Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning

[Rau]

From that post “Premise 2: There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

You do not agree with the following?: since natural family planning involves avoiding times when pregnancy is more likely, and it is not always justified to use it, it follows that there is an obligation to choose some times when pregnancy is more likely. (Otherwise it would be natural family planning.)

I do not agree there is obligation to have sex at particular times. Vico, are you married? Have you felt such an obligation?

 

[Xantippe]

I do not agree there is obligation to have sex at particular times. Vico, are you married? Have you felt such an obligation?

That’s a very good question.

 

[Xantippe]

I do not agree there is obligation to have sex at particular times. Vico, are you married? Have you felt such an obligation?

In practice, I think a serious reason to avoid often extinguishes raging hormones.

As other people have noted, the more serious the reason, the easier abstinence is, while the less serious it is, the harder abstinence is. It’s a beautifully self-regulating system.

 

[Vico]

So, how often does a couple have to engage in intercourse during the fertile period, to prove that they are not avoiding?

Or in the situation that may never improve, the period of time may be forever.

It is a random pattern when the intention is not to use the infertile periods exclusively. Couples are obliged not to defraud their spouses in their marital covenant, however may abstain individually when justified, or mutually by agreement.

 

[Vico]

I do not agree there is obligation to have sex at particular times. Vico, are you married? Have you felt such an obligation?

What I posted does not say at particular times and that is not what I intended, rather it is random rather than intentionally only in the naturally interfile periods (when not justified to use natural family planning).

I am married. I am obliged if there is no justification to abstain, in order to fulfill my marital contract.

 

[Vico]

…That does not mean that one must have sex on any given day if neither person is interested in the first place. …

True.

 

[Rau]

What I posted does not say at particular times and that is not what I intended, rather it is random rather than intentionally only in the naturally interfile periods (when not justified to use natural family planning).

This does not comflict with my post. You originally objected to Premise 2.

I am married. I am obliged if there is no justification to abstain, in order to fulfill my marital contract.

Obliged to have sex? I think you mean to say you are obliged not to plan to use only infertile times if you lack a reason to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Vico]

This does not comflict with my post. You originally objected to Premise 2.

Obliged to have sex? I think you mean to say you are obliged not to plan to use only infertile times if you lack a reason to avoid pregnancy.

Yes, when not using natural family planning, I do not agree with Premise 2: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.” It is because the converse of more likely is naturally infertile, which requires a just cause.

I mean, I am I am obliged to grant conjugal relations when requested, if there is no justification to abstain, in order to fulfill my marital contract.

 

[Rau]

Yes, when not using natural family planning, I do not agree with Premise 2: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.” It is because the converse of more likely is naturally infertile, which requires a just cause.

I mean, I am I am obliged to grant conjugal relations when requested, if there is no justification to abstain, in order to fulfill my marital contract.

There is no question of a request being denied in our discussion - so let us discard that point!

We disagree then over a matter of logic. I stand by Premise 2 and it comes with no provisos.

Premise 2: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

This is simply a true statement!

Note that not choosing such times is not the same as exclusively choosing times when pregnancy is less likely. Perhaps the difference is subtle.

 

[Vico]

There is no question of a request being denied in our discussion - so let us discard that point!

We disagree then over a matter of logic. I stand by Premise 2 and it comes with no provisos.

Premise 2: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

This is simply a true statement!

Note that not choosing such times is not the same as exclusively choosing times when pregnancy is less likely. Perhaps the difference is subtle.

There is an obligation of those natural acts which are apt to engender a new life. There is an obligation to not exclude all ostensibly fertile times without a just cause.

 

[Rau]

There is an obligation [to partake] of those natural acts which are apt to engender a new life.

You’ve omitted some words above - the red ones may be what you meant? Note that acts which are apt for generation of new life include acts performed during times expected to be fertile or actually fertile. While such acts are apt, they may be ineffective. The Church uses this expression (“apt for generation” or words similar to that) - eg. such an act is what consummates a marriage.

There is an obligation to not exclude all ostensibly fertile times without a just cause.

Agreed.

We may assert that there is no obligation to choose a particularly fertile time to have sex, and such assertion is not inconsistent with the above.

 

[Vico]

You’ve omitted some words above - the red ones may be what you meant? Note that acts which are apt for generation of new life include acts performed during times expected to be fertile or actually fertile. While such acts are apt, they may be ineffective. The Church uses this expression (“apt for generation” or words similar to that) - eg. such an act is what consummates a marriage.
Agreed.

We may assert that there is no obligation to choose a particularly fertile time to have sex, and such assertion is not inconsistent with the above.

Because there is no requirement for fertility to establish a valid marriage, it cannot be binding.

 

[Rau]

Because there is no requirement for fertility to establish a valid marriage, it cannot be binding.

I don’t understand what point you are making here.

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand what point you are making here.

It is agreement with what you posted. It is the proper conjugal act, not fertility that is granted in matrimony. However it is to be a complete donation of self.

 

[Vico]

There is no question of a request being denied in our discussion - so let us discard that point!

We disagree then over a matter of logic. I stand by Premise 2 and it comes with no provisos.

Premise 2: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

This is simply a true statement!

Note that not choosing such times is not the same as exclusively choosing times when pregnancy is less likely. Perhaps the difference is subtle.

After thinking this over more I have to revise my comment on your Premise 2 that: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

Since the intention, say in a month, must not be to unjustly avoid pregnancy (this would only occur where pregnancy is *thought *to be possible) it can be said that when choosing, those times thought to be more fertile must not be intentionally avoided without just reason, so there is an obligation. Premise 2 therefore incorrect in some situations.

 

[Xantippe]

After thinking this over more I have to revise my comment on your Premise 2 that: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

Since the intention, say in a month, must not be to unjustly avoid pregnancy (this would only occur where pregnancy is *thought *to be possible) it can be said that when choosing, those times thought to be more fertile must not be intentionally avoided without just reason, so there is an obligation. Premise 2 therefore incorrect in some situations.

So, there is an obligation to have marital relations on a particular schedule that neither spouse actually wants. Hmmm.

Not buying it.

 

[Vico]

So, there is an obligation to have marital relations on a particular schedule that neither spouse actually wants. Hmmm.

Not buying it.

What do you mean by a schedule? The month is the natural female fertility cycle so constitutes the minimum discernible period.

 

[Xantippe]

What do you mean by a schedule? The month is the natural female fertility cycle so constitutes the minimum discernible period.

Let’s assume that it’s a fertile day. Neither spouse is feeling inclined, because they do not wish to achieve a pregnancy. Are they obligated to have marital relations on that day even though they don’t actually wish to, just because the wife is fertile?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Let’s assume that it’s a fertile day. Neither spouse is feeling inclined, because they do not wish to achieve a pregnancy. Are they obligated to have marital relations on that day even though they don’t actually wish to, just because the wife is fertile?

I know that the question isn’t directed at me, but I’ll answer if that’s ok.

A couple needs just reasons to avoid.

So if neither is inclined to be intimate, I don’t see where the Church says they have to be intimate.

But on the other hand, there could be a scenario where there is no just reason. Let’s take a hypothetical couple “Lucy and Ricky.”

Lucy is concerned about her future child might be a conga playing bandleader like her husband Ricky. She thinks the house would be too noisy, so she uses that reason to avoid. During fertile time, Ricky feels amorous, and Lucy tells him no, they are avoiding because two conga players in the house would be too much for her to handle.

Lucy is showing selfishness towards Ricky. Ricky asked for the “marital debt”, she doesn’t have a just reason to postpone the “marital debt” so she declines intimacy with her husband. She is being selfish primarily towards her husband.

 

[Xantippe]

I know that the question isn’t directed at me, but I’ll answer if that’s ok.

A couple needs just reasons to avoid.

So if neither is inclined to be intimate, I don’t see where the Church says they have to be intimate.

But on the other hand, there could be a scenario where there is no just reason. Let’s take a hypothetical couple “Lucy and Ricky.”

Lucy is concerned about her future child might be a conga playing bandleader like her husband Ricky. She thinks the house would be too noisy, so she uses that reason to avoid. During fertile time, Ricky feels amorous, and Lucy tells him no, they are avoiding because two conga players in the house would be too much for her to handle.

Lucy is showing selfishness towards Ricky. Ricky asked for the “marital debt”, she doesn’t have a just reason to postpone the “marital debt” so she declines intimacy with her husband. She is being selfish primarily towards her husband.

My question was about a case where BOTH spouses don’t feel like having sex on a particular fertile day, because they don’t want another child. Are they obligated to have sex on that particular fertile day, even though neither actually wants to have sex?