 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 04:44 am |
|
As someone who may get married at some point in time (God willing or allowing), and someone fully committed to using NFP, and someone open to having a fair amount of children but possibly not immediately after marriage, I am wondering if people are generally able to plan when to get married so that they are able to consumate the marriage without being worried that they might have a child right away(not that it would be wrong to have a child so early, but perhaps it is not the right time for them or they agreed to wait a little while to get the marriage off the dround or whatever reason). Not that I think it is mandatory for me or anyone to consumate the marriage on the wedding night or honeymoon (after waiting many years another week would not kill me), but I think it is a normal and healthy expectation that most people have and even part of what makes the wedding in some way official or properly celebrates it (unless you take vows of virginity in mariage which seems rare these days, as I have never heard of it, but I know that the Holy Family did so).
But if a person was planning there wedding date say a year in advance how could they possibly know when they will or will not be in a fertile stage that far in the future since a woman's body can change its cycles and amounts of days over time? Is there no way of knowing and it is simply a gamble, or can you pretty much tell that there is a window of days that will relatively be infertile times pretty regularly for the next several months?
I do not need anyone to get too personal, but I am wondering if in general people think about this or have found an approach to deal with it. I would imagine I am not the only person who has ever considered it.
Brian
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:25 am |
|
brian wrote: after waiting many years another week would not kill me
It may just seem like it's going to, Brian. It's not just the physical act itself, it is taking your relationship that one step further and sharing what you haven't shared with anyone ever before. Sorry, that's not very encouraging, is it? 
Anyway, if your soon to be wife has been charting for a long time, and can see her patterns that may be a way indicate when a safe window would be open to plan your wedding. Stress can change these things, though. And planning a wedding can definately be stressful!
Just remember, there are other alternatives to actual intercourse that can offer some of the same connection I mentioned above.
{{Brian}} You seem like such a thoughtful man.
Ali
Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:26 am by Ali
|
|
|
Credo Catholic
Member
| Joined: | Sat May 5th, 2007 |
| Location: | Greenville, South Carolina USA |
| Posts: | 1317 |
| First Name: | Marsha | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Baptist, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 02:26 pm |
|
| Brian, when you sign up for Pre-Cana class, or whatever the official name is for a couple getting married, that is a good question to ask the priest. He should be very familiar with this and be able to refer you to the Couple to Couple League or some other group who specialize in NFP. No, you're not the first couple to have this question. Pretty much every couple has this question!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5186 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 03:10 pm |
|
Brian, it varies greatly from woman to woman. My brother's wife has been late three times in her life, and she was pregnant all three times. On the other hand, I don't think my wife has ever had a regular cycle. It can be a real challenge sometimes, and often a couple must simply trust God.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 04:05 pm |
|
Ali wrote: brian wrote: Just remember, there are other alternatives to actual intercourse that can offer some of the same connection I mentioned above.
{{Brian}} You seem like such a thoughtful man.
Ali
Thank you for your compliment and thoughtful reply. I do not want to get too much off the topic or anywhere too explicit, and I am not entirely sure what you are implying here, but it is possible that the alternatives you are referring to (depending on what they are) may also be considered immoral (even if not officially) by my understanding of church teaching (and probably many others') because they seem to violate other principles of what we consider the proper expression of sexuality.
Meaning, I think if a couple is trying to use NFP to space pregnancy it is not considered a good moral alternative to simply sexually gratify one another in ways short of full intercourse during the fertile purposes. This may not be officially stated, but I think it is considered a trustworthy traditional view I have seen written and expressed.
Perhaps there is some room for disagreement or persoanl opinion (I do not know) but I think it makes sense to me based on my understanding of all our other teachings on sexuality. In case you were referring to anything much more innocent and simple (like kissing or talking or sleeping in the same bed or something else), then my profound apologies for taking your comment the wrong way, but it was a little ambiguous and I wanted to comment on it in case someone else took it that way.
Brian
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 04:33 pm |
|
brian wrote: but it is possible that the alternatives you are referring to (depending on what they are) may also be considered immoral (even if not officially) by my understanding of church teaching (and probably many others') because they seem to violate other principles of what we consider the proper expression of sexuality.
Perhaps there is some room for disagreement or persoanl opinion (I do not know) but I think it makes sense to me based on my understanding of all our other teachings on sexuality.
I was implying a bit more than talking or kissing, and responded to Brian privately via PM, as I personally am not comfortable discussing this with the world wide web  Nor particularly comfortable discussing this with anyone other than my dh, but thought Brian deserved an answer since I did open my big mouth to begin with.
Although, as I told Brian, I would like to see it discussed more in depth, just not be me. LOL
Ali
|
|
|
mrsbill
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Deltona, Florida USA |
| Posts: | 39 |
| First Name: | Nora | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Lutheran & Baptist backgrounds, currently on the Road to Rome! |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 08:56 pm |
|
Ali, I know what you mean...kind of an awkward subject, but I feel a need to "chime in," since as a 41 year old mother of two grown children, who really does not want to have more at this point (but if God sees fit for something different so be it), I have kind of studied this a bit.
Brian is correct, those other "alternatives" are not considered OK by the RCC, if my studies are correct, if they do not allow for the possibility of procreation. My understanding is these "alternatives" are fine as a precursor to the final act of intimacy and creation of life, but by themselves, since life could not be created, the are not OK. A sexual act of any kind must end up in an outcome that COULD possibly create life. These acts, by themselves, as a way to avoid the possibility of pregnancy, but (clears throat here) provide sexual gratification, are NOT acceptable.
Now, I'm not "fully Catholic" yet, but as I said, I have been reading a lot on this subject, since most of my adult life (spent as a Baptist) birth control has been no big deal.
Brian, I would think that if one were planning a wedding for a year in advance, it would give a woman plenty of time to become familiar with her cycle and allow you to plan accordingly. I would suggest a couple get some proper instruction on NFP to do it correctly. But, sure there are never any guarantees...God's plans for you may not be what you expected.
So are you sure you don't want to vows of virginity in marriage? Kidding!
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5186 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 10:53 pm |
|
mrsbill wrote: Brian is correct, those other "alternatives" are not considered OK by the RCC, if my studies are correct, if they do not allow for the possibility of procreation. My understanding is these "alternatives" are fine as a precursor to the final act of intimacy and creation of life, but by themselves, since life could not be created, the are not OK. A sexual act of any kind must end up in an outcome that COULD possibly create life. These acts, by themselves, as a way to avoid the possibility of pregnancy, but (clears throat here) provide sexual gratification, are NOT acceptable.
Since we're walking a tightrope of language here, let me chime in that any activity that deliberately results in sexual satisfaction other than intercourse are not permitted. However, there are many types of intimate acts that can heighten anticipation for when intercourse does become possible. Kissing, touching, massaging, gentle tickling, pillow fights, full body massages with oil, and all sorts of other activities that do not lead to release are perfectly acceptable.
It makes it very hard to concentrate on work the next day, though.....
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 220 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 10th, 2007 11:44 pm |
|
I would second what Rick had to say, (and it does make it hard to concentrate on work the next day), but perhaps add the caveat that once again intent is the key, If one engages in such activities with the intent of seeking the satisfaction of the marriage act, without proceeding to the act then this would be a problem. If however one engages in "warm up exercises" with the intent of following through to it's natural conclusion, but then finds themselves unable to follow through, I don't see a problem, although some spiritual direction might be needed if this became a regular occurrence.
What I would question, however, getting back to the original post, is the mentality behind getting married with the intention of waiting a few years for children. Why not wait a few years before getting married? I would advise couples in this situation to think about what kind of marriage they are asking their God to bless.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that it would at all times and in all places be wrong, but I think it wise that sometimes we should question our assumptions before proceeding.
Regards Dave
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 12:58 am |
|
A sexual act of any kind must end up in an outcome that COULD possibly create life.
Thanks for jumping in to help, mrs bill cause I was not sure what else to say if anything. I think Rick cleared this up, that maybe this depends how you define sexual act since there is sexual tension that is healthy in certain simple touching or kissing that would not be considered wrong, but I think you meant the same thing as what I and Rick meant regarding acts that were subsitutes for intercourse that sought to achieve a similar effect and Dr. Dave provided a good follow up regarding not being able to finsih what you started possibly making it then more acceptable, and I would also say that any 'accidents' are probably not immoral as long as you were not exceedingly careless about it.
And if the man is not allowed to achieve full release than any of these acts really would not be exactly helpful anyway. So even though you could 'mess around' short of intercourse it still seems to be in the wrong spirit and maybe even a negative experience.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 01:01 am |
|
DrDave wrote: What I would question, however, getting back to the original post, is the mentality behind getting married with the intention of waiting a few years for children. Why not wait a few years before getting married? I would advise couples in this situation to think about what kind of marriage they are asking their God to bless.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying that it would at all times and in all places be wrong, but I think it wise that sometimes we should question our assumptions before proceeding.
Regards Dave
Dr Dave,
I am no expert, and am going to figure those things out if I need to. But let me tell you why I partially agree and partially do not agree with you. What I do think we will find as a point of agreement is that you should not get married if you are absolutely completely unprepared or unwilling to accept children from the day the marriage startes. If you know you have no ability to deal with kids than you should wait, because they are always a possibility and to get married you should try your best to be prepared for the responsibilites of children.
Here is where I will back up thinking about it from the angle I suggested. I feel I have heard it suggested from Catholic and other sites that it is perfectly acceptable to wait to have children in order to spend some time simply getting to strengthen your marriage. adjust to married life. Have a little bit of time to enjoy it. Perhaps start saving money for suture children or the aability to house them when they come. I can see a lot of reasons why I would consider getting married, while being willing to accept children but sort of hoping and planning to get your feet more solidly on the ground. You may say, well why not wait until you are completely solid, to which I would say, perhaps you are simply ready to get married emotionally and physically, perhaps it is important to have some time to learn what married life is like. How can you bring kids into a situation in which you are still not adjusted to whatsoever yourself?
So I think it is actually valid and wise to seek to wait until you are sure you are ready. Maybed somebody is still finishing up a degree or looking for a job. etc. The other thing I agree about is the idea of wanting to avoid children out of selfishness. I am aware that he teaching about delaying pregnancy is for grave reason, but I think wanting to be more financially stable, wanting to be slightly more mature, and wanting to have a slightly more stable marriage are indeed valid reasons, that do not necessarily add up to reasons why you should not get married in the first place.
But I definitely agree that if children would be a very big problem that you are very unprepared for in any way or missing the potential to get prepared for quickly, or if you are being selfish, than delaying the marriage would be for the best.
Brian
ps: I see that you did acknowledge that it would not be wrong in all cases, so I think perhaps you simply wanted to see the subject considered more maturely, but I did want to dsicuss why I thought maybe it actually is a good idea in many circumstances even if for some immediately being able to have children would be the ideal and goal bbehind marriage. Though they would have to make sure they were not using marriage just to get kids. So, as in all things, it probably comes down more to the spirit or heart of the matter.
Last edited on Tue Sep 11th, 2007 02:34 am by brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5186 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 01:40 am |
|
brian wrote: So I think it is actually valid and wsie to seek to wait until you are sure you are ready.
While I don't think any new parents are ever truly "ready" I am grateful that my wife and I had six years to get to know each other and to enjoy each other's company before adding the pressure of a child. That's not to say that we would not have lovingly accepted a child born earlier, but the six year wait gave us a chance to establish a solid foundation to our marriage that is helping us now get beyond the "empty nest". Besides, it took most of those six years for us to convince everyone we weren't pregnant when we got married!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 02:35 am |
|
CajunRick wrote: Besides, it took most of those six years for us to convince everyone we weren't pregnant when we got married!
that's funny material right there. lol
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 220 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 04:25 am |
|
brian wrote: So, as in all things, it probably comes down more to the spirit or heart of the matter.
That's what I was getting at exactly.
We, when we got married intended to delay having children as my wife was scheduled to have an operation 6 months or so after the wedding date, and we would think more about when to have children after that.
It seems that God had other ideas for us as my new wife had a two week cycle (something she hasn't done before or since, usually is 1-2 months) and our eldest was born 9 months and two weeks after the wedding. (14 years later my wife still hasn't had that surgery, but I'm sure we'll get around to it)
My point was simply to remind all the visitors to CHNI Forums that one of the marriage vows in a Catholic wedding ceremony is to accept children, and for some there isn't such a big step from 'we'll get around to it one day' to 'gosh, I guess it's too late'
Regards Dave
Last edited on Tue Sep 11th, 2007 04:35 am by DrDave
|
|
|
Ali
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 660 |
| First Name: | Ali | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | JW, finally fully Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 08:19 am |
|
So I have a question then . . . .
If the goal of sex is children, and you practice NFP specifically to avoid having children, then how is that any different from other forms of intamacy?
Feel free to PM me if you would rather.
Ali
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5186 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 02:38 pm |
|
Ali wrote: If the goal of sex is children, and you practice NFP specifically to avoid having children, then how is that any different from other forms of intamacy?
The goal of sex is not children any more than the goal of eating is nutrition.
The result of sex is children, just as the result of eating is nutrition.
When we eat, we must be prepared to accept the result, whether that means physical fitness or gross obesity. To do otherwise is to experience eating disorders. We can control what we eat and when we eat, and we also can choose to abuse the natural processes God put in place for our survival.
When we have sex, we must be prepared to accept the result. To do otherwise, our Church tells us, is disordered. We can control when we have sex and how we have sex, and we can also choose to abuse the natural processes God put in place for the survival of our race. To do so is sefish and short-sighted, but like we time and plan when and what we eat, we can time and plan when we have sexual relations in order to optimize the family we choose with God to create. Unregulated procreation can be just as bad as unregulated eating; we can end up with so many children we can't afford to support them, educate them, and provide for them. Women can be physically harmed by having too many children to close together.
So we regulate our meals, and few of us eat as much as we would like of everything we would like to eat without seriously abusing our bodies. However, it is perfectly acceptable to have a snack or appetizer every now and then.
Intimacy that does not lead to sex or sexual gratification is like an appetizer that provides some satisfaction but ultimately enhances the dining experience.
God gave us many appetites and all of them are good, but they all can be abused as well. Our Church teaches us that as humans we have control of our appetites. We can use our lungs to breathe in fresh air, or to smoke dangerous substances. We can choose to eat healthty and nutritious food, or fill our bodies with junk. We can refuse to eat (anorexia) or purge ourselves (bulemia) to avoid the damaging effects of too much food or improper food and thus fail to accept the results of our actions. Anorexia and bulemia both cause serious physical problems in themselves. When we choose to abuse ourselves and our partners sexually, we also cause serious problems including sexually transmitted diseases, aborted pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, etc.
God's way is the right way, whether we are talking about prayer or food or sex.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 761 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 02:39 pm |
|
Ali wrote: So I have a question then . . . .
If the goal of sex is children, and you practice NFP specifically to avoid having children, then how is that any different from other forms of intamacy?
Feel free to PM me if you would rather.
Ali
Sex is not the only goal of marriage by any means. It is just that for sex to be everything tht it is intended to be it has to remain open to the possibility of life. When having sex during an infertile time you are simply enjoying nature exactly as it is created and in no way altering the natural course of things. Also, NFP is not to permanently avoid children, but just temporarily avoid children for health of financial or emotional reasons. But it should not be used just to avoid children permanently if you could have them without excessive problems. It is only to completely avoid children permanently if perhaps there are significant heath or financial limitations.
But your question about the other forms of intimacy is that they are sort of taking away from all God intended the complete mutual giving of full intercourse if they are not perfromed in context of intercourse. NFP in no way limits the full intimcay and complete self sharing of the sexual act like these alternative things do. The body is designed to do certain things. A man to give certain parts of Hismelf that a woman is specifically designed to receive in very specific ways. God made us wonderfully, and when we take things out of context or try to alter what is natural or get away with something usually it will lead to something negative.
Anyway here is a great essay (IMHO) I found on sexuality that may help you understand more the mindset of the church on these matters, and why sex is for children (and must remain open to the possibility), but not necessarily limited to that goal. http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT
As said earlier, it is about the spirit and heart of the matter. To use NFP could be sinful if one's motivations are basically the same as being permanently on birth control without ever being open to he possibility of children for the entire marriage and no good explanation as to why they would not be in a good position to have children. But if it is out of prudence than I think God is pleased.
|
|
|
Current time is 12:54 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
