NFP vs total abstinence

[ahs]

Ok. This “not having sex is immoral” rule is easy to understand in a scenario where a couple just recently got married and don’t even have any kids. But in a case where, like stated in the OP, they already have 2 children and just decide mutually that they will abstain completely as to not have more (for no particularly just reason), it’s just hard for me to grasp why that would be wrong. It’s basically telling a couple who don’t want to have sex because they don’t want anymore kids, that they are still required to have sex. It just seems to me like just reason shouldn’t be necessary when you’re using any sort of abstinence to avoid.

I posted #39 late…my computer fizzled a bit there.

Did the coupe make an oath to God that they would accept children? It goes back to the meaning of Marriage and the vow they made to God.

 

[LokisMom]

Red has insufficient information to say. What is the motivation to practice abstinence?

Like I said in the OP, they want to practice abstinence because they already have 2 kids and dont want anymore. Basically, not really a just reason, other than the simple fact of not wanting more than 2 kids because they are satisfied.

I am also confused at why there should be a different answer to both. The purple you said is true, the red you said depends. Why are they different??

Is there a conclusion you are trying to get to, or persuade yourself or others of?

Trying to learn more about the moral theology of this issue by having discussions, since I’ve already read books/etc on it.

 

[LokisMom]

I posted #39 late…my computer fizzled a bit there.

Did the coupe make an oath to God that they would accept children? It goes back to the meaning of Marriage and the vow they made to God.

Yes, I see that now. Thank you.

So its wrong for a couple to not have sex for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy for unjust reasons, even if they already have children.

How about this…

If an individual does not want kids (for unjust reasons) would it be immoral of them to not get married for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy?

 

[Rau]

…It’s basically telling a couple who don’t want to have sex because they don’t want anymore kids, that they are still required to have sex. It just seems to me like just reason shouldn’t be necessary when you’re using any sort of abstinence to avoid.

For your scenario to make sense, I think you need to assume the couple (who have 2 kids) have the ordinary desire for sex. Note that it is not required that one desire it and seek it to a schedule. Not having sex because the thought never enters your heads, or it is unpleasant for you both, or whatever, is not wrong. Certainly, permanent avoidance of children is not proper within marriage.

Quite separately – The couple who decides with no just reasons to avoid children by avoiding sex entirely is:

1. If marrying with this plan - acting wrongly;
2. If taking up this plan at some point in their marriage, potentially acting selfishly.

It is not so much that they (in point 2) should compel themselves to have sex, but rather they should review their motivation for avoiding children.

 

[LokisMom]

For your scenario to make sense, I think you need to assume the couple (who have 2 kids) have the ordinary desire for sex. Note that it is not required that one desire it and seek it to a schedule. Not having sex because the thought never enters your heads, or it is unpleasant for you both, or whatever, is not wrong. Certainly, permanent avoidance of children is not proper within marriage.

Quite separately – The couple who decides with no just reasons to avoid children by avoiding sex entirely is:

1. If marrying with this plan - acting wrongly;
2. If taking up this plan at some point in their marriage, potentially acting selfishly.

It is not so much that they (in point 2) should compel themselves to have sex, but rather they should review their motivation for avoiding children.

Yes, I’m starting to see it better now, thank you.

 

[LokisMom]

Yes, I’m starting to see it better now, thank you.

So basically, doing something to avoid having children for unjust reasons, is always wrong. Even if that “something” includes not having sex in the first place.

 

[Rau]

…If an individual does not want kids (for unjust reasons) would it be immoral of them to not get married for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy?

If we have a strong or fixed intention to avoid children, then we ought not to be pursuing marriage.

As a separate consideration - one could do some soul-searching to understand what is at the root of the disinclination. That might lead us to review our priorities in the world, or simply lead us to discover a different, well-motivated vocation.
.

 

[Rau]

I am also confused at why there should be a different answer to both. The purple you said is true, the red you said depends. Why are they different??

Because there may be more reasons for complete abstinence than avoiding pregnancy, but this is not acknowledged in your red sentence.

If you had written:
If there is no just reason to avoid pregnancy, is it immoral to practice complete abstinence (with mutual agreement) to avoid pregnancy?

…I suspect you could answer the question yourself?

 

[LokisMom]

Because there may be more reasons for complete abstinence than avoiding pregnancy, but this is not acknowledged in your red sentence.

If you had written:
If there is no just reason to avoid pregnancy, is it immoral to practice complete abstinence (with mutual agreement) to avoid pregnancy?

…I suspect you could answer the question yourself?

Oh ok. Yeah, I meant that the only reason would be for avoiding. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Pius XII said in that same address that exclusive use of natural sterile periods, is sometimes justified: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 tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

~

Even in 1951, the Church was not as rigid and judgey as the ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ crew…

“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.”

‘Not rarely arise’ is an old fashioned way of saying ‘often’ or ‘normally’. People rightly have a lot of freedom in deciding the makup of their family. They base that decision on the circumstances of their own lives and capabilities, as well as on the conditions of the era. Unless a couple reject children ***on principle ***in contradiction to their natural and spiritual instincts, that is reject ‘family’… they are free to plan their family according to many and varied factors of the age.

The Church could and would never make the ‘family’ ideal an optional of marriage but she rightly affirms the freedom of a married couple to form the family size that suits their capabilities.

 

[Rau]

Even in 1951, the Church was not as rigid and judgey as the ‘more Catholic than the Pope’ crew…

“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.”

‘Not rarely arise’ is an old fashioned way of saying ‘often’ or ‘normally’. People rightly have a lot of freedom in deciding the makup of their family. They base that decision on the circumstances of their own lives and capabilities, as well as on the conditions of the era. Unless a couple reject children ***on principle ***in contradiction to their natural and spiritual instincts, that is reject ‘family’… they are free to plan their family according to many and varied factors of the age.

The Church could and would never make the ‘family’ ideal an optional of marriage but she rightly affirms the freedom of a married couple to form the family size that suits their capabilities.

Yes, it also reminds me a little of the manner in which the obligation to modest is expressed. The times, the circumstances and the individual (acting sincerely and with right intention) all factor in to the answer.

 

[Vico]

So basically, doing something to avoid having children for unjust reasons, is always wrong. Even if that “something” includes not having sex in the first place.

Post 2, Pope Pius XII explained that “The obligation to preserve the species is incurred when the couple “make use of the specific act”.” So by “not having sex in the first place”, the couple does not incur the obligation.

 

[LokisMom]

Post 2, Pope Pius XII explained that “The obligation to preserve the species is incurred when the couple “make use of the specific act”.” So by “not having sex in the first place”, the couple does not incur the obligation.

I don’t understand this… so was my statement incorrect then?? I am so confused.

 

[Rau]

I don’t understand this… so was my statement incorrect then?? I am so confused.

Vico’s statement is specific and (I believe) correct. Mutually agreeing not to have sex is not intrinsically immoral. We’ve said that. One needs to consult Intentions (at least) to ascertain whether individuals act morally. This is true in all human affairs.

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand this… so was my statement incorrect then?? I am so confused.

This is what you posted: “So basically, doing something to avoid having children for unjust reasons, is always wrong. Even if that “something” includes not having sex in the first place.”

Of course to avoid having children for unjust reasons is always wrong. The real question is what is a just reason. Pope Pius XII named medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications as often just and certainly one just medical indication is dangerous pregnancy (not medically advised). Also if there was never use of the specific act there is no obligation, which is unconsummated matrimony.

I’m not sure if by “in the first place” you mean unconsummated matrimony.

 

[LokisMom]

Vico’s statement is specific and (I believe) correct. Mutually agreeing not to have sex is not intrinsically immoral. We’ve said that. One needs to consult Intentions (at least) to ascertain whether individuals act morally. This is true in all human affairs.

Ok. If that is all he was saying, then I understand that. I know that abstaining is not intrinsically immoral. Once again, my scenario is specifically a scenario in which they are abstaining to avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons. Please only respond in reference to that scenario, because all this “extra stuff” is just confusing me, since it does not apply to my scenario.

 

[LokisMom]

This is what you posted: “So basically, doing something to avoid having children for unjust reasons, is always wrong. Even if that “something” includes not having sex in the first place.”

Of course to avoid having children for unjust reasons is always wrong. The real question is what is a just reason. Pope Pius XII named medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications as often just and certainly one just medical indication is dangerous pregnancy (not medically advised). Also if there was never use of the specific act there is no obligation, which is unconsummated matrimony.

I’m not sure if by “in the first place” you mean unconsummated matrimony.

Ohhhh, ok. Lol.

No, whether or not something is just reason to avoid is not part of my question. And no, I do not mean in unconsummated matrimony… as stated in my OP, this would be between a couple who already had 2 kids, not a couple who never consummated their marriage. Sorry, I know I didn’t word that very well with the “in the first place”.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[ahs]

Vico’s statement is specific and (I believe) correct. Mutually agreeing not to have sex is not intrinsically immoral. We’ve said that. One needs to consult Intentions (at least) to ascertain whether individuals act morally. This is true in all human affairs.

Yes. Loki(name removed by moderator), you have to remember that your question is in regard to a couple who has made a vow before God that they will accept children generously (that’s part of the wedding vows, normally).

Mutually agreeing to avoid sex for any amount of time, even total abstinence, is not sinful in itself. In fact, it can be a herioc virtue in the rioght circumstances. It can actually help a Marriage adn foster true love between the spouses.

The sin is incurred when a couple, for unjust reason (which the couple must discern) does not wish to have children and purposefully avoids having them. And the sin is not “contraception” (unless they contracepted) or “avoiding sex”, the sin is “selfishness” and “not upholding one’s promise” (a.k.a., telling a lie).

 

[LongingSoul]

Ok. If that is all he was saying, then I understand that. I know that abstaining is not intrinsically immoral. Once again, my scenario is specifically a scenario in which they are abstaining to avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons. Please only respond in reference to that scenario, because all this “extra stuff” is just confusing me, since it does not apply to my scenario.

From the original post… “Let’s say a married couple has 2 kids already. They decide not to have anymore children because they are happy and satisfied with the number they already have. They both always said they’d have 2, and they feel like that’s all they want/need. Basically, they didn’t do any sort of discerning to see if this was or was not a serious reason to not have more, they simply just don’t want more. Plain and simple.”

I’d really encourage people not to look at others circumstances and judge them ‘unjust’ … Unless a couple specifically states that they are deliberately and intentionally choosing to reject any children outright in their marriage… we have absolutely no right to look at anyones family size, their income and circumstances and speculate on their moral culpability in the eyes of God.

 

[LokisMom]

From the original post… “Let’s say a married couple has 2 kids already. They decide not to have anymore children because they are happy and satisfied with the number they already have. They both always said they’d have 2, and they feel like that’s all they want/need. Basically, they didn’t do any sort of discerning to see if this was or was not a serious reason to not have more, they simply just don’t want more. Plain and simple.”

I’d really encourage people not to look at others circumstances and judge them ‘unjust’ … Unless a couple specifically states that they are deliberately and intentionally choosing to reject any children outright in their marriage… we have absolutely no right to look at anyones family size, their income and circumstances and speculate on their moral culpability in the eyes of God.

I agree 100%. It was a hypothetical scenario, not a real life couple.