Why does NFP require a 'reason'?

[VeritasLuxMea]

I don’t use NFP or contraception but I was just curious about this. I know that NFP requires grave/serious reason (forget the terminology, but something like that), but I was just wondering if someone could explain why.

My confusion comes from the fact that - it would seem that a married couple could choose to have sex or abstain as they please for any period of time.

So for example, my wife and I could go 30 days without having sex because we’re busy or just not in the mood that particular month or whatever - or we could have sex every day for 30 days in a row - because we both took a long vacation and didn’t have too many obligations to interfere. And it was my understanding that, for the most part, that kind of thing is up to the couple’s discretion.

So I’m not entirely clear as to why using NFP would require a particular reason if frequently engaging - or refraining from sex is OK otherwise.

Thanks.

 

[Glennford]

Refraining from sex is not a serious moral matter.

Refraining from sex with the intention of avoiding pregnancy is a serious moral matter.

Sometimes morally neutral things (like the act of abstaining during marriage) become immoral things if done for the wrong reason.

Intrinsically immoral things, like artifical contraception for instance, are wrong no mater why you do them.

 

[thewanderer]

I think the idea is that purposefully avoiding children needs a just/proportianate reason. So its not that you need a reason to abstain, its that you should make sure you do not have selfish reasons for avoiding children. This is true whether you abstain only periodically or completely. Essentially, it is so that you will avoid being selfish.

 

[underacloud]

This section of the catechism discusses the issues involved: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

The most relevant sections are:

2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153

2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

2371 “Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”

Essentially, having children is one of the key purposes of marriage, and the decision to not have children, for now or an indefinite time period, needs to have a serious reason.

 

[Glennford]

Essentially, having children is one of the key purposes of marriage, and the decision to not have children, for now or an indefinite time period, needs to have a serious reason.

And, now, ladies and gentlemen, are we going to have another installment of “What is a serious reason?”?

We could cut to the chase and just say “Any old thing you want it to be”.

 

[underacloud]

And, now, ladies and gentlemen, are we going to have another installment of “What is a serious reason?”?

Let’s not…it’s not relevant to the question…the question is why we need a reason, not what reason need be.

(and didnt the last thread about what a serious reason is get deleted?)

 

[Glennford]

They get deleted because the king has no clothes.

 

[lerapt78]

It took me a very long time to understand the Church’s position on contraception, though I can say now that I do have a much greater respect for it. I have to admit though, that it’s a bit disconcerting to have to now contend with the “dos” and “do nots” of NFP - I thought that was a rather clear-cut concept, without room for moral error

 

[Glennford]

I thought that was a rather clear-cut concept, without room for moral error

Well, you could only use it if you had a serious medical reason or a serious financial problem. That leaves it pretty clear cut, and is an option available to anyone.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, you could only use it if you had a serious medical reason or a serious financial problem. That leaves it pretty clear cut, and is an option available to anyone.

Not really. There are other grave reasons to avoid conceiving.

 

[Lochias]

They get deleted because the king has no clothes.

That axe nice n’ sharp yet?

 

[Andre1000]

Do you need a serious reason to not have sex at all.

 

[anruari]

Do you need a serious reason to not have sex at all.

Yes.
It can be sinful to refuse to fulfil your marriage vows “To have and to hold”.

St. Paul tells us that it should only be by mutual consent - and for a time returning together afterwards.
[bibledrb]1 cor. 7:5[/bibledrb]

I find the word used in the Douay translation particulary interesting. where other translations use “Starve” or “Deny” this translation considers refusal of sex within marriage for be “Defraud[ing]” your spouse!!!
That seems to be a result of translating via the Vulgate, which uses the word “fraudare”

[biblelvb]1 cor. 7:5[/biblelvb]

The consequences of prolonged abstainance is warned about: human nature is such that people without the special Grace from a blessed vow of chastity are more likely to break their marriage vows if prolonged abstainance is forced upon them.

 

[Armor_of_Light]

And, now, ladies and gentlemen, are we going to have another installment of “What is a serious reason?”?

We could cut to the chase and just say “Any old thing you want it to be”.

…And don’t forget that only one spouse needs to feel the reason is serious…

NFP is great
for online discussions

I think I have not seen a NFP topic in at least 3 or 4 days now.

 

[ValPal]

Do you need a serious reason to not have sex at all.

Actually, no.

The heart of the issue is the avoidance of children, since the openness to having children is essential to a sacramental marriage. If that is not part of the issue, then not having sex becomes a non-issue.

In fact, you can get married and never have sex. There is no requirement that a couple must have sex, and such marriages exist. The extreme is the Josephite marriage. However, there are other people that simply have low sex drive, and stop having sex after a while. They are not sinning.

 

[manualman]

It’s really more an academic issue than a practical one. The simple fact is that if you DON’T have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, then when the fertile time comes along, the wife is more likely to be aroused and interested and batt eyes at the husband (which is pretty much all it takes for most of us guys). If there ISN’T a serious reason not to proceed naturally at that point, why WOULDN’T you???

It’s kind of like arguing about the morality of holding your breath. Perhaps one could do it long enough to cause brain damage, but it’s hardly worth expending lots of philosophical efforts over listing the reasons for which holding one’s breath is potentially morally acceptable… Just allow God’s self regulating systems that He built into humanity to work as designed. Do that and you’ll be fine. Trouble comes when we mess up the self regulating systems He built in us.

 

[tominrichmond]

Hmmmm, not so sure about the supposed self-regulating nature of the “serious reason” inquiry.

To give a stark example, what of a couple who decides they really want to remodel their kitchen, but having another child would drain away their income from that project. Not wanting to sin, because they’re good Catholics, they resort to NFP, despite the woman’s desire to batt her eyelashes, etc. Who are we, after all, to suggest that their reason may not really be as serious as they imagine. Or is there really no objective standard to apply to individual cases, and whatever the couple decides is just jim-dandy?

An exaggerated example, perhaps, but it’s not difficult to imagine couples deciding for objectively unworthy reasons to resort to NFP. A modest suggestion would be for such a couple to seek guidance from a spiritual director, rather than relying on their own, not exactly disinterested judgment on whether they have a truly serious reason purposefully to avoid conceiving a child.

 

[LJN21]

Hmmmm, not so sure about the supposed self-regulating nature of the “serious reason” inquiry.

To give a stark example, what of a couple who decides they really want to remodel their kitchen, but having another child would drain away their income from that project. Not wanting to sin, because they’re good Catholics, they resort to NFP, despite the woman’s desire to batt her eyelashes, etc. Who are we, after all, to suggest that their reason may not really be as serious as they imagine. Or is there really no objective standard to apply to individual cases, and whatever the couple decides is just jim-dandy?

An exaggerated example, perhaps, but it’s not difficult to imagine couples deciding for objectively unworthy reasons to resort to NFP. A modest suggestion would be for such a couple to seek guidance from a spiritual director, rather than relying on their own, not exactly disinterested judgment on whether they have a truly serious reason purposefully to avoid conceiving a child.

What if they already had 6 kids in a tiny 3 bedroom, 1k sqft house and delaying the 7th a year or so would let them remodel the kitchen that’s been torn to shreds by 6 kids so they could sell the house and get more reasonable sized one

You don’t like self regulating NFP we get it, but that is how the Church set it up like it or not.

 

[tominrichmond]

I didn’t say I don’t “like” what you claim the Church tells us, although I’m not sure the Church “tells” us that we’re on our own in making these judgments or that we need not seek the advice of the “other Christs” that God has provided for us.

I was simply commenting on your supposition that asserts that no one would ever engage in NFP for a less than serious reason. Clearly they could do so, and it’s not a stretch to think that with very little instruction about the primacy of the end of procreation in marriage and the need for truly serious reasons to avoid that primary end, many couples are or are at risk of making ill-founded judgments in this regard.

Unless of course you really believe that any reason is sufficient if the couple merely thinks it so, in which case there is no need to talk about the issue any more, because objective inquiry has been tossed out the window.

 

[LJN21]

I didn’t say I don’t “like” what you claim the Church tells us, although I’m not sure the Church “tells” us that we’re on our own in making these judgments or that we need not seek the advice of the “other Christs” that God has provided for us.

So, what have you found in official Church documents that would lead you to believe we MUST seek advice from a confessor?

I was simply commenting on your supposition that asserts that no one would ever engage in NFP for a less than serious reason. Clearly they could do so, and it’s not a stretch to think that with very little instruction about the primacy of the end of procreation in marriage and the need for truly serious reasons to avoid that primary end, many couples are or are risk of making ill-founded judgments in this regard.

One could also receive Communion in the state of moral sin or fail to fast because of poor instruction, does that mean the Church should have an inquisition making sure they aren’t making ill-founded judgement before every Mass?

Unless of course you really believe that any reason is sufficient if the couple merely thinks it so, in which case there is no need to talk about the issue any more, because objective inquiry has been tossed out the window.

I didn’t say any reason. I believe in the criteria that Humanae Vitae speaks of with “serious reasons,” “just causes,” “worthy and weighty justifications,” “defensible reasons,” and “just reasons”.