NFP vs total abstinence

  • Thread starter Thread starter LokisMom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LongingSoul said:
You perhaps don’t realise that you’ve formed a judgement in your mind concerning the makeup of others families that isn’t gospel based or Church based. This is just my speculations but it occurs to me that for some reason you are needing to justify your own choices regarding rejecting NFP and coping with the prospect of the inevitably huge family you are going to have until your wife reaches menopause.

I’m not unfamiliar with a type of couples that have not been able to cope with NFP and choose the quiverfull approach, only to find that it is only sustainable for a limited time, throw their hands in the air satisfied that they have filled their Catholic quota of children and feel given a free pass to contracept or divorce.

So I don’t know you or your situation, but I’ve been around the traps long enough to recognise signs and triggers. Your obsession with the selfishness of NFPers is out of proportion. You don’t like NFP for yourself but why the disproportionate judgement of those who do want to conform to Church teaching on family planning? Isn’t the enemy contraception?
Click to expand...
This is odd.

I cannot continue this conversation with you. Sorry.
 
Lokis, I’d like to help regain focus and perspective, affirming some earlier posts and denying others, all to answer your original question.
  1. The morality of any given choice is based on the morality of the act itself, the actor’s intentions, AND the circumstances surrounding the choice (sometimes including the consequences).
  2. Some acts are intrinsically immoral (meaning ordered toward evil, incompatible with God and our true good, and never okay)–such as adultery, blasphemy, and murder (including direct abortion but not including self-defense). In your case, NFP and abstinence are morally neutral, but artificial contraception is immoral, as it divides the unitive and procreative aspects of intercourse.
  3. Jumping to the circumstances, others have rightly said that the sacrament of marriage is an eternal covenant ordered to the creation and education of children. An unconsummated marriage is grounds for annulment. Remaining open to children throughout marriage is expected, despite using any system or tool.
  4. 100% abstinence, besides being unnecessary and unnatural, is inappropriate except for serious reasons (communicable disease, bio-physical limitations, addiction or abuse). If a couple were ever to mutually desire 100% abstinence, I’d question their medical/mental health or the state of their marriage, including their original consent to the meaning and purpose of the sacrament.
  5. Given your description of the couple’s reasoning, they don’t have a real good reason to avoid, so either choice/method is less than moral.
That said, I’d say 100% abstinence is less moral. The use of NFP as a means to avoid assumes willingness to accept a pregnancy should a God-given “surprise” occur. Couples should avoid the (common) mindset in which one plans a specific number of children entirely. We humans will never have 100% control in the conception and/or timing of children. They should be seen as gifts, received in trust and faith that God wants our good and won’t unduly burden us without equal strength and support.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top