NFP vs total abstinence

  • Thread starter Thread starter LokisMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Sorry, you’ll have to go with my statement, which is expressed very clearly, in the appropriate moral framework. If you don’t understand my answer, by all means point out where it is not clear and I’ll explain further.

Rau

PS: Did you hear the one about the prosecution attorney who asked the following question, demanding a “yes or know” response? “Have you stopped beating you wife yet?” The defendant had never beaten his wife - how is he to answer yes or no?
Click to expand...
Lol, my questions was: true or false? All I’m asking above is for you to confirm which one it is. 🙂
 
Vico said:
“If gift reception is mutually refused, then there is no violation of marital consent.” means that there is no intention the defraud one another from either spouse.

Also if there are threatening health issues, the obligation ceases:The Medical indication [for NFP] is a serious danger to the health or the life of the mother, diagnosed by a doctor, qualified either from a scientific point of view or from a moral point of view. In such a case the obligation “of providing for the preservation of mankind” (621) ceases, 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.)
Click to expand...
I’m not talking about those scenarios. Only the one I illustrated on my OP. I just want a clear answer… 😦
 
Rau said:
…Did you hear the one about the prosecution attorney who asked the following question, demanding a “yes or know” response? “Have you stopped beating you wife yet?” The defendant had never beaten his wife - how is he to answer yes or no?
Click to expand...
Logically, no.

It only implies starting, but does not establish it.
 
Vico said:
Logically, no.

It only **implies **starting, but does not establish it.
Click to expand...
Right. So who would answer such a question with such a restricted answer set. Who would wish to imply the starting? The very question is built on a false premise, and by answering with a yes or no, one supports a premise that itself cries out to be corrected.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
I think maybe I am not making myself completely clear in my OP. Let me try wording it this way…

In order to use periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy, a couple needs to have serious reasons. We all know this is true

In order to use complete abstinence to avoid pregnancy, a couple needs to have serious reasons. Is this true or false?
Click to expand...
Serious motives + mutual consent + so long as such continence does not cause other undue hardship in the Marriage. Yes to both*.

*My answer is not intended to answer for Josephite Marriage or any exceptions to the norm.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Hmm interesting. See, that just makes it even harder for me to understand why NFP is ok and other non abortificient means are not… 😦
Click to expand...
What part is hard to understand? Sex which is engaged in must be ordered, per se, toward unity+procreation.

NFP = sex that a couple engages in ordered, per se, toward procreation.

Contraception = the procreative nature of the act is purposefully thwarted.
 
ahs said:
…My answer is not intended to answer for Josephite Marriage or any exceptions to the norm.
Click to expand...
I think by Josephite Marriage, we are to understand a good Intention applies, or otherwise it could not be valid to call the marriage “Josephite”.
 
Rau said:
Right. So who would answer such a question with such a restricted answer set. Who would wish to imply the starting? The very question is built on a false premise, and by answering with a yes or no, one supports a premise that itself cries out to be corrected.
Click to expand...
**
If both spouses agree, periodic abstinence may be used to avoid pregnancy but only IF there is just reason to avoid pregnancy. If there is no just reason to avoid pregnancy, it is immoral to practice periodic abstinence. **This statement is true.

If both spouses agree,complete abstinence may be used to avoid pregnancy but only IF there is just reason to avoid pregnancy. If there is no just reason to avoid, it is immoral to practice complete abstinence. Is this statement true or false?

I’m not setting up any false premise like the example you gave. Just looking to understand this rationale.
 
ahs said:
Serious motives + mutual consent + so long as such continence does not cause other undue hardship in the Marriage. Yes to both*.

*My answer is not intended to answer for Josephite Marriage or any exceptions to the norm.
Click to expand...
Thank you. So unless there is a josephite marriage, a couple is morally required to keep having sex (after the marriage has been consummated) even if they mutually agree not to?
 
ahs said:
What part is hard to understand? Sex which is engaged in must be ordered, per se, toward unity+procreation.

NFP = sex that a couple engages in ordered, per se, toward procreation.

Contraception = the procreative nature of the act is purposefully thwarted.
Click to expand...
Because if there is no “thwarting of sex” in either periodic or total abstinence, then why are there still restrictions on it? (restriction = must have just reason to do it)
 
Rau said:
Right. So who would answer such a question with such a restricted answer set. Who would wish to imply the starting? The very question is built on a false premise, and by answering with a yes or no, one supports a premise that itself cries out to be corrected.
Click to expand...
Someone filling out a form with check-boxes and no write-ins. 🙂
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Thank you. So unless there is a josephite marriage, a couple is morally required to keep having sex (after the marriage has been consummated) even if they mutually agree not to?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that this is correct.** Marriage, by its very nature, is ordered toward the begetting of children. People who are Married were married with the understanding and expectation that they will accept children lovingly and generously*. A couple with no desire to procreate, or engage in the procreative act, should not get married (excepting Josephite or other exceptions).

*The meaning of “generous” should not be overlooked in the root “gener” or “genus” from which we also get “generation”.

**We must also consider spouses who have been separated, but not divorced. Those couples, while working out their differences which cause the separation, would not be expected to engage in the act while dealing with the trauma that cause the separation.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Because if there is no “thwarting of sex” in either periodic or total abstinence, then why are there still restrictions on it? (restriction = must have just reason to do it)
Click to expand...
Because Marriage, by it nature, is ordered toward the begetting and rearing of children. That’s the purpose of Marriage. That’s what a “just cause” is needed to avoid pregnancy.

The means by which we avoid that pregnancy must also not thwart the procreative nature of an act which is taking place.
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
**
If both spouses agree, periodic abstinence** may be used to avoid pregnancy but only IF there is just reason to avoid pregnancy. If there is no just reason to avoid pregnancy, it is immoral to practice periodic abstinence. This statement is true.

**If both spouses agree,complete abstinence **may be used to avoid pregnancy but only IF there is just reason to avoid pregnancy.

If there is no just reason to avoid, it is immoral to practice complete abstinence (with mutual agreement, I assume). Is this statement true or false?

I’m not setting up any false premise like the example you gave. Just looking to understand this rationale.
Click to expand...
I was not suggesting a false premise, but an ill-formed question.

Purple is true.

Red has insufficient information to say. What is the motivation to practice abstinence? Certainly, it is not intrinsically evil, hence motivation and circumstances (incl. consequences) matter.

Is there a conclusion you are trying to get to, or persuade yourself or others of?
 
Loki(name removed by moderator) said:
Because if there is no “thwarting of sex” in either periodic or total abstinence, then why are there still restrictions on it? (restriction = must have just reason to do it)
Click to expand...
Our reasons / motivations is one of 3 fonts that bear on the morality of our actions.

Did you read the short section in the Catechism I referenced a while back?
 
ahs said:
My understanding is that this is correct.** Marriage, by its very nature, is ordered toward the begetting of children. People who are Married were married with the understanding and expectation that they will accept children lovingly and generously*. A couple with no desire to procreate, or engage in the procreative act, should not get married (excepting Josephite or other exceptions).

*The meaning of “generous” should not be overlooked in the root “gener” or “genus” from which we also get “generation”.

**We must also consider spouses who have been separated, but not divorced. Those couples, while working out their differences which cause the separation, would not be expected to engage in the act while dealing with the trauma that cause the separation.
Click to expand...
**Also, if a coupe simply isn’t in the mood for sex, they are not obliged to engage in the act. It may be that a couple simply doesn’t want to, while at the same time are fully open to having [more] children. As long as the motive is not for selfish reasons, there is no need for a couple to engage in sex on some schedule or by some duty to perform, regardless of desire. If the desire is not there, however, it would seem contrary to human sexuality and this might be a case where the couple should do some real inventory/evaluation on the state of their Marriage, wouldn’t you agree?
 
ahs said:
My understanding is that this is correct.** Marriage, by its very nature, is ordered toward the begetting of children. People who are Married were married with the understanding and expectation that they will accept children lovingly and generously*. A couple with no desire to procreate, or engage in the procreative act, should not get married (excepting Josephite or other exceptions).

*The meaning of “generous” should not be overlooked in the root “gener” or “genus” from which we also get “generation”.

**We must also consider spouses who have been separated, but not divorced. Those couples, while working out their differences which cause the separation, would not be expected to engage in the act while dealing with the trauma that cause the separation.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top