Situations calling for prolonged marital abstinence

[St_Francis]

Yes that was true around the puritanical middle ages. There were even penalties of fasting on bread and water for those who conceived during Lent. The ban on sexual intercourse also applied to the several days before Sunday Mass and Holy days as well as the month of December prior to Christmas.

The point of fasting is to grow in self-control. Giving up marital activity would be spiritually helpful in the same way giving up food is.

Puritans believed that the physical was bad: marital activity was bad because it was physical. This is not a Catholic attitude at all. And not all suggestions that people could use some self- discipline in that area are Puritanical; in fact, for Catholic’s,giving up something good is very different from giving up something bad.

Menstruating ladies were also banned from Mass and Holy Communion as not being in the appropriate state for receiving the Body of Christ. Interesting times. It surprises me that so many traditionalists love the middle ages Catholicism so much.

Do you have a citation for this, as it seems to have been condemned by the Apostolic ConstItutions of around AD 375.

 

[pensmama87]

Interesting. What if a spouse can have sex, but has serious adverse health effects from it?

Then the spouses discern together whether relations should cease for a time or not.

ETA: Though, as mentioned upthread, if one spouse is rendered incapable of discernment (e.g. coma), I would say that is a situation where abstinence is called for.

 

[patricius79]

I have done a lot of reading about marriage and abstinence since my conversion and I have never come across anything that says that a married couple is obligated to abstain from marital relations. Certainly there are situations where they may abstain. There are situations where they might feel they personally should make that sacrifice, but they are under no outside obligations. In fact, everything that I have read has said that Catholic couples should not be disturbed in their own discernment on this issue.

Suppose a couple has serious mental/physical/emotional health problems which render them unable to work and are thus unable to provide for another child–and possibly unable to care properly for another child–should they make an inadvertent mistake in following NFP guidelines?

 

[patricius79]

Then the spouses discern together whether relations should cease for a time or not.

ETA: Though, as mentioned upthread, if one spouse is rendered incapable of discernment (e.g. coma), I would say that is a situation where abstinence is called for.

What if they are permanently ill (though able to have sex), and permanently unable to provide for and/or care for another child?

 

[pensmama87]

What if they are permanently ill (though able to have sex), and permanently unable to provide for and/or care for another child?

The Church does not say they are morally obligated to abstain. It may be wise to do so, but not required.

 

[patricius79]

The Church does not say they are morally obligated to abstain. It may be wise to do so, but not required.

Okay. Are you totally sure about that? Wouldn’t it be very irresponsible to have sex–even if they are doing their best to practice NFP-- if they are permanently unable to provide for and/or unable to care for another child?

 

[pensmama87]

Okay. Are you totally sure about that? Wouldn’t it be very irresponsible to have sex–even if they are doing their best to practice NFP-- if they are permanently unable to provide for and/or unable to care for another child?

I’m not in that marriage so I don’t know.

The Church doesn’t make a list. Not everyone can handle the same things. People have different support systems. “I had sex with my spouse” is not matter for sin, at least not by itself.

We also can’t predict the future and are asked to trust in God’s Providence, in addition to being wise stewards of what we have. What that looks like varies from couple to couple.

 

[misspriss]

I find it really interesting that no one is obligated to abstain.

I’ve been told by multiple busybodies on these forums that I must abstain, I’m obligated to abstain…for a variety of different reasons.

NFP doesn’t work and you cannot have another kid…you’re obligated to abstain.

On the pill for medical reasons…you’re obligated to abstain.



Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding what obligation versus choice.

Truth. I cannot cope with anymore children. Especially from 5 weeks PP when my cycles always return.

Truth. NFP gives me horrible anxiety, has failed to work, and I don’t trust it at all.

Truth. I cannot space children through eco-breastfeeding. It’s not possible.

I see this as an obligation to abstain. Actually, I saw this as no other moral choice…to be honest.

I don’t think it is the answer to the same question, You are only obliged to abstain because you are no longer at a place where you can accept additional children. You personally cannot get NFP to work for you. Therefore, your only option is to abstain. That answer is based on your personal circumstances, not a general “any married couple would be obliged to abstain” which is what this thread is asking.

The OP was asking if there was a certain obligation in a state of poverty for example. No obligation there as some people are perfectly fine being open to life on low incomes, but for others they could not take on the burden. No “automatic” obligation.

To put your situation in the same light, is someone obliged to abstain because their cycles come back quickly PP and they can’t make NFP work in their situation? No, because some people are ready to be open to life again (and they have my awe) and some are not. No obligation to abstain but for some that is the option they have to go with.

Suffering from anxiety related mental health issues myself, the idea of having another child before my current children get a little more self sufficient is extremely daunting, but not out of the realm of possibility, so we are **not **abstaining completely (that is, we have small children, so chances are few and far between). That being said I have scarcely seen a sign of returning fertility.

 

[1inICXC]

I believe that back in the old days, Lenten abstinence included sexual abstinence. (This comes up in the Kristin Lavransdatter books, which are 20th century books about life in medieval Norway–in one of the books, it’s mentioned that to have a child that was obviously conceived during Lent was regarded as being a bit scandalous.)

I don’t know when that stopped being the case, but the Eastern Orthodox still are expected to do this.

“Married couples may not have physical relations the entire of Great Lent.”

orthodox.net/articles/fastrule.html

This mentality is still prevalent among Eastern Catholics, especially in certain areas. Heaven forbid a Byzantine priest and his wife conceive during lent.

 

[SusanneT]

I find it really interesting that no one is obligated to abstain.

I’ve been told by multiple busybodies on these forums that I must abstain, I’m obligated to abstain…for a variety of different reasons.

NFP doesn’t work and you cannot have another kid…you’re obligated to abstain.

On the pill for medical reasons…you’re obligated to abstain.



Maybe I’m totally misunderstanding what obligation versus choice.

Truth. I cannot cope with anymore children. Especially from 5 weeks PP when my cycles always return.

Truth. NFP gives me horrible anxiety, has failed to work, and I don’t trust it at all.

Truth. I cannot space children through eco-breastfeeding. It’s not possible.

I see this as an obligation to abstain. Actually, I saw this as no other moral choice…to be honest.

I agree.

 

[LongingSoul]

OK, to be clear Puritinism was after the middle ages. (16th century versus the ending in the 15 century) and was largely an outgrowth of the protestant reformation).

Do you have a cite for this. I have heard of the Sunday (before Mass) abstinence (not days), just like from food, as well as the Lenten fast, (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there was an Advent fast as well (the month of December, before Christmas, really?). However, I have not heard of the ban on menstruating women, nor the reason given (I know of Churching mothers, which wasn’t the same thing as banning women until a certain time after birth, but rather reflected the reality that women stayed at home with their babies until that time). The lack of clear terminology (Advent), makes these accusations against the Church and “traditionalists” seem rather like repetitions from anti-Catholic sources, not actual history.

As the thread didn’t seem to be asking for theological citations but more anecdotal reflections on its theme, I wasn’t writing as if proclaiming Church laws/rules.

There have always and will always be certain groups on the Catholic spectrum that confuse cultural and religious traditionalism and the Church hasn’t seen fit to condemn them outright. Pope Gregory the Great for instance said this…

A woman should not be forbidden to go to church. After all, she suffers this involuntarily. She cannot be blamed for that superfluous matter that nature excretes…She is also not to be forbidden to receive Holy Communion at this time. If, however, a woman does not dare to receive, for great trepidation, she should be praised. But if she does receive she should not be judged. Pious people see sin even there, where there is none. Now one often performs innocently that which originates in a sin: when we feel hunger, this occurs innocently. Yet the fact that we experience hunger is the fault of the first man. The menstrual period is no sin; it is, in fact, a purely natural process. But the fact that nature is thus disturbed, that it appears stained even against human will – this is the result of a sin…So if a pious woman reflects upon these things and wishes not to approach communion, she is to be praised. But again, if she wants to live religiously and receive communion out of love, one should not stop her.

As for the abstinence prior to Mass the Catechism of the Council of Trent states this…

The dignity of so great a Sacrament also demands that married persons abstain from the marriage debt for some days previous to Communion. This observance is recommended by the example of David, who, when about to receive the show*bread from the hands of the priest, declared that he and his servants had been clean from women for three days. - catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Eucharist.shtml

So I’m not suggesting these practices were right or wrong, only that there are times in Catholic married life, even if it is a reflection of cultural mores, that might legitimately warrant prolonged abstinence from intercourse.

I added my opinion regarding modern traditionalists who try to claim some more severe rituals are immutable by virtue of them being instituted by a specific Church period… because it demonstrates how a cultural or personal preference of piety can be mistaken as correcting an aberration in official ‘modern’ Church teaching.

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay. Are you totally sure about that? Wouldn’t it be very irresponsible to have sex–even if they are doing their best to practice NFP-- if they are permanently unable to provide for and/or unable to care for another child?

There is always adoption.

As others have said, sometimes it is prudent to abstain, but not required. We abstained for over a year during menopause, because the fertility signs were all over the place and it would have been imprudent to conceive.

 

[patricius79]

There is always adoption.

As others have said, sometimes it is prudent to abstain, but not required. We abstained for over a year during menopause, because the fertility signs were all over the place and it would have been imprudent to conceive.

Thanks Paul, I guess I don’t understand that. How can it not be required to be prudent? If it would have been imprudent for you to to have relations during menopause–and thus risk pregnancy–then weren’t you required to abstain? Just trying to understand.

 

[pensmama87]

Thanks Paul, I guess I don’t understand that. How can it not be required to be prudent? If it would have been imprudent for you to to have relations during menopause–and thus risk pregnancy–then weren’t you required to abstain? Just trying to understand.

But that was for Paul and his wife to discern. A different couple under similar circumstances “on paper” could very well elect to take their chances and not be guilty of any sin.

I would highly recommend Simcha Fisher’s The Sinner’s Guide to Natural Family Planning for a more thorough discussion of this.

ETA: For example, in addition to physical health and income, one might consider mental health and outlook, skills, talents, abilities, support system (family, parish, government resources), cultural traditions and norms, etc etc…there’s a LOT of variation and not a clear cut answer for any one set of circumstances.

One other thing I like about Fisher’s book is a chapter she has about God’s will, and that when we die, it’s not like God’s going to hand us a sheet of paper that says “Yep, you figured it out!” or “Nope!” He doesn’t play “gotcha” with us. He will work with us as we are. If we are making an honest effort to live holy lives, He knows that.

 

[PaulinVA]

Thanks Paul, I guess I don’t understand that. How can it not be required to be prudent? If it would have been imprudent for you to to have relations during menopause–and thus risk pregnancy–then weren’t you required to abstain? Just trying to understand.

I would ask, “Required by whom?”. God? Us? The Church? As pensmama said, my wife and I decided that we did not want to conceive. She is on some medicines that cause birth defects, we were over fifty, etc. We decided to abstain, since we couldn’t find any reliable infertile times.

To say we were “required” to abstain would assume there was a requirement that someone had levied on us. That was not the case. Semantically, you could say that we levied the requirement on ourselves, but I don’t think that’s what we are talking about.