Licit to delay conception through complete abstinence?

[sainthumbert]

The primary ends of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring. It is licit for married couples to use NFP to delay conception for just/serious/grave reasons. But suppose that a married couple wanted to delay conception for a reason that they determined to be not serious enough to warrant the use of NFP. Would it be licit for the couple abstain completely from relations in order to delay conception for the non-serious reason?

Please cite relevant encyclicals, council documents, Church fathers, etc.

 

[1ke]

NFP is periodic continence. So is abstaining completely for a period of time. There is no difference.

One can do either by mutual consent. But one must conform to objective moral criteria and one must have a just reason.

 

[dimentichisimai]

I agree that it’s pretty much the same as NFP–you’ve gotta have a good reason for it.

I have heard of people living celibate marriages in ancient times, but I don’t think that was because they wanted to delay children. I think that was because the two spouses realized they were called to more monastic lives. I’m not an expert on this, though.

What I think you’ve really gotta ask yourself is why is this so important or not important enough? Bring it to a trusted priest or spiritual adviser. Is it financial? mental? logistical?

Also, check out Simcha Fisher’s blog about why the Church doesn’t just “make a list” of licit and illicit reasons for practicing NFP. Perhaps it will help you to judge your own situation with a little more clarity.

simchafisher.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/why-doesnt-the-church-just-make-a-list/

 

[SchonGirl1]

Couple to Couple League just had a terrific edition of the Family Foundations magazine on this topic! Definitely get in touch with them to get a copy!

Each couple has to discern whether an issue is a serious one for them. For some it may be a sudden turn of events has shaken their faith a bit and they need to strengthen their relationship with God before pursuing the creation of a new human life. For others it may be some ill health that needs to be addressed, or perhaps a physical issue. Others may feel they cannot financially afford another child at present. All of these are perfectly acceptable reasons. The Church has never said what counts as a “grave” reason to abstain during a woman’s fertile time. It leaves that up to each couple to prayerfully consider what God is calling them to. That is why it is SO important for both the husband and wife to be involved in charting, praying, and communicating with one another.

I will offer myself as an example. I moved a week after giving birth to my first child, a not so little boy. I ended up having to have stitches, not so pleasant. I also sustained a rather terrible leg injury from labor, which still bothers me eleven months later. I have been breastfeeding my son since he was born. I am down to 130 pounds… I was 150 before getting pregnant with him. Needless to say, I have struggled with depression, self-confidence issues due to my weight, and chronic pain (which I am looking into alternative medicine to help with). While there was one month where God placed it on our hearts to be open to a new life, which we accepted, he was simply putting us to the test. At present, I am not even certain I am even ovulating every cycle or not. We have been at an in between place, where we are okay with God giving us another life to cherish but are not actively pursuing it. But as time goes on I am beginning to realize that maybe I need to focus on taking care of my body a little more… It is not selfish for a mother to invest time into herself to workout or learn more about nutrition, diet, or her health. Women who neglect the well-being of their bodies can potentially cause issues to future children and are inadvertently neglecting the temple of the Holy Spirit. My reasons are perfectly acceptable reasons for us to avoid conceiving at present and wait 9-10 months until I can overcome my physical ailments and reach a healthier place in my life.

 

[LilyM]

The point being that the couple in the OP has decided that their situation is NOT serious enough to warrant using NFP. If that is the case, then it is ALSO not serious enough to warrant complete abstinence either, surely.

 

[Bookcat]

There is a difference I would think between periodic continence in NFP and the kind of periodic continence mentioned.

The serious reason (it seems to be that in order to be just it needs be serious – hence I prefer the term and some of the more recent documents prefer it) is required to make use of the infertile times during practice of period continence.

(remember though that serious reason for NFP does not have to be “life or death” serious. Various serious reasons can come up in life.)

Complete periodic continence which does not make use of the infertile times for marital relations --would seem to be though a different matter.

One can even abstain for reasons of prayer (see Paul in his letter to Corinth) —or penance such as mutually choosing to do so during Lent. So I would not see that one need have a serious reason to do so --but it does need to be by mutual consent and presuming it is not a near occasions of sin etc.

There is certainly the marital obligation (debitum) but such admits to mutual consent to forgo relations for a time. One need not always act upon the right to marital relations.

Keep in mind though the importance of children (even for the marriage and for the good of each spouse)…and the need to avoid selfishness etc etc. They indeed are the crown of marriage and the marital act is important in not only the openness to life but in the union and love of the husband and wife.

Such are my thoughts…

But see your Pastor or Confessor for advice.…continue putting prayer and thought into the question and seek that advice.

and remember what Paul said about long periods of time…

 

[Ana_v]

The point being that the couple in the OP has decided that their situation is NOT serious enough to warrant using NFP. If that is the case, then it is ALSO not serious enough to warrant complete abstinence either, surely.

The OP asks an interesting question. I’m unsure as to the objectively correct answer.

My thoughts:

All married couples --* including those who do not have just reason for delaying pregnancy and therefore are making no conscious effort to avoid it *-- abstain *to some extent *from sexual intercourse, whether for a few days in a week, or a few days in a month, or a few weeks in a year – however much, the point is they do abstain, and I don’t imagine that that they are sinning for every day that they don’t have sex.

Unless there is some prescribed “mininum” number of times a couple must have sex, there is room for debate as to whether complete abstinence is licit.

I agree that complete abstinence is indistinguisible from NFP in so far as avoidance of pregnancy is concerned.

However, the former is more of a sacrifice than that latter – with the latter the spouses still enjoy conjugal pleasure. Complete abstinence (that is, abstinence both during the fertile and infertile phases) means sacrificing such pleasure altogether.

Therefore there may be a case for a moral difference between complete abstinence and NFP when no grave reasons exist for delaying a pregancy, provided that the spouses mutually agree to completely abstain.

But I sincerely recommend speaking to a spiritual director/priest regarding this matter.

 

[thewanderer]

There is a difference I would think between periodic continence in NFP and the kind of periodic continence mentioned.

The serious reason (it seems to be that in order to be just it needs be serious – hence I prefer the term and some of the more recent documents prefer it) is required to make use of the infertile times during practice of period continence.

(remember though that serious reason for NFP does not have to be “life or death” serious. Various serious reasons can come up in life.)

Complete periodic continence which does not make use of the infertile times for marital relations --would seem to be though a different matter.

One can even abstain for reasons of prayer (see Paul in his letter to Corinth) —or penance such as mutually choosing to do so during Lent. So I would not see that one need have a serious reason to do so --but it does need to be by mutual consent and presuming it is not a near occasions of sin etc.

There is certainly the marital obligation (debitum) but such admits to mutual consent to forgo relations for a time. One need not always act upon the right to marital relations.

Keep in mind though the importance of children (even for the marriage and for the good of each spouse)…and the need to avoid selfishness etc etc. They indeed are the crown of marriage and the marital act is important in not only the openness to life but in the union and love of the husband and wife.

Such are my thoughts…

But see your Pastor or Confessor for advice.…continue putting prayer and thought into the question and seek that advice.

and remember what Paul said about long periods of time…

Yes, a couple can mutually decide to abstain for many reasons. I believe the question here though is is it permissible to mutually abstain for the sake of preventing pregnancy when one doesn’t have a good reason to. I don’t see how this could be allowable. The reason NFP must only be used when just reasons exist is because of the vow each couple makes to be open to life in a selfless manner. We certainly know there is nothing inherently wrong with using NFP to space births, so when it is wrong it is wrong because of the attitude and reasons behind its use. In other words it is the attitude and reasoning behind the avoidance of conception without a just cause that is wrong. This same attitude and reasoning is still apparant in the OP’s post, so complete abstinance would still be wrong if done for this reason.

The OP clearly has some reason to want to avoid, and he believes it is not just, the thing to do here is to pray more so that you can be open to God’s Will, whether it be to show him that he was wrong in thinking his reasons aren’t just or to help him accept the possibility of another life lovingly from God. But I don’t see how he could use complete abstinance as a substitute for NFP when NFP in a situation where NFP is not acceptable.

 

[Ana_v]

I believe the question here though is is it permissible to mutually abstain for the sake of preventing pregnancy when one doesn’t have a good reason to. I don’t see how this could be allowable. The reason NFP must only be used when just reasons exist is because of the vow each couple makes to be open to life in a selfless manner [emphasis mine]. .

What you said about the exchange of vows is true, but the “openness to life” applies to the act of sex and the generative process– leaving intact the procreative capacity of the body in sexual intercouse.

(If marital abstinence is contrary to the openness to life, then NFP is not morally permissible either.)

The OP is not asking about the act of sex though; she is asking about the choice to abstain from sex.

 

[thewanderer]

What you said about the exchange of vows is true, but the “openness to life” applies to the act of sex and the generative process– leaving intact the procreative capacity of the body in sexual intercouse.

(If marital abstinence is contrary to the openness to life, then NFP is not morally permissible either.)

The OP is not asking about the act of sex though; she is asking about the choice to abstain from sex.

I’m sorry if I used the wrong phrase. I guess what I was trying to get at is the fact that when it is wrong to use NFP to avoid, the reason it is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with NFP itself, instead it has everything to do with the reason one is using NFP to avoid. If it is not the method as such that is wrong, but the reason for avoiding, then it seems like it would be wrong to avoid for that same reason no matter what means you use.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to claim that all Catholics must aim for 15 kids or anything like that, I think there are many more valid and just reasons for avoiding than some Catholics seem to think by their emphasis on the words grave and serious, I’ve even heard people claim that its not a grave or serious reason unless its life-threatening. The point is to make sure you are not being selfish in your reasons for avoiding a pregnancy. If your reasons are selfiish they will remain selfish no matter what method you use to avoid becoming pregnant.

 

[Bookcat]

The reason NFP must only be used when just reasons exist

The new documents tend to fall on the use of the term* serious reason*. Hence I prefer this term.

Here are some examples of more recent documents:

From the Encyclical of Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae

This happens when the family is generously open to new lives, and when couples maintain an attitude of openness and service to life, even if, for serious reasons and in respect for the moral law, they choose to avoid a new birth for the time being or indefinitely.

From the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church – approved by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

From the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church

1. The family contributes to the social good in an eminent fashion through responsible motherhood and fatherhood, the spouses’ special participation in God’s work of creation[519]. The weight of this responsibility must not be used as a justification for being selfishly closed but must guide the decisions of the spouses in a generous acceptance of life. “In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised both in the duly pondered and generous decision to have a large family, and in the decision, made for serious reasons and in respect of the moral law, to avoid for a time or even indeterminately a new birth”[520]. The motivations that should guide the couple in exercising responsible motherhood and fatherhood originate in the full recognition of their duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society in a proper hierarchy of values.

From a vatican guide for confessors:

The witness of couples who for years have lived in harmony with the plan of the Creator, and who, for proportionately serious reasons, licitly use the methods rightly called “natural,” confirms that it is possible for spouses to live the demands of chastity and of married life with common accord and full self-giving.

(Noting again that serious need not = “life or death serious”)

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, a couple can mutually decide to abstain for many reasons. I believe the question here though is is it permissible to mutually abstain for the sake of preventing pregnancy when one doesn’t have a good reason to. I don’t see how this could be allowable. The reason NFP must only be used when just reasons exist is because of the vow each couple makes to be open to life in a selfless manner. We certainly know there is nothing inherently wrong with using NFP to space births, so when it is wrong it is wrong because of the attitude and reasons behind its use. In other words it is the attitude and reasoning behind the avoidance of conception without a just cause that is wrong. This same attitude and reasoning is still apparant in the OP’s post, so complete abstinance would still be wrong if done for this reason.

Yes one needs a serious reason to use NFP -which is a form of periodic continence that involves the “use of the infertile periods” for the marital act and the abstaining during the fertile times.

The hinge difference is the use of infertile periods – that is the engaging in the martial act still during the infertile times.

As the Compendium notes:

“when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence** and** use of the infertile periods.”

A married couple who does not engage at all – is not making use of the infertile periods. They are simply abstaining entirely. This I believe has been done for centuries. And heck even after a time – perpetually or even from the beginning -though the right is exchanged (though such is a rare vocation).

It is perhaps better to use “continence” here though. catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32785

But again as I noted above --there is more to consider in terms of the marriage.

Hence my more detailed post above.

 

[SusanneT]

The primary ends of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring. It is licit for married couples to use NFP to delay conception for just/serious/grave reasons. But suppose that a married couple wanted to delay conception for a reason that they determined to be not serious enough to warrant the use of NFP. Would it be licit for the couple abstain completely from relations in order to delay conception for the non-serious reason?

Please cite relevant encyclicals, council documents, Church fathers, etc.

Surely if a couple has sufficient reason to justify using NFP then there can be no reason why they cannot opt for total abstinance for the same reason as long as it is 100% a mutual decision and it does not lead them to sin in other ways.

Also since we are commanded to be ‘open’ to life and not in any way block the procreative purpose of intimacy. Surely a couple who practise NFP are in danger of sin when they are intimate they are not truely open and have a contraceptive mentality.

So I can’t see how mutually agreed abstinance in a marriage where the couple already have children (one key purpose of marriage) ca ever be a sin. But in some circumstances I can see that even periodic abstinance - with NFP might be.

 

[1ke]

One can even abstain for reasons of prayer (see Paul in his letter to Corinth) —or penance such as mutually choosing to do so during Lent.

I agree, we can astain for at time for many reasons such as prayer/spiritual formation.

But that is not the question the OP put forward. The OP asked about astaining to delay children.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree, we can astain for at time for many reasons such as prayer/spiritual formation.

But that is not the question the OP put forward. The OP asked about astaining to delay children.

Yes and I addressed such too in my couple of posts in the thread.