In my heart, not truly open to life (NFP question)

[glendab]

Hello Vico.

• You wrote: “Where does the Church teach that the marital debt is only excused due to the likelihood of a medically risky pregnancy”

A. Only was not my word. There are four indications for use of (1) NFP as posted earlier listed by Pope Pius XII. Serious motives “may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt”. This was given by Pope Pius XII, from Address to Midwives shown below. However as given by Pope Pius XI in Casti Cannubii another way other than NFP is (2) “virtuous continence (which Christian law permits in matrimony when both parties consent)”. And also virtuous continence is justified by sometimes because “a woman is not obliged, by the matrimonial contract, to expose herself to dangers or injury which are not ordinarily part of maternity (Courier de Rome, June 1991, p.2).” – (Reference: No. 621 in Papal Teaching: Matrimony. Selected and arranged by the Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, trans. Michael J. Byrnes. Boston: St. Paul Books, 1963.)

From Pope Pius XII, 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.

~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

• You wrote: “In such a case it would again be wrong for the other spouse to press for marital relations despite the serious reasons to avoid them.”
  A. This appears to be a different issue than a reason for NFP. There is also the good of the spouses where charity is the rule.

Excellent comments! Yippie! Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Glenda

 

[thewanderer]

Man, I hate the phrase “marital debt.” It’s a terrible descriptor for a FREE GIFT of self.

But, carry on! Apart from being told to go to confession, I like where this is going.

Yes… it does tend to come across in a very sterile way removed from a very important aspect of marital relations, but it is a term used for a reason, and the best one for the point I am making.

Also, I’m glad to hear you are interested in this side-tracked discussion. If it gets too far from the point of the thread just let us know and I will drop it, I don’t want to take over your thread and stop your questions from being answered.

It appears to go back to post #26
So you are asking about Church teaching on when the marital debt is not due. To use NFP each spouse agrees to not abstain perpetually although justified to do so. The list I have of justifications includes:1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party).
2. if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
3. if the request is unreasonable.
4. if it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing.
5. if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism (or unnatural vice).
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous.
7. medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications”, may exempt from the positive debt (of fecundity) for the entire period of marital life, however natural sterile periods may be utilized.
8. not allowing the proper amount of time or privacy. (humano modo)

You are presuming that the couple together agrees to abstain. That means you are not talking about the marital debt. The marital debt only comes into play if one couple asks for relations. What the marital debt means is that if one spouse asks for marital relations it is sinful for the spouse being asked to refuse without a sufficient reason. So, if the couple both agrees to abstain and neither asks the other for relations the concept of the marital debt doesn’t come into play at all.

Again, the reason I’m bringing this up is because if there is sufficient reason to excuse the marital debt then it will be moral to practice NFP even if your spouse does not want to abstain. The only time you would be required to have both spouses agree to use NFP is if there is not a sufficient reason to excuse the marital debt. Which is why I asked you about which conditions excuse the marital debt, not about which conditions allow a couple to morally practice NFP.

 

[Vico]

Yes… it does tend to come across in a very sterile way removed from a very important aspect of marital relations, but it is a term used for a reason, and the best one for the point I am making.

Also, I’m glad to hear you are interested in this side-tracked discussion. If it gets too far from the point of the thread just let us know and I will drop it, I don’t want to take over your thread and stop your questions from being answered.

You are presuming that the couple together agrees to abstain. That means you are not talking about the marital debt. The marital debt only comes into play if one couple asks for relations. What the marital debt means is that if one spouse asks for marital relations it is sinful for the spouse being asked to refuse without a sufficient reason. So, if the couple both agrees to abstain and neither asks the other for relations the concept of the marital debt doesn’t come into play at all.

Again, the reason I’m bringing this up is because if there is sufficient reason to excuse the marital debt then it will be moral to practice NFP even if your spouse does not want to abstain. The only time you would be required to have both spouses agree to use NFP is if there is not a sufficient reason to excuse the marital debt. Which is why I asked you about which conditions excuse the marital debt, not about which conditions allow a couple to morally practice NFP.

• You wrote: “You are presuming that the couple together agrees to abstain.”
  A. No. I wrote that they have an justified reason to abstain and may mutually agree to exclusively use the infertile times.

“So you are asking about Church teaching on when the marital debt is not due. To use NFP each spouse agrees to not abstain perpetually although justified to do so.”

 

[thewanderer]

• You wrote: “You are presuming that the couple together agrees to abstain.”
  A. No. I wrote that they have an justified reason to abstain and may mutually agree to exclusively use the infertile times.

If you look at your post you did not include the word “may” you simply wrote that the couple agrees to abstain, so I hope you can understand why I read you post as I did.

Having said that, you are still misunderstanding what I am asking if you think information about what counts as a serious reason for NFP will answer it. That is not what I’m asking. Do you see why that is not necessarily the same thing as sufficient reasons to excuse the marital debt?

 

[Vico]

If you look at your post you did not include the word “may” you simply wrote that the couple agrees to abstain, so I hope you can understand why I read you post as I did.

Having said that, you are still misunderstanding what I am asking if you think information about what counts as a serious reason for NFP will answer it. That is not what I’m asking. Do you see why that is not necessarily the same thing as sufficient reasons to excuse the marital debt?

It is “may” because the couple is not required to use NFP when they are justly excused from the positive debt of “preservation of mankind”.

What you stated does not seem to fit per the teaching of Pope Pius XII. The serious motives (indications) may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt of “preservation of mankind”:… 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.
…
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.

~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

 

[thewanderer]

It is “may” because the couple is not required to use NFP when they are justly excused from the positive debt of “preservation of mankind”.

What you stated does not seem to fit per the teaching of Pope Pius XII. The serious motives (indications) may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt of “preservation of mankind”:… 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.
…
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.

~ Address to Midwives, Given by His Holiness Pope Pius XII, 29 October 1951

We are very clearly talking past each other. The only point I have tried to make here is that NFP does not require the mutual consent of both spouses in order to be moral. I don’t understand why you are responding to this point with details about what makes a serious enough reason to use NFP i.e. what is a serious enough reason to exempt a husband and wife from the “positive debt” as it is phrased in your quote to have children. This is not the same thing as the marital debt.

 

[Vico]

We are very clearly talking past each other. The only point I have tried to make here is that NFP does not require the mutual consent of both spouses in order to be moral. I don’t understand why you are responding to this point with details about what makes a serious enough reason to use NFP i.e. what is a serious enough reason to exempt a husband and wife from the “positive debt” as it is phrased in your quote to have children. This is not the same thing as the marital debt.

You wrote:

What the marital debt means is that if one spouse asks for marital relations it is sinful for the spouse being asked to refuse without a sufficient reason.

To rephrase it is the serious obligation to render the lawful act for the procreation of children (primary purpose) or for other honorable reasons (secondary purpose).

The four indications that make NFP justifiable are only with the conjugal act and impact the primary and secondary purposes. The justice of NFP is therefore only with the conjugal act.

There does have to be agreement to the conjugal act in every instance for a spouse is never justified to take against the will of the other; it must be unitive. Therefore NFP also is only with agreement.

 

[thewanderer]

You wrote:

To rephrase it is the serious obligation to render the lawful act for the procreation of children (primary purpose) or for other honorable reasons (secondary purpose).

The four indications that make NFP justifiable are only with the conjugal act and impact the primary and secondary purposes. The justice of NFP is therefore only with the conjugal act.

There does have to be agreement to the conjugal act in every instance for a spouse is never justified to take against the will of the other; it must be unitive. Therefore NFP also is only with agreement.

Again, you’re jumping from reasons that excuse one from the marital debt to reasons NFP can be morally used.

Also, I’m confused by your argument here… you seem to be saying that since both spouses must agree to be willing to have marital relations they must therefore both agree when they abstain? I really don’t see how that follows as those are two completely different things.

Honestly, I think we are talking past each other to much for this conversation to be very fruitful, but so long as you (and the OP) are ok with continuing I will try to clarify my point better and try to understand yours.

 

[Vico]

Again, you’re jumping from reasons that excuse one from the marital debt to reasons NFP can be morally used.

Also, I’m confused by your argument here… you seem to be saying that since both spouses must agree to be willing to have marital relations they must therefore both agree when they abstain? I really don’t see how that follows as those are two completely different things.

Honestly, I think we are talking past each other to much for this conversation to be very fruitful, but so long as you (and the OP) are ok with continuing I will try to clarify my point better and try to understand yours.

There is no jumping going on. NFP can be used because the conjugal act can be *exclusively used *in the naturally sterile periods: it involves a use of the conjugal act.

Couples are already justified to abstain, as given by St. Paul. Pope Pius XII reasoning is based upon *use *of the conjugal act, and he gives those four indications.

 

[thewanderer]

There is no jumping going on. NFP can be used because the conjugal act can be *exclusively used *in the naturally sterile periods: it involves a use of the conjugal act.

Couples are already justified to abstain, as given by St. Paul. Pope Pius XII reasoning is based upon *use *of the conjugal act, and he gives those four indications.

Yes, but those are are reasons a couple is excused from the positive debt to have kids, not necessarily from the positive debt to have relations with each other. You misunderstand what the marital debt is if you think those are one and the same. The marital debt is what determines whether or not it is moral to refuse your spouse when they ask you, not whether or not you and your spouse may morally abstain to avoid kids. I’m having a hard time understanding why this distinction is hard for you to understand.

 

[glendab]

Hello TheWanderer.

Yes, but those are are reasons a couple is excused from the positive debt to have kids, not necessarily from the positive debt to have relations with each other. You misunderstand what the marital debt is if you think those are one and the same. The marital debt is what determines whether or not it is moral to refuse your spouse when they ask you, not whether or not you and your spouse may morally abstain to avoid kids. I’m having a hard time understanding why this distinction is hard for you to understand.

I’ll second that and raise you some Reese’s Pieces! Sorry still thinking Trick or Treat.

Here’s what I found in Prummer’s regarding the marital dues, (or debt):

#861. Second Principle. a) In itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and** therefore it is permissible for both parties by mutual free consent to abstain from the act either permanently or for a time;** b) but incidentally, by reason of charity, there does exist on occasions such an obligation.

The reason justifying the first part of the principle is that both parties are free to renounce their right to sexual intercourse. Thus Our Lady and St. Joseph, although truly married, freely renounced their right of asking for the marriage dues, and at least temporary continence is usually beneficial in promoting the spiritual life of husband and wife.

The reason for the second part of the principle is that the withholding of marital relations can be the cause of many evils, e.g. danger to chastity, a weakening of married love.

Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology, Treatise 10, Chapter 5. (there is no link to this because it isn’t yet available on-line and is still copyrighted)

Glenda

 

[Vico]

Yes, but those are are reasons a couple is excused from the positive debt to have kids, not necessarily from the positive debt to have relations with each other. You misunderstand what the marital debt is if you think those are one and the same. The marital debt is what determines whether or not it is moral to refuse your spouse when they ask you, not whether or not you and your spouse may morally abstain to avoid kids. I’m having a hard time understanding why this distinction is hard for you to understand.

The marital debt is conjugal relations which have two purposes as posted in the previous post. There is always a finite risk of pregnancy and the excusing reasons are based on that possibility, Those reasons are used for the justification for NFP as made by Pope Pius XII. Therefore they apply to both.

 

[thewanderer]

Hello TheWanderer.

I’ll second that and raise you some Reese’s Pieces! Sorry still thinking Trick or Treat.

Here’s what I found in Prummer’s regarding the marital dues, (or debt):

#861. Second Principle. a) In itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and** therefore it is permissible for both parties by mutual free consent to abstain from the act either permanently or for a time;** b) but incidentally, by reason of charity, there does exist on occasions such an obligation.

The reason justifying the first part of the principle is that both parties are free to renounce their right to sexual intercourse. Thus Our Lady and St. Joseph, although truly married, freely renounced their right of asking for the marriage dues, and at least temporary continence is usually beneficial in promoting the spiritual life of husband and wife.

The reason for the second part of the principle is that the withholding of marital relations can be the cause of many evils, e.g. danger to chastity, a weakening of married love.

Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology, Treatise 10, Chapter 5. (there is no link to this because it isn’t yet available on-line and is still copyrighted)

Glenda

Thank you, yes, this is exactly what I mean by the marital debt. However, I happen to not be focsing on the line you bolded but the next line. Which is why I previously described the marriage debt as something that applies only if one spouse is asking the other for marital relations. If both agree to abstain then neither is asking the other and the marriage debt doesn’t apply.

 

[thewanderer]

The marital debt is conjugal relations which have two purposes as posted in the previous post. There is always a finite risk of pregnancy and the excusing reasons are based on that possibility, Those reasons are used for the justification for NFP as made by Pope Pius XII. Therefore they apply to both.

The problem is the marriage debt is about more than just procreation. Because of this you cannot just focus on jusfifiable reasons to avoid procreation as though it were the same thing as justifiable reasons to excuse the marriage debt. Although, honestly, the fact that you insist they are exactly the same makes it even easier to prove my point. If the reasons that justify NFP are the exact same thing as reasons to exclude the marital debt then it is clear that you would never need the consent of both spouses to morally practice NFP. Because if there’s no marital debt there is no moral issue with refusing to have marital relations even if your spouse asks for them. Another way to phrase that is that if there is no marital debt it is moral to unilaterally decide to abstain. And if serious reasons for NFP are the exact same thing as circumstances that remove the obligation of the marital debt that necessarily mean s that if you have a serious enough reason to use NFP you are automatically excused from the marital debt and it would be moral for you to unilaterally refuse relations.

 

[glendab]

Hello TheWanderer.

Thank you, yes, this is exactly what I mean by the marital debt. However, I happen to not be focsing on the line you bolded but the next line. Which is why I previously described the marriage debt as something that applies only if one spouse is asking the other for marital relations. If both agree to abstain then neither is asking the other and the marriage debt doesn’t apply.

I’m a widow. Having been married to a man way back when I was young, I had to chuckle to myself over the wording: “for reasons of charity…” imaging my poor husband in one of those moods on a Saturday night. Poor thing. Oh well. I’m old.

Glenda

 

[z_0101]

Hey guys…
Lot of interesting discussion here, some great citations and some very interesting reading; however, I think you lost Perian about 30 stops ago and I’m even ready to get off this train.

Marital debt, obligations, not obligations etc…
Husbands:
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,…

and just in case anyone thinks the law was mitigated the Apostle Peter has something to say here:

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers

It is obvious that there is and should always be more to a marriage than sex; however, IMHO, there can be no debit between one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31
…30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.…

There is the same type of admonishment for wives to their husbands… I can pull more scripture out if needed; however, why?

ANYWAY:
So, please, take this martial debit and put it back on the shelf where it belongs. To demand either way because of “marital debit,” IMHO, becomes an act of objectification which is potentially sinful. Husbands should be considerate of their wives and wives should be considerate of their husbands. If the act is to be procreative it will be the will of God no matter when the husband and wife engage in coitus (rather or not they are using NFP or any other method). God in his infinite Grace gave women times wherein they would not be as fertile wherein with good reason a husband and wife have some control over the marital act’s potential for procreation and it is not a sin to use that knowledge, such as we do in NFP, so long as both agree.

Once again, IMHO, what we lost sight of here is that, Perian had/has a legitimate question, there are legitimate concerns on Perian’s part that might really should involve her priest, spiritual advisers, and medical assessment. The rest of this stuff is (IMHO) really at the penthouse level.

 

[Vico]

The problem is the marriage debt is about more than just procreation. Because of this you cannot just focus on justifiable reasons to avoid procreation as though it were the same thing as justifiable reasons to excuse the marriage debt. Although, honestly, the fact that you insist they are exactly the same makes it even easier to prove my point. If the reasons that justify NFP are the exact same thing as reasons to exclude the marital debt then it is clear that you would never need the consent of both spouses to morally practice NFP. Because if there’s no marital debt there is no moral issue with refusing to have marital relations even if your spouse asks for them. Another way to phrase that is that if there is no marital debt it is moral to unilaterally decide to abstain. And if serious reasons for NFP are the exact same thing as circumstances that remove the obligation of the marital debt that necessarily means that if you have a serious enough reason to use NFP you are automatically excused from the marital debt and it would be moral for you to unilaterally refuse relations.

• You wrote: “The problem is the marriage debt is about more than just procreation.”
  A. That is exactly what I posted marriage debt “it is the serious obligation to render the lawful act for the procreation of children (primary purpose) or for other honorable reasons (secondary purpose).”
• You wrote: “if serious reasons for NFP are the exact same thing as circumstances that remove the obligation of the marital debt that necessarily means that if you have a serious enough reason to use NFP you are automatically excused from the marital debt and it would be moral for you to unilaterally refuse relations.” and “… it would be moral for you to unilaterally refuse relations”.
  A. If there is a serious excuse from the bonum prolis (primary purpose of the conjugal act), then NFP may be employed justly, per Pope Pius XII. The situation is one in which a serious reason would exist to avoid a pregnancy. This pregnancy may also occur with NFP, so it is a decision of the parents if the risk is acceptable. Where it is justified for the wife to abstain perpetually, there will be no obligation even to meet the secondary purpose of conjugal relations.

 

[thewanderer]

• You wrote: “The problem is the marriage debt is about more than just procreation.”
  A. That is exactly what I posted marriage debt “it is the serious obligation to render the lawful act for the procreation of children (primary purpose) or for other honorable reasons (secondary purpose).”
• You wrote: “if serious reasons for NFP are the exact same thing as circumstances that remove the obligation of the marital debt that necessarily means that if you have a serious enough reason to use NFP you are automatically excused from the marital debt and it would be moral for you to unilaterally refuse relations.” and “… it would be moral for you to unilaterally refuse relations”.
  A. If there is a serious excuse from the bonum prolis (primary purpose of the conjugal act), then NFP may be employed justly, per Pope Pius XII. The situation is one in which a serious reason would exist to avoid a pregnancy. This pregnancy may also occur with NFP, so it is a decision of the parents if the risk is acceptable. Where it is justified for the wife to abstain perpetually, there will be no obligation even to meet the secondary purpose of conjugal relations.

:banghead:
When I tried to make a distinction between reasons that justify NFP and things that excuse the marital debt you refused to admit that such a distinction exists. So, I showed you that if no distinction exists my point must be correct and now you are not only admitting that there actually is a distinction you are claiming that this is something you’ve been saying all along. This is ridiculous. If you accepted this distinction in the first place why didn’t you answer my actual question instead of insisting that giving me reasons NFP is permissible was the answer?

 

[thewanderer]

Hey guys…
Lot of interesting discussion here, some great citations and some very interesting reading; however, I think you lost Perian about 30 stops ago and I’m even ready to get off this train.

Marital debt, obligations, not obligations etc…
Husbands:
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,…

and just in case anyone thinks the law was mitigated the Apostle Peter has something to say here:

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers

It is obvious that there is and should always be more to a marriage than sex; however, IMHO, there can be no debit between one flesh.

Ephesians 5:31
…30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.…

There is the same type of admonishment for wives to their husbands… I can pull more scripture out if needed; however, why?

ANYWAY:
So, please, take this martial debit and put it back on the shelf where it belongs. To demand either way because of “marital debit,” IMHO, becomes an act of objectification which is potentially sinful. Husbands should be considerate of their wives and wives should be considerate of their husbands. If the act is to be procreative it will be the will of God no matter when the husband and wife engage in coitus (rather or not they are using NFP or any other method). God in his infinite Grace gave women times wherein they would not be as fertile wherein with good reason a husband and wife have some control over the marital act’s potential for procreation and it is not a sin to use that knowledge, such as we do in NFP, so long as both agree.

Once again, IMHO, what we lost sight of here is that, Perian had/has a legitimate question, there are legitimate concerns on Perian’s part that might really should involve her priest, spiritual advisers, and medical assessment. The rest of this stuff is (IMHO) really at the penthouse level.

Selfishly demanding that your spouse give you pleasure because you are owed it renders the marriage debt null in my opinion, because it removes the unitive aspect so important to sexuality. Yes, I understand, as I previously acknowledged that the terminology sounds as though it allows the selfish using of ones spouse, but what the terminology actually means is something else entirely, and, seeing as there is no other phrase for this particular reality I really don’t see the problem with using the phrase “marital debt”.

As for this conversation being off-topic, I agree with you, and the only reason I have continued it is because the OP specifically posted to show that she is interested in the discussion.yes, that was a while ago, but I sincerely hope that if the OP is frustrated with this conversation she will post to let us know as I asked, because I don’t want to participate in the derailing of this thread unless the OP is OK with it.

 

[Vico]

:banghead:
When I tried to make a distinction between reasons that justify NFP and things that excuse the marital debt you refused to admit that such a distinction exists. So, I showed you that if no distinction exists my point must be correct and now you are not only admitting that there actually is a distinction you are claiming that this is something you’ve been saying all along. This is ridiculous. If you accepted this distinction in the first place why didn’t you answer my actual question instead of insisting that giving me reasons NFP is permissible was the answer?

• You wrote: “between reasons that justify NFP and things that excuse the marital debt … you refused to admit that such a distinction exists”
  A. It seems to me that you limit marital debt to the conjugal act for the secondary purpose. This is an incomplete definition, so I posted a correct one, the conjugal act with two purposes. Post #70. You said before that in post #56: “What the marital debt means is that if one spouse asks for marital relations it is sinful for the spouse being asked to refuse without a sufficient reason.”

Things that excuse the primary purpose of the conjugal act, justify NFP, and also excuse the secondary purpose of conjugal act because the couple always remains ready to accept a child that results to uphold the procreative purpose and pregnancy may result even with NFP. That is why I commented on the risk factor.