NFP vs total abstinence

[JimG]

I think others have adequately answered the question. I would only add that such a couple should consider that their decision may unjustly affect their two children, depriving them of brothers and sisters. Why would they wish to deprive their children of brothers and sisters?

I know a couple (non-Catholic) who got sterilized after their first two. Some time later, the youngest began to question his mom and dad persistently, asking why he couldn’t have a younger brother or sister. It was not an easy question to address.

 

[fpt]

I just read a thread about NFP and was wondering about something…

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.

Now, I will provide 2 methods of how they went about avoiding more children, and I’d like to start a discussion on whether one method is more or less moral than the other.

Method 1: They chart and use NFP to abstain from sex during the fertile days

Method 2: They decide to abstain from sex 100% for the rest of their marriage.

Basically, I want to know if the restrictions for using NFP (that there be serious reason) also applies to using 100% abstinence.

Why or why not?

Comments:

Method 2: They decide to abstain from sex 100% for the rest of their marriage. (Even after the menopause!!!)???

In this situation, each member of couple - him or her - has the natural right, all the time, to change his / her mind. Thus, **unilaterally, the wife or the husband can ask the marital act. **The unilateral rupture about this decision of abstaining from sex 100% for the rest of their marriage can be broken, unilaterally, all the time. It is not a sin for the asker, the opposability is a rule. Thus, in this situation, the un-asker for conjugal sex has to justify the refusal by a reason that has to be good, just, fair, now, objective and true. The refusal of sex , even in this situation can be immoral.

 

[fpt]

In the natural and sacramental marriage, the total abstinence of the marital act is not the principle, that is, only, an exception with a very particular regime.

The natural and sacramental regime of the conjugal total abstinence is the following:

The mutual agreement has to be just, fair, real, objective, serious, grave and now. It means a mutual, reciprocal, equal, equitable and bilateral consent, in the total and true liberty of each one. Each one is free to say yes or to say no. After the yes, each one has the natural right to change of his or her mind. Thus, the other can ask the practice the marital act without sinning, the vow of total abstinence of the marital act cannot be for the life. The fundamental right to the opposability for practicing conjugal sex is quasi inalienable. The asker is in its rights, per se and by principle, the other has to submit to the practice the marital act, except for particular situations.There are: The natural moral regime of the unilateral refusal of practicing the marital act; The natural moral regime of the bilateral refusal of practicing the marital act; The natural moral regime of the unilateral opposability for practicing the marital act; The natural moral regime of the bilateral opposability for practicing the marital act; The unilateral refusal of having conjugal sex has to be motivated by some reasons : they have to be real, objective, fair, just, equitable, honest…etc ?

In the marriage, the practice of the marital act is a fundamental right. Only, some reasons and some conditions can change this rule.

 

[fpt]

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting, without willing, without hoping and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay, it is moral. **By nature, the use of the N.F.P. is not the sin of contraception. The practice of N.F.P. in order to avoid a baby or to space children, because of a mental reason, a physical reason, a psychological reason, a psychical reason, a physiological reason, a financial reason, a social reason, a legal reason (China), an economical reason, an educative reason, a religious reason, a spiritual reason, is morally okay and moral, if the two members of couple agree with and if its reasons are objective, real and true, and is not unfair (fair). **The N.F.P. is not intrinsically evil, is not objectively wrong, is not of itself, from itself, for itself and by itself immoral.

The responsible procreation (the responsible maternity and the responsible paternity) is **a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. The conscientization of the marital act for the procreation is a moral right, a moral obligation and a moral duty for the couple. **The moralism against the conjugal sexual joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife is not catholic.

Encratism, manicheism, catharism, quietism, fideism, jansenism, puritanism, victorianism, theoretical providentialism, quiverfullism, absolute procreationism, angelism, primary anti-personalism, primary anti-phenomenologism, primary anti-conjugal erotism,** the moralism against the conjugal sexual joys of the marital act during the infertile times of wife**, angelism, conjugal asexualism, conjugal desexualism and the rigidism in the definition of what is a grave or serious reason for the use of N.F.P. have to be fought by each “true catholic”.

The marriage is, for one part, a contract with a sexed and sexual object, the donation and the reception of bodies (marital act, sexual acts, sexual union, sexual donation, sexual reception, sexual rights, sexual obligations, sexual duties, sexual roles, sexual functions, the sexual debts, the sexual privileges, sexual cooperation, in the human fashion, sexual passivity and sexual activity of both partners).

 

[fpt]

In Catholic Canon Law and thus in Catholicity, the right to the body, the right of the body and the right on the body is an opposable right to the other. It is a contractual obligation and a institutional duty coming from the natural moral law. In the conjugal vows, the donation and the reception of bodies** is a debt** and it is not free.

Per se and by principle, each one cannot dispose, unilaterally, like it wants of this right. The moral obligation of saying yes to the request to the marital act coming from the other is the rule and the principle. Each one is held by the marital sexual vows. Only, particular reasons can justify morally speaking an unilateral refusal. The rules of game of marriage are like that, and if you are not okay with that, the marriage is not for you. Two possibilities that can be cumulative or not:* the issue of the validity of marriage and or the fact of being a good spouse,* sexually speaking (the immoral refusal of practicing the marital act going against the justice, the charity, the ends of marriage and the natural goodness).

 

[thewanderer]

**
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.

While I have had discussion here on CAF in the past where a poster strongly disagreed with me, I believe both statements are true.

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.

No, its not necessarily saying they are required to have sex, just that they are required to change their selfish motivations. If, after removing their selfish motivations they still decide they want to abstain then that is perfectly fine. Its not the abstinence as such that is the problem, rather it is the selfish motivation for abstaining. Does that make sense?

 

[LokisMom]

While I have had discussion here on CAF in the past where a poster strongly disagreed with me, I believe both statements are true.

No, its not necessarily saying they are required to have sex, just that they are required to change their selfish motivations. If, after removing their selfish motivations they still decide they want to abstain then that is perfectly fine. Its not the abstinence as such that is the problem, rather it is the selfish motivation for abstaining. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. It helps a lot when I break it down into… what is it called? Sources of morality?

So basically its like this:

1. Intent - To avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons (morally wrong)
2. Object - complete abstinence (Morally Neutral)

Since both the intent and the object need to be morally good/neutral in order for the whole act to be licit, we can conclude that this act is illicit, since the intent is morally wrong. Am I doing this right?

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, it does. It helps a lot when I break it down into… what is it called? Sources of morality?

So basically its like this:

1. Intent - To avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons (morally wrong)
2. Object - complete abstinence (Morally Neutral)

Since both the intent and the object need to be morally good/neutral in order for the whole act to be licit, we can conclude that this act is illicit, since the intent is morally wrong. Am I doing this right?

Thats how I understand it at least.

ETA: Although, in light of my post on your other thread, I’d probably consider the “for unjust reasons” to be the circumstances of the intention rather than just the intention itself. I seriously would love to find more concrete information on “circumstances” in determining morality. I feel like it would help a lot to have a more concrete understanding of it.

 

[LokisMom]

Thats how I understand it at least.

ETA: Although, in light of my post on your other thread, I’d probably consider the “for unjust reasons” to be the circumstances of the intention rather than just the intention itself. I seriously would love to find more concrete information on “circumstances” in determining morality. I feel like it would help a lot to have a more concrete understanding of it.

Ive googled, trying to find examples so I could understand better, but everything I found was really hard to understand. I found this: faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/2008s%20handout%205,%20human%20acts,%20sources_of_morality.htm

…But didnt really understand it.

 

[Rau]

…I seriously would love to find more concrete information on “circumstances” in determining morality. I feel like it would help a lot to have a more concrete understanding of it.

Circumstances (which include Consequences):
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. [CCC]

 

[thewanderer]

Circumstances (which include Consequences):
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. [CCC]

I’m curious, do you take that to mean that the circumstances never make an otherwise neutral act bad? Because that just seems clearly false to me. For instance, using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Is it morally good or bad? Well, it depends on the circumstances, if there is a just reason to avoid then it is good, if not then it is bad. Clearly, in this case, the circumstances have an effect on the morality of the action.

Another example, eating a set amount of cake/drinking a set amount of alcohol. These actions will be good or bad depending on the particular circumstances.

I realize this quote is from the CCC, but I am having trouble seeing how the circumstances can’t change the moral quality of an act. I mean, obviously they can’t make an intrinsically evil act good, but it certainly seems as though they can make god or neutral acts bad. Would you agree that this is a correct understanding of what the CCC is trying to say?

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m curious, do you take that to mean that the circumstances never make an otherwise neutral act bad? Because that just seems clearly false to me. For instance, using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Is it morally good or bad? Well, it depends on the circumstances, if there is a just reason to avoid then it is good, if not then it is bad. Clearly, in this case, the circumstances have an effect on the morality of the action.

Another example, eating a set amount of cake/drinking a set amount of alcohol. These actions will be good or bad depending on the particular circumstances.

I realize this quote is from the CCC, but I am having trouble seeing how the circumstances can’t change the moral quality of an act. I mean, obviously they can’t make an intrinsically evil act good, but it certainly seems as though they can make god or neutral acts bad. Would you agree that this is a correct understanding of what the CCC is trying to say?

You’ve got your first premise wrong. Avoiding pregnancy by way of abstaining from sex during fertile periods is a licit thing according to the Church teaching. If it is for just reasons that is a noble thing considering the evil of available contraception. If they use abstinence to avoid pregnancy because they are just mean and lazy… that makes is perhaps less noble, but it never makes it morally wrong. It doesn’t turn it into contraception. So in that case… the circumstances… ie. just reasons, make it a noble and licit option. Doing it with a mean or lazy motive makes it less noble but it remains licit.

 

[thewanderer]

Ive googled, trying to find examples so I could understand better, but everything I found was really hard to understand. I found this: faculty.caldwell.edu/lpristas/2008s%20handout%205,%20human%20acts,%20sources_of_morality.htm

…But didnt really understand it.

Given Rau’s post I think its just some random persons attempt to explain the catechism passage that Rau quoted, but I don’t think its a good explanation because I can definitely think of examples where circumstances make an otherwise moral action immoral even when the means and intent are either neutral or good.

 

[Rau]

I’m curious, do you take that to mean that the circumstances never make an otherwise neutral act bad? Because that just seems clearly false to me. For instance, using NFP to avoid pregnancy. Is it morally good or bad? Well, it depends on the circumstances, if there is a just reason to avoid then it is good, if not then it is bad. Clearly, in this case, the circumstances have an effect on the morality of the action.

Another example, eating a set amount of cake/drinking a set amount of alcohol. These actions will be good or bad depending on the particular circumstances.

I realize this quote is from the CCC, but I am having trouble seeing how the circumstances can’t change the moral quality of an act. I mean, obviously they can’t make an intrinsically evil act good, but it certainly seems as though they can make god or neutral acts bad. Would you agree that this is a correct understanding of what the CCC is trying to say?

Circumstances (more particularly “consequences”) may be the very thing that causes an Act to be judged Immoral. For example, if there was a cream that if rubbed onto your skin fixed acne, but could also kill your baby (unintended), it would not be moral to use it when pregnant (or if possible to become so), despite your good Intentions (heal skin) and good Moral Object (treat skin). You knew this terrible thing could happen, though you certainly did not want it, but you proceeded anyway to address some modest skin ailment!

NFP is an unusual one to analyse - not obvious exactly what “Act” to focus on here. I think the morality of behaviour lies entirely in the Intentions and Circumstances that lead one to avoid children, not how you implement that decision (assuming NFP is your choice). The wrong, if any, may revolve around a self-centred attitude, etc. Personally I take a kind of holistic view - how you use your talents and gifts in total would seem more pertinent than whether you produced enough children. [Some of us are magnetically attracted to the idea of a big family, some are not.] I know others take the view that the command to go “multiply” deserves very special respect, however.

 

[fpt]

Comments:

Yes, it does. It helps a lot when I break it down into… what is it called? Sources of morality?

So basically its like this:

1. Intent - To avoid pregnancy for unjust reasons (morally wrong) ???
   What is the white list of just reasons? what is the black list of unjust reasons?
2. Object - complete abstinence (Morally Neutral) ??? A complete abstinence in function of intentions? What is a good intention? What is a wrong intention? Under conditions???

The fact of practicing the marital act without wanting a baby, without willing a baby, without hoping baby and without desiring a baby is, per se, totally morally okay.

Since both the intent and the object need to be morally good/neutral in order for the whole act to be licit, we can conclude that this act is illicit, since the intent is morally wrong. Am I doing this right?

 

[fpt]

The complete abstinence of marital act for unfair reasons is morally wrong.

 

[thewanderer]

You’ve got your first premise wrong. Avoiding pregnancy by way of abstaining from sex during fertile periods is a licit thing according to the Church teaching. If it is for just reasons that is a noble thing considering the evil of available contraception. If they use abstinence to avoid pregnancy because they are just mean and lazy… that makes is perhaps less noble, but it never makes it morally wrong. It doesn’t turn it into contraception. So in that case… the circumstances… ie. just reasons, make it a noble and licit option. Doing it with a mean or lazy motive makes it less noble but it remains licit.

I know that is the position some people hold but I cannot agree. With NFP there is nothing immoral about sex when infertile and there is nothing immoral about abstaining when fertile. If NFP is used immorally it is because of bad intent and circumstances, both of which can be bad for complete abstinance as well. I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that a couple selfishly avoiding children sins if they use NFP but is in the clear if they abstain the entire time they are selfishly avoiding children. The fact that they are acting selfishly is enough to condem their actions as sinful.

 

[Rau]

I know that is the position some people hold but I cannot agree. With NFP there is nothing immoral about sex when infertile and there is nothing immoral about abstaining when fertile. If NFP is used immorally it is because of bad intent and circumstances, both of which can be bad for complete abstinance as well. I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that a couple selfishly avoiding children sins if they use NFP but is in the clear if they abstain the entire time they are selfishly avoiding children. The fact that they are acting selfishly is enough to condem their actions as sinful.

I think you and LongingSoul may be saying same thing?? Longing is not suggesting being mean and lazy is not sinful!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I think you and LongingSoul may be saying same thing?? Longing is not suggesting being mean and lazy is not sinful!

I don’t think they are saying the same thing. I think there is a huge difference.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think they are saying the same thing. I think there is a huge difference.

Longing is right that use of NFP with poor intentions is not contraception. It is a different sin. If I have misunderstood, I’m sure one of them will elaborate.