Abstinence or what? if not open to life

[Vico]

But it is the couple that must discern/decide, with guidance if needed, whether a moral justification exists. And many couples may not quite agree - or not agree at all.

I think we’re talking past each other a little. I think we fundamentally agree, but perhaps not with regard to whether it is directly clear in Church teaching, or requires some dots to be joined.

But there is no mention of combining the couples judgements here: “a reasonable and equitable judgment” and in “grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show”. And we know that a medical high risk assessment is sufficient from a doctor, and that is surely not based on medical judgement of the couple. The wife can decide if the risk is acceptable for herself without the husband, for it is her life and any possible sacrifice beyond normal risk, must be free will.

 

[underacloud]

But there is no mention of combining the couples judgements here: “a reasonable and equitable judgment” and in “grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show”. And we know that a medical high risk assessment is sufficient from a doctor, and that is surely not based on medical judgement of the couple. The wife can decide if the risk is acceptable for herself without the husband, for it is her life and any possible sacrifice beyond normal risk, must be free will.

But again, medical risks is just one scenario. Certainly, clear medical advise may be sufficient in this regard. But it doesn’t help address the less clear situations - eg one spouse feels “a little overwhelmed”, but the other wants more children - a fairly common issue based on threads posted here.

And please note that “a reasonable and equitable judgement” in taking the singular still does not resolve whether it applies to a spouse or a couple. But later it refers to “their union” and “their sensuality”, so it seems it is applied to the couple. The couple make a judgement - again, this doesn’t help answer concerns when the couple cannot come to a judgement together.

 

[Rau]

But again, medical risks is just one scenario. Certainly, clear medical advise may be sufficient in this regard. But it doesn’t help address the less clear situations - eg one spouse feels “a little overwhelmed”, but the other wants more children - a fairly common issue based on threads posted here.

And please note that “a reasonable and equitable judgement” in taking the singular still does not resolve whether it applies to a spouse or a couple. But later it refers to “their union” and “their sensuality”, so it seems it is applied to the couple. The couple make a judgement - again, this doesn’t help answer concerns when the couple cannot come to a judgement together.

Suppose economic circumstances are the concern for one of the couple, but the other feels the situation with another child would be manageable. I believe the concerned person does not act wrongly by deferring relations from the fertile time. Clearly, there is a duty to try and come to a common understanding. I conclude that deferral may be acceptable when either or both genuinely believe the circumstances warrant it.

 

[underacloud]

Suppose economic circumstances are the concern for one of the couple, but the other feels the situation with another child would be manageable. I believe the concerned person does not act wrongly by deferring relations from the fertile time. Clearly, there is a duty to try and come to a common understanding. I conclude that deferral may be acceptable when either or both genuinely believe the circumstances warrant it.

Right, that’s exactly what I’m driving at.

And I completely agree with your conclusion.

 

[Vico]

But again, medical risks is just one scenario. Certainly, clear medical advise may be sufficient in this regard. But it doesn’t help address the less clear situations - eg one spouse feels “a little overwhelmed”, but the other wants more children - a fairly common issue based on threads posted here.

And please note that “a reasonable and equitable judgement” in taking the singular still does not resolve whether it applies to a spouse or a couple. But later it refers to “their union” and “their sensuality”, so it seems it is applied to the couple. The couple make a judgement - again, this doesn’t help answer concerns when the couple cannot come to a judgement together.

True, medical is one example, but it shows the principle. Charity must rule overall and the women cannot be compelled to do what is against her will, in the situation where avoiding pregnancy is justified. The indications given were four: medical, eugenics, social, and economic. If there is agreement needed in the situation where avoiding pregnancy is justified, then it must be agreement in favor of pregnancy, because abstinence is also justified in all cases where NFP is justified.

 

[underacloud]

If there is agreement needed in the situation where avoiding pregnancy is justified, then it must be agreement in favor of pregnancy, because abstinence is also justified in all cases where NFP is justified.

I agree with this. But I just don’t see that current Church teaching makes it as clear as it could be; this is not directly stated.

I’ll leave it there, nothing that we agree (except perhaps regarding whether Church teaching is crystal clear).