Awesome article about how it's impossible to abuse NFP

  • Thread starter Thread starter sdeco
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son said:
Can you tell me where you read that? I have a hard time imagining a modern theologian saying that “I don’t feel like it right now” isn’t an adequate reason to pass on making love.
Click to expand...
Found it!

The Way of The Lord Jesus, by Germaine Grisez, a modern theologian…

twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

Scroll down a little to point 1.g. “Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is grave matter”

He has several paragraphs addressing the issue. But the whole section on Christian Marriage is superb. That section can be found by following the link to Vol 2 at the top of the page I linked to. The sections of that volume are easily viewed and read by looking at the linked table of contents that precedes the volume.

Now, of course, there is a difference between discussing a postponing of relations for the sake of rest or so that other necessary conditions are met and the outright refusal of relations when one spouse doesn’t feel like it. It is a balance that each couple must work out for themselves.
 
mommamaree said:
Found it!

The Way of The Lord Jesus, by Germaine Grisez, a modern theologian…

twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

Scroll down a little to point 1.g. “Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is grave matter”

He has several paragraphs addressing the issue. But the whole section on Christian Marriage is superb. That section can be found by following the link to Vol 2 at the top of the page I linked to. The sections of that volume are easily viewed and read by looking at the linked table of contents that precedes the volume.

Now, of course, there is a difference between discussing a postponing of relations for the sake of rest or so that other necessary conditions are met and the outright refusal of relations when one spouse doesn’t feel like it. It is a balance that each couple must work out for themselves.
Click to expand...
Amusingly, my internet filtering program blocks that website. Could you copy out some of the relevant text for me? (Gee, I’m really putting you to work here! Sorry!)
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Amusingly, my internet filtering program blocks that website. Could you copy out some of the relevant text for me? (Gee, I’m really putting you to work here! Sorry!)
Click to expand...
5) Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter. As has been explained, each spouse’s right to intercourse has limits, and usually when either is reluctant to have intercourse, the other should not insist. Still, sometimes a spouse has no justifying reason for being unwilling to cooperate. Such unwillingness can be motivated by anger and hatred, an unreasonable desire to avoid offspring, the manipulative use of marital intercourse to compel compliance in other matters, excessive preoccupation with other activities, and so on. Sometimes, too, one spouse without good reason travels alone or stays away from home for some time, thus depriving the other of the opportunity for marital intimacy. In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
nodito:
Thanks nodito!
 
Thanks, Nodito!
Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter. As has been explained, each spouse’s right to intercourse has limits, and usually when either is reluctant to have intercourse, the other should not insist. Still, sometimes a spouse has no justifying reason for being unwilling to cooperate. Such unwillingness can be motivated by anger and hatred, an unreasonable desire to avoid offspring, the manipulative use of marital intercourse to compel compliance in other matters, excessive preoccupation with other activities, and so on. Sometimes, too, one spouse without good reason travels alone or stays away from home for some time, thus depriving the other of the opportunity for marital intimacy. In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.
Click to expand...
I guess I read this as saying that there are bad motivations for refusing, but not that refusing for, say, a neutral motivation is wrong. Clearly the author believes that the disposition to avoid sexual intimacy is wrong. But I’m not sure that he’s saying that it’s wrong to refuse on any given instance simply because “I don’t feel like it right now, honey.”
 
sdeco said:
Awesome article about how it’s impossible to abuse NFP:

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html
Click to expand...
Good article, but where does it say that it is impossible to abuse NFP?

This is from the article:
In the very notion that anyone standing outside the intimate, sacramental bond of a marital union is in a position to determine whether or not NFP is justified in their case. Only the spouses have that capacity, that privilege and that responsibility. Not even a priest is capable of determining what’s right for them. He may advise; he may help them overcome perplexity; he may undeceive them of an error in their thinking. But in the end, the judgment about how they should exercise the rights and duties of their vocation is exclusively their own.
Click to expand...
It makes it clear that there is a decision to be made by the husband and wife as to the justification of NFP. Hence, it can be abused.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Thanks, Nodito!

I guess I read this as saying that there are bad motivations for refusing, but not that refusing for, say, a neutral motivation is wrong. Clearly the author believes that the disposition to avoid sexual intimacy is wrong. But I’m not sure that he’s saying that it’s wrong to refuse on any given instance simply because “I don’t feel like it right now, honey.”
Click to expand...
What seems reasonable to you as a spouse if your request for married intimacy is refused is very personal and unique to you as a person and your marriage. Other couples will have different ways of communication about this and different ways of addressing meeting each other’s needs. That is all fine.

What I was asking about before, was your point 1, which used the term arbitrary, right? I understood that to mean without just reason, because when we say someone is making arbitrary decisions or is acting arbitrarily, we commonly mean that person is placing themselves above others and is not taking into account the concerns and needs of others. So that is why I asked, and perhaps you meant to use arbitrary in a meaning different from the way I commonly hear it used, so my reservations about your point 1 were unfounded.

Suffice it to say, if spouse A believes that their spouse, Spouse B, may say “I don’t feel like it right now, honey”, with no other talk of why or how long of postponement, and that is considered fair and reasonable, then there is no concern about unreasonable refusal.

If, however, spouse A would feel rejected by Spouse B if such a refusal was made, especially in situations where this happens frequently, then there would be a concern about unreasonable refusal and it would be grave matter. In situations where getting rejected is possible, it might be good to employ a few strategies ahead of time to avoid causing emotional injury to the spouse. Perhaps establishing a ground rule that requests will not be made if one spouse is ill or injured, but that offers for married intimacy are always acceptable? Instead of imposing an obligation on an exhausted spouse, an offer for an opportunity for them to receive love and satisfaction might sound more appealing. Then, specific requests can be reserved for times when one spouse or the other really needs the physical or emotional comfort of the marital embrace (like say, if they feel downtrodden or plagued by unlooked-for temptations). This is just one idea for how to address the issue in a marriage where saying “I don’t feel like it right now” might be perceived as rejection. I am sure there are millions of other ways to communicate about this carefully.

Spouses give over to each other the right to marital intercourse when they wed, so both the requests and refusals need to be reasonable and always considering the other’s needs before than one’s own. The reasonableness depends upon the manner and frequency, as well as a host of other important considerations, and is wholly unique to each couple.
 
mommamaree said:
What seems reasonable to you as a spouse if your request for married intimacy is refused is very personal and unique to you as a person and your marriage. Other couples will have different ways of communication about this and different ways of addressing meeting each other’s needs. That is all fine.

What I was asking about before, was your point 1, which used the term arbitrary, right? I understood that to mean without just reason, because when we say someone is making arbitrary decisions or is acting arbitrarily, we commonly mean that person is placing themselves above others and is not taking into account the concerns and needs of others. So that is why I asked, and perhaps you meant to use arbitrary in a meaning different from the way I commonly hear it used, so my reservations about your point 1 were unfounded.

Suffice it to say, if spouse A believes that their spouse, Spouse B, may say “I don’t feel like it right now, honey”, with no other talk of why or how long of postponement, and that is considered fair and reasonable, then there is no concern about unreasonable refusal.

If, however, spouse A would feel rejected by Spouse B if such a refusal was made, especially in situations where this happens frequently, then there would be a concern about unreasonable refusal and it would be grave matter. In situations where getting rejected is possible, it might be good to employ a few strategies ahead of time to avoid causing emotional injury to the spouse. Perhaps establishing a ground rule that requests will not be made if one spouse is ill or injured, but that offers for married intimacy are always acceptable? Instead of imposing an obligation on an exhausted spouse, an offer for an opportunity for them to receive love and satisfaction might sound more appealing. Then, specific requests can be reserved for times when one spouse or the other really needs the physical or emotional comfort of the marital embrace (like say, if they feel downtrodden or plagued by unlooked-for temptations). This is just one idea for how to address the issue in a marriage where saying “I don’t feel like it right now” might be perceived as rejection. I am sure there are millions of other ways to communicate about this carefully.

Spouses give over to each other the right to marital intercourse when they wed, so both the requests and refusals need to be reasonable and always considering the other’s needs before than one’s own. The reasonableness depends upon the manner and frequency, as well as a host of other important considerations, and is wholly unique to each couple.
Click to expand...
I think we have different understandings of the word “arbitrary”. When I say that something is arbitrary, I mean that it is for no particular reason – not, certainly, that it involves placing oneself above others. If my son asks for a drink, I might arbitrarily tell him to wait for five minutes. I don’t think this is a sign of disrespect or selfishness, but I also don’t have a “good reason” for doing it.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I think we have different understandings of the word “arbitrary”. When I say that something is arbitrary, I mean that it is for no particular reason – not, certainly, that it involves placing oneself above others. If my son asks for a drink, I might arbitrarily tell him to wait for five minutes. I don’t think this is a sign of disrespect or selfishness, but I also don’t have a “good reason” for doing it.
Click to expand...
If one is refusing one’s spouse for “no particular reason”, than it is not a reasonable refusal. If an action is to be reasonable, there must be a reason behind it, at the minimum.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
I think we have different understandings of the word “arbitrary”. When I say that something is arbitrary, I mean that it is for no particular reason – not, certainly, that it involves placing oneself above others. If my son asks for a drink, I might arbitrarily tell him to wait for five minutes. I don’t think this is a sign of disrespect or selfishness, but I also don’t have a “good reason” for doing it.
Click to expand...
You have described a situation where you are superior in authority, and that does involve placing oneself above others. You have also described it as having no good reason, at last none that needs to be explained. Everything you have said here reaffirms my original understanding of your use of the word arbitrary.

The apostles, saints, and popes have consistently taught that in a marriage, the wife is not inferior to her husband and that a marriage is not like a parent-child relationship. You may not need to give a reason to your son when telling him he must wait to meet a vital need (food, water, shelter are vital needs, as an example) provided you are not being cruel and unjust in your restriction. But comparing such a scenario to a spouse requesting fulfillment of a promise made to them on their wedding day, for no good reason, and with no explanation, is neither just nor considerate.

An explanation is owed to our spouses, and arbitrary reasons are not good enough.
 
tafan said:
If one is refusing one’s spouse for “no particular reason”, than it is not a reasonable refusal. If an action is to be reasonable, there must be a reason behind it, at the minimum.
Click to expand...
Yes, precisely. Hence the term “reasonable”, meaning founded upon right reason or specific reasons.
 
Prodigal_Son said:
Thanks, Nodito!

I guess I read this as saying that there are bad motivations for refusing, but not that refusing for, say, a neutral motivation is wrong. Clearly the author believes that the disposition to avoid sexual intimacy is wrong. But I’m not sure that he’s saying that it’s wrong to refuse on any given instance simply because “I don’t feel like it right now, honey.”
Click to expand...
Prodigal,

In the sacrament of marriage, couples exchange exclusive rights to each other’s bodies for the performance of the marital act. This was traditionally known as the “marital debt,” though I rarely hear that term used anymore. This exchange of rights is essential to the sacrament and is the reason why impotent individuals are unable to validly marry (you can’t consent to give away that which you do not possess - the ability to have sex). This is why it is, in fact, gravely wrong to deny your spouse for no specific reasons, because it is unjust to deny your spouse something that belongs to him/her.

There can be selfish and unjustified reasons to request sex and there can be good and just reasons for refusing. But in the absence of these factors, it is sinful to deny a spouse who makes a reasonable request for the marital embrace. I think this is what Grisez meant when he wrote, “In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.”

God bless.
 
Prodigal,

The refusal of practicing the marital act, after a reasonable request of the other, has to be justified by just, real, present and objective reasons. The legitimacy of the refusal is the rule. Why??? The mutual donation of bodies, and the mutual reception of bodies during all the life. The moral obligation of saying yes and the moral obligation of asking are the rules. The marriage is: a sexed and sexual contract, and an sexed and sexual institution. The object of this contract and of this institution is the sexed and sexual body, to give and to receive. The natural moral regime of the unilateral refusal of the marital act exists. The natural moral regime of the bilateral refusal of the marital act exists. The natural moral regime of the request of the marital act exists. The natural moral regime of the un-request of the marital act exists. The unilateral refusal of practicing the marital act has to be justified by reasonable motives. The reasons can be physiological, physical, mental, psychological, psychical, affective, moral, economical and social.

The asker has the right to know the “why” of this refusal. An opposable moral right to know. The marriage is a mutual, reciprocal and bilateral submission between two human beings for making one flesh: the marital debt, the conjugal right, the conjugal obligation, the conjugal privileges.
 
tafan said:
If one is refusing one’s spouse for “no particular reason”, than it is not a reasonable refusal. If an action is to be reasonable, there must be a reason behind it, at the minimum.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think so. It’s perfectly reasonable to eat Cheerios instead of Fruit Loops, even if you don’t have a reason for choosing Cheerios. And it’s perfectly reasonable to demur from having sex for no particular reason, so long as you don’t make a habit of it.
 
sdeco said:
Awesome article about how it’s impossible to abuse NFP:

theuniversityconcourse.com/article/1915.html
Click to expand...
I missed the part where it even talked about it being impossible to abuse NFP. I also noticed that the article was less about NFP and more about providential.

I wonder, when the media treats Catholics with such misleading headlines and obvious bias why the Catholic author chooses to engage in the very practices we all wince at when secular medias cover issues.

Awesome article or drive by journalism. I know which one I think it is.

Either way, it is pretty divisive.
 
nodito said:
Prodigal,

In the sacrament of marriage, couples exchange exclusive rights to each other’s bodies for the performance of the marital act. This was traditionally known as the “marital debt,” though I rarely hear that term used anymore. This exchange of rights is essential to the sacrament and is the reason why impotent individuals are unable to validly marry (you can’t consent to give away that which you do not possess - the ability to have sex). This is why it is, in fact, gravely wrong to deny your spouse for no specific reasons, because it is unjust to deny your spouse something that belongs to him/her.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is unjust to deny your spouse lovemaking. How could I disagree with that? But that’s not the question I’m addressing. I’m asking whether on a given occasion one may demur without giving a particular justification – though always with the intention of soon after making love.

Now the fact that I don’t GIVE a justification doesn’t mean there ISN’T a justification. In essence, I feel like, in this thread, a person is being asked to be fully self aware so as to know exactly why having sex would be a bad idea at a given time. But people just aren’t that self-aware. So the safest thing is to say that a spouse need not give a reason.

But of course, if avoiding lovemaking is a pattern, there must be a grave reason.

(As for scale of time here, I think it would certainly be unjustifiable for a spouse to refuse for two weeks at a time, and probably even for one week. But a day would be fine, even without giving an explicit reason.) 🤷
 
I thought it was a great article and made many points that need to be made.
I have known providentialists (even unmarried ones) who do not shrink from interrogating married couples about their intimate lives and their reasons for using NFP—as if it were their place to “admonish the sinners.” I understand that they mean well; they think they are “speaking the truth.” But it is nevertheless inexcusably impertinent.
Click to expand...
I wanted to contribute on this because I’ve seen it commented on in other threads about people discussing NFP outside Church and condemning people who don’t ‘use’ NFP etc. This I think, is a very American phenomenon. I’ve never come across it in Aus. although other Aussies might have experienced it.

If ever conversations of the nature arose *amongst my friends *I’ve commented that I don’t use contraception but it seems strange to me to say ‘I use NFP’. It seems to have morphed into thing in and of itself, that is allowing people to juxtapose it with contraception when they are having a conversation. For example I might say I did some financial planning or I might say I saw a financial planner, but I’m not practicing or using financial planning per se. It’s an umbrella term.

Consequently I think its a strange thing to say you can abuse ‘Natural Family Planning’. Unless a couple has committed to never having children at all which would make their marriage invalid anyway, the actual number of children they have and their reasons for choosing their family size, is completely and utterly out of bounds to anyone elses moral speculations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top