Abstinence or what? if not open to life

[underacloud]

If NFP is justified then it is justified not to become pregnant. In that case, abstinence is also justified because the risk of pregnancy may be to great to accept.

The Church doesn’t directly address this circumstance - where the spouses disagree re NFP - but I tend to agree with Vico here.

But it is a grey area.

All couples should attempt to resolve such issues lovingly. And if your spouse thinks there is a serious/justifiable reason to use NFP, why are you (the proverbial you) not sympathetic to their concerns?

 

[Tomdstone]

Actually - I don’t know on that point. I am quite sure that should I provide an enquiring look toward my wife, and she sweetly tells me she’s stuffed after a hard day with the kids, no sin has occurred. Were I to push the point, it would be I that sinned against her.

Obviously, each situation is different and every consideration and care should be taken to foster a loving and warm relationship.

 

[Vico]

The Church doesn’t directly address this circumstance - where the spouses disagree re NFP - but I tend to agree with Vico here.

But it is a grey area.

All couples should attempt to resolve such issues lovingly. And if your spouse thinks there is a serious/justifiable reason to use NFP, why are you (the proverbial you) not sympathetic to their concerns?

NFP has been covered by Pope Pius XII (Address to Midwives) and there was also a dubium on dangerous pregnancy that is applicable.

From Address to Midwives: The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the bonum prolis. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life.From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
~

 

[Kelfa28]

That is my understanding also.
I read that absent a reasonable excuse, it is a mortal sin for one spouse to refuse the marital debt when another requests it.

Reasonable cause: “No, I don’t want to get pregnant again. We have 4 kids and I’m too tired, scared, and financially burdened to take the risk right now, come back and we’ll talk if I’m willing to take the risk to get pregnant.”

 

[1ke]

the spouse was required under pain of mortal sin, to agree to the marital requests of the other spouse.

No, it is not “under pain of mortal sin”. There is no disciplinary law of the Church requiring spousal relations.

It would be something the spouses discern together. And, if there is a refusal by one or the other, that is something also to discern and perhaps take to confession. It depends on the situation.

 

[1ke]

What if one spouse does not agree to use NFP? Can the other spouse require they use NFP? I don’t think so. According to St. Paul:
Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (I Cor. 7:3 & 4)
25. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,”[28] express not only a law of justice but of charity.
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html
St. Thomas Aquinas has written on the marriage debt:
newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm#article2
According to a Catholic apologetics site (I don’t know how official this is):
“The “marriage debt” means that a married person is obliged, under penalty of mortal sin, to give his (or her) married partner sexual intercourse whenever it is reasonably asked for.
Lawful excuses for refusing: Adultery, sickness, drunkenness, insanity, non-support, danger to an unborn baby.”
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/smarige.htm

This is yet another red herring you are putting out.

The OP’s wife is not requesting marital relations. She is requesting contraception.

NFP is not a thing, it is information. The information is used to either have marital relations or not.

They can have marital relations whenever they want. Or they can have marital relations periodically based on her signs of fertility. Or they can abstain all the time. These are their choices together as a couple.

What they cannot do is contracept.

 

[PaulGH]

(she works in womens health and sees the “failures” of nfp on a regular basis)

1ke already pointed this out, but this does not sound right to me either. The number of people who use NFP is quite small, so it is hard to believe that someone working in women’s health sees NFP failures on a regular basis. Couples who are well educated in NFP and who follow the rules consistently are unlikely to have a surprise pregnancy.

 

[agentlank]

Thank you for all of the replies and information. It appears there aren’t any easy solutions and that I’m doing the “right” thing by abstaining if we aren’t open to life at this time.

In short yes she is asking for relations but she wants to contracept when we have relations. Furthermore she wants me to be the one to do the contracepting (through withdrawal). I know it is only anecdotal evidence but when we used withdrawal it was 100% effective for 7 years, we only got pregnant when we tried to get pregnant. Keep in mind this was all before discovering the Catholic faith. I’ve expressed that I don’t believe that it is morally acceptable for me to contracept any more and that I will no longer do that.

I’m open to learning NFP methods but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Thank you again for all of the information and advice.

 

[PaulGH]

Thank you for all of the replies and information. It appears there aren’t any easy solutions and that I’m doing the “right” thing by abstaining if we aren’t open to life at this time.

In short yes she is asking for relations but she wants to contracept when we have relations. Furthermore she wants me to be the one to do the contracepting (through withdrawal). I know it is only anecdotal evidence but when we used withdrawal it was 100% effective for 7 years, we only got pregnant when we tried to get pregnant. Keep in mind this was all before discovering the Catholic faith. I’ve expressed that I don’t believe that it is morally acceptable for me to contracept any more and that I will no longer do that.

I’m open to learning NFP methods but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Thank you again for all of the information and advice.

Another thing to consider is that if you and your wife do have relations, and if you (singular) do not actively contracept and do not have the intent of contracepting, but your wife uses contraception anyway, then you (singular) are not necessarily culpable. If you have made your opposition to contraception known to your wife (not every time, but in general), and if she insists on using it anyway, it may be morally acceptable for you to have relations with her, as long as you are not directly participating in the use of contraception yourself. For guidance from the Catholic Church on this matter, please see paragraphs 13 and 14 in the following document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

 

[1ke]

Another thing to consider is that if you and your wife do have relations, and if you (singular) do not actively contracept and do not have the intent of contracepting, but your wife uses contraception anyway, then you (singular) are not necessarily culpable. If you have made your opposition to contraception known to your wife (not every time, but in general), and if she insists on using it anyway, it may be morally acceptable for you to have relations with her, as long as you are not directly participating in the use of contraception yourself. For guidance from the Catholic Church on this matter, please see paragraphs 13 and 14 in the following document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

Please note, however, that this is a vademecum for confessors. Meaning, he should consult his priest in confession on this matter.

 

[underacloud]

NFP has been covered by Pope Pius XII (Address to Midwives) and there was also a dubium on dangerous pregnancy that is applicable.

Thanks Vico. I am very familiar with that. What I was referring to was only the case where spouses disagree on using NFP. The Church has not directly addressed that issue.

My own position is the same as yours, and even if not directly addressed by the Church, I think it naturally flows from what She has taught about it.

 

[Vico]

Thanks Vico. I am very familiar with that. What I was referring to was only the case where spouses disagree on using NFP. The Church has not directly addressed that issue.

My own position is the same as yours, and even if not directly addressed by the Church, I think it naturally flows from what She has taught about it.

There are situations where the risk to health is present such that one *individual *may decide that NFP will not be acceptable. The Church has taught on that.

 

[underacloud]

There are situations where the risk to health is present such that one *individual *may decide that NFP will not be acceptable. The Church has taught on that.

Yes, very serious health risks excuse the marriage debt.

But it’s still something of a tangent to what I’m saying.

 

[Vico]

Yes, very serious health risks excuse the marriage debt.

But it’s still something of a tangent to what I’m saying.

I don’t understand why it is tangential.

 

[underacloud]

I don’t understand why it is tangential.

It is one limited example.

What I am saying is…

The Church has not taught directly what a couple is to do when one spouse believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, through NFP, while the other spouse does not think serious reasons exist.

Church teaching on this issue always (as far as I know) refers to the couple, collectively, not separately. The decision to use NFP, or not, is discussed with regard to the couple, not individual spouses.

 

[Tomdstone]

It is one limited example.

What I am saying is…

The Church has not taught directly what a couple is to do when one spouse believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, through NFP, while the other spouse does not think serious reasons exist.

Church teaching on this issue always (as far as I know) refers to the couple, collectively, not separately. The decision to use NFP, or not, is discussed with regard to the couple, not individual spouses.

But if one agrees, and the other does not?

 

[underacloud]

But if one agrees, and the other does not?

As I’ve said, the Church does not *directly *address this.

But…

The marriage debt is only owed when it is reasonably requested.

My opinion is this:

If one spouse has a serious reason(s) to use NFP to avoid pregnancy, then surely that serious reason also excuses the marriage debt when it is requested during a fertile phase. It would, in this case, be unreasonable for the other spouse to request the debt, and thus the debt is not owed.

Other people argue that the marriage debt is owed in such a case, but I do not see how that is reasonable.

 

[underacloud]

PS as 1ke noted, this has become a red herring. We should be careful not to let this hijack the thread any more than it has.

 

[Vico]

It is one limited example.

What I am saying is…

The Church has not taught directly what a couple is to do when one spouse believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, through NFP, while the other spouse does not think serious reasons exist.

Church teaching on this issue always (as far as I know) refers to the couple, collectively, not separately. The decision to use NFP, or not, is discussed with regard to the couple, not individual spouses.

Well, actually no, it is not based upon a decision between the two, but on the existence of the moral justification, as Pope Pius XII wrote “grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform”.

If it is justified to not become pregnant, then NFP is justified, but so it abstinence, because a person cannot be compelled to take the risk where it is justified to eliminate the risk. Pope Pius XII Address to Midwives: The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind. …

If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to the full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

 

[underacloud]

Well, actually no, it is not based upon a decision between the two, but on the existence of the moral justification…

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.