open and obedient to God’s will. God says Joseph / Mary {fill in blank}… Joseph and Mary say yes Lord. They put their complete trust in Him.

That’s an interesting example to give, considering your feeling that procreation is the main goal of marriage. In your own words:
Quote:
The Sacrament of marriage is not “finalized” (finalized may not be the right word) until it is consummated.

But Mary and Jospeh never consummated their marriage and never had any children of their own (with the obvious exception of the Son of God)? Yet we Catholics fully accept their marriage and their parenthood over Jesus.

Mary and Joseph still loved each other and grew closer through their marriage. So again I argue that the purpose of marriage is to join husband and wife for life as one. And then hopefully that union will one day come out as a physical person. Procreation is way up at the very top of the list, but again I would argue that it is number 2, second only to unification.

If we are talking about goals… one of the main goals of a couple should be to glorify God and get to heaven, and to help each other do so. I agree with you… procreation is not the “goal” of marriage. Procreation is the primary end of the unification. (Notice I said “end”… not requirement… not mandate… not goal… I could have used “purpose” but I think that word is the source of the confusion.) Marriage is the unification between husband and wife… I agree with you on that… I agree with JPII on that.

Yes… the Holy Family example was given in attempt to clear up some possible misunderstanding of my posts. (I am not sure it helped did it ) Yes, Mary and Joseph were husband and wife… yes I know they never consummated their marriage. The reason I used the Holy Family as an example was to show how important it is to be open to God’s will in your marriage. Mary and Joseph are great models for a man and a woman to live by. I still stick by them as the ultimate family model.

As for the apparent kerfuffle… honestly… I don’t really know the answer for fact… so here is my attempt at speculation… please feel free to correct me if I am wrong:

The Sacrament of Marriage was not instituted until Christ died on the Cross. In the Sacrament of Marriage, husband and wife only become unified after they make solemn vows, and come together during consummation. Now, I know marriage was instituted by God since the time of Adam and Eve… but I do not think it became Sacramental until the death of Christ. Marry and Joseph were married, but not Sacramentaly… ?! (So how does that sound?)

I really am not sure that you and I are in disagreement about anything.

God bless you and Mary keep you.

 

[Catholic2003]

frogman80:

The Sacrament of Marriage was not instituted until Christ died on the Cross. In the Sacrament of Marriage, husband and wife only become unified after they make solemn vows, and come together during consummation. Now, I know marriage was instituted by God since the time of Adam and Eve… but I do not think it became Sacramental until the death of Christ. Marry and Joseph were married, but not Sacramentaly… ?! (So how does that sound?)

I don’t claim to understand it, but I think that Mary and Joseph were sacramentally married. See this post for Pope John Paul II’s reasoning about this.

 

[frogman80]

Catholic2003:

I don’t claim to understand it…

Yeah, I don’t completely understand either. The link you gave in your post:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_15081989_redemptoris-custos_en.html

is a good one!! Thank you!

Here another link of interest:
newadvent.org/summa/402902.htm

God bless you and Mary keep you.

 

[vluvski]

Just listened to the CD in Christopher West’s Theology of the Body this morning about celibacy and marriage and the nuptial meaning of the body.
It is my understanding that by living in (consecrated or unconsecrated) celibacy, Mary and Joseph enjoyed an even fuller union with eachother and God that overshadows any need for sexual relations to consumate the marriage.
But that is just me applying Christopher West’s words to a particular situation. I don’t claim to actually have read it or be anywhere near qualified to make that kind of ascertation myself.

 

[frogman80]

vluvski:

It is my understanding that by living in (consecrated or unconsecrated) celibacy, Mary and Joseph enjoyed an even fuller union with each other and God that overshadows any need for sexual relations to consumate the marriage.

Yes, this seems right to me also

Mary keep you…

 

[Catholic2003]

frogman80:

Here another link of interest:
newadvent.org/summa/402902.htm

Thanks! I didn’t know about this one. St. Thomas sure covered a lot of ground!

 

[Prometheum_x]

There’s a good deal of confusion in terminology here.

It has been stated that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation.

I would suggest a rephrasing:

The primary purpose of becoming married is the union of the spouses.

The primary physical effect (end) of this marriage is procreation.

Why does one marry another? To become one with the other. This union has as its primary biological effect the procreation of children.

I would say it in this way because the unitive act of marriage is not in of itself procreative but is biologically ordered towards procreation.

 

[Fortiterinre]

vluvski,

Your preparation for marriage is truly impressive and a role model for us all. To repeat, the standard permitting use of NFP are “just” (Humanae Vitae) and “well-grounded” (CCC) reasons. The fact of your long-distance engagement and the unemployed status of your husband strike me as extremely just and well-grounded reasons. God bless you for your faith and hard work.

 

[Consecrated]

Fortiterinre:

vluvski,

Your preparation for marriage is truly impressive and a role model for us all. To repeat, the standard permitting use of NFP are “just” (Humanae Vitae) and “well-grounded” (CCC) reasons. The fact of your long-distance engagement and the unemployed status of your husband strike me as extremely just and well-grounded reasons. God bless you for your faith and hard work.

Fortiterinre… it was already discussed that the actual translation from Humanae Vitae is not the word “just”… see post #4 above.

 

[frogman80]

Prometheum_x:

The primary purpose of becoming married is the union of the spouses.

I know this may seem nit-picky… but “union of the spouses” is not the the “purpose” of marriage… it is the definition of Marriage… the “form.”

Prometheum_x:

The primary physical effect (end) of this marriage is procreation.

“End” From Merriam-Webster:
4 a : an outcome worked toward : PURPOSE b : the object by virtue of or for the sake of which an event takes place

“physical/ biological effect” is not clear to me

Prometheum_x:

I would say it in this way because the unitive act of marriage is not in of itself procreative but is biologically ordered towards procreation.

Does this mean “Not every single act of “unification” will produce a child, but is ordered towards it?”

Here is a pretty in depth article that I just googled… it has some good references at the bottom:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5822

 

[frogman80]

“Love and Responsibility” by JPII would seem to be a trusted source in this thread. This comes from chapter one “The Person and the Sexual Urge” (starting on page 66 in my wife’s copy)

The Church…teaches, and has always taught, that the primary end of marriage is procreatio (procreation), but that it has secondary end, defined in Latin terminology as mutuum adiutorium (mutual assistance). Apart from these as tertiary aim is mentioned- remedium concupiscentiae (remedy for concupiscence). Marriage, objectively considered, must provide first of all the means of continuing existence, secondly a conjugal like for man and woman, and thirdly a legitimate orientation for desire. The ends of marriage, in the order mentioned, are incompatible with any subjectivist interpretation of the secual urge, and therefore demand from man, as a person, objectivity in his thinking of sexual matters, and above all in his behavior. This objectivinty is the foundation of conjugal morality.
…By reason of the fact that they are persons a man and a woman must consciously seek to realize the aims of marriage according to the order of priority given above, because this order is objective, accessible to reason, and therefore binding on human persons.

It is interesting… PJII also mentions how mutuum adiutorium is often mis-interpreted as meaning “Mutual Love”

The book has a lot more to say… my feeble mind has a difficult time understanding much of it. For those who can… I recommend you pick up a copy. (My wife does say that its is a bit easier to understand than “Theology of the Body”)

God bless you and Mary keep you.

 

[Prometheum_x]

frogman80:

I know this may seem nit-picky… but “union of the spouses” is not the the “purpose” of marriage… it is the definition of Marriage… the “form.”

“End” From Merriam-Webster:
4 a : an outcome worked toward : PURPOSE b : the object by virtue of or for the sake of which an event takes place

“physical/ biological effect” is not clear to me

Does this mean “Not every single act of “unification” will produce a child, but is ordered towards it?”

Here is a pretty in depth article that I just googled… it has some good references at the bottom:
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5822

It is clear that one can acheive the procreation of children outside of marriage (illicitly and immorally). It does not seem reasonable to say that a man and a woman become married simply so they can acheive the end of procreation by morally legitimate means.

Procreation is the primary purpose of marriage, but is it necessarily the first as occurs in the order of time? As you said, the union of the spouses is the definition of marriage, its form. Can we not then say:

The purpose or end of that union is the procreation of children, but the purpose or end of the decision to be married is that union.

A man and a woman might say to one another, "Let us be married – that is, let us be one – so that through that union, we may bring offspring into the world.

So, the overall primary purpose of marriage is procreation, but the union of the spouses precedes it in time.

 

[johnshelby]

i know i’m a newbie… and i don’t know a lot… but
as to this discussion, seems the difference of opinion
between the lady and her future husband is a matter
of understanding the rule…

and in his defence, i can see where he would believe
that use of NFP in the beginning of a marriage might
be wrong, based on the article from the CCC posted
earlier…

“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.”

if i were reading this, and wanted to go by the letter… i’d probably
feel that waiting first would be wrong…

and this is the opinion of someone who is wrong a lot… lol

 

[Fortiterinre]

Consecrated:

Fortiterinre… it was already discussed that the actual translation from Humanae Vitae is not the word “just”… see post #4 above.

My mistake, although I have to say I think it is too easy to get bogged down in details like this when the Vatican’s own English translation of HV on the website says in paragraph 16, “Well-grounded reasons for spacing births…do not in the least offend against this moral principle.” I also see alot of “serious and just” references in the English text. I don’t see the debate as essentially being, "Are my NFP reasons “serious” enough or only “just” and “well-grounded?” I worry that we tend to make NFP alot harder than it should be.