Need real canon lawyer to answer a difficult question about exclusio boni prolis

  • Thread starter Thread starter chevalier
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that they’re having intercourse naturally, without any attempts to thwart the fecundity of the act, already demonstrates an openness to life. No? At least, that’s my understanding of the morality of NFP. The acts themselves demonstrate the openness.
 
Partly, the other is that your reasons for avoiding not be selfish, in the case where a pregnancy is not medically advised I would say no issues (the only issue being the possible validity of the marriage), in your wait for three years it depends on why.
 
I know you don’t want to believe age has anything to do with anything, but it does. It’s not an insult. It’s not patronizing. But it is true. You are young. You are still learning. You have a good grasp on many things, but you will continue to learn new things and need to be open to the fact that you don’t know everything (and none of us do and never will!)
 
The Church doesn’t speak of an “open to life mentality”. The Church states that each act of intercourse must be per se ordered to both procreation and unity of spouses. Spouses using the infertile time of the cycle have intercourse that is ordered per se to unity and procreation.
 
I agree there are three fonts of morality.

In the context of this discussion and the example I outlined, the couple has discerned a just reason.
 
Last edited:
This is where you are mistaken.

A couple with a just reason to avoid pregnancy may morally use the infertile time and have intercourse, even indefinitely. They do NOT have to abstain completely.
 
That is where we disagree. NFP used to avoid for just reasons even indefinitely is moral. It is not so much to do with accepting the possibility of conception as not altering the maritial act.
 
Agreed, we seem to have gone off the original topic. I do see a scenario where if some treatment came that would make pregnancy or genetic problems less risky they would reconsider but as things stand they expect to avoid indefinitely. It is hard to know if that counts as a permanent intention against children and if it was brought to a tribunal it would be a canon lawyer that would examine the case.
 
Given that, even in the life-threatening case, the couple has refused recourse to other methods of contraception, or to abortion if conception does occur, I would say they are just as aware and open as any other couple using NFP, and with an undeniably grave reason to boot.
The act itself is not sufficient for someone to be open to life, and the intention should never be to avoid children, even in regard to one sexual act.
Click to expand...
Um, any couple that restricts their sexual activities to the woman’s infertile periods is certainly intending to avoid children, at least at that moment. Yet the Church permits NFP. She also permits the elderly and women like me, who don’t even have the organs to conceive or carry a child (because of a birth defect in my case) to engage in marital intercourse, so even the statistical possibility of a baby is not required. I understand the moral point you are aiming for, but if the Church does not impose such a burden we certainly shouldn’t do it for them.
 
I don’t see how using NFP to avoid would ever be moral with how you describe it.
 
If the motive is to prevent pregnancy then it is being used to prevent procreation as I said. The fact that it is sometimes used to increase the odds of getting pregnant does not negate that. I think it is used to avoid pregnancy 90% of the time.
 
When in your view is it OK to use NFP to avoid or is it the permanent use you see as an issue?
 
So what would it look like (IOW give an example) of someone having this immoral intention you speak of? A couple has discerned a just reason to avoid indefinitely. It’s Friday night, they are in the infertile phase of their cycle, and they decide to have intercourse. What would make one’s interior disposition not be “open to life” in accordance with their external action
 
Give an example.

It’s Friday night, they are in the infertile phase of their cycle, and they decide to have intercourse. What would make one’s interior disposition not be “open to life” in accordance with their external action
 
Have you really never heard the phrase “what would it look like” in this context before? It means give an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top