Author Topic: NFP Thought (Read 8414 times)

PG · « **on:** February 01, 2018, 05:51:19 PM »

So, I was thinking about an aspect of NFP that doesn't seem quite right if NFP is really acceptable. And, that is that it requires the agreement of both spouses for it not to be sinful. And, I find that interesting. I will give a number of thoughts or reasons why. First, it does not require the consent of both husband and wife for marital relations. If there is no impediment like grave sins against the 6th commandment, then each spouse has a right to the marital debt. So, this agreement of the spouses turned on its head, is not consistent. Because, it doesn't require consent of both spouses for the marital act to be lawful, in fact if one does not agree, it can easily be unlawful and sinful on the part of the denying spouse. That is interesting.

Turned back onto NFP, if it is sinful, which I think it is, then just because both spouses agree to the sin, does not make it not sinful anymore. And, if that sounds familiar, that is because it is the MO of relativism in the church(aka modernism). What is truth? The modernist would say that truth is whatever I want to believe, or whatever the majority of people believe in, or whatever the person who has the most money believes in. That is where you find truth the relativist will say. In the past it used the vehicle of probabalism, which morphed into collegiality at v2, and in its current most liberal form, it is a collegiality across all levels of a catholic's state in life. Hierarchy is no longer, and morality is to be subject to the mind of the married woman. That is modernism. And, we know what happened in the garden of eden, so that is a flop.

Sin doesn't not become sin just because more or "enough" people believe it is not a sin. Morality is objective. Morality, in this case that of NFP, is not subject(ive) to the consent of both spouses. It cannot be if it is a moral issue, and not just a prudential decision. If it is truly a prudential decision, then it could be subject to one of the spouses. Because, the man is the head of the house, and the woman is the heart. The man makes the prudential decisions. And, the woman breathes life into them. But, the church has said that NFP is sinful if only dependent on one spouse. So, it is not a prudential decision.

Scripture says the married man is divided between pleasing God and pleasing his wife. That means that man an woman cannot see eye to eye if a moral issue is dependent entirely on them. Because, the married man is divided. And, we know that the woman is divided. She is made from mans side, not knowing God as Adam does. And, if NFP is not a prudential decision, which it isn't, as demonstrated, then it is a moral decision. And, that means that Christ decides on it. In sum, the marital act is surrounded on both sides by moral decisions, not prudential decisions. It is surrounded by Christ and morality, consistent with any sacrament. Consent of the spouses gives it away.

Jaynek · « **Reply #1 on:** February 01, 2018, 06:47:38 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 01, 2018, 05:51:19 PM

So, I was thinking about an aspect of NFP that doesn't seem quite right if NFP is really acceptable. And, that is that it requires the agreement of both spouses for it not to be sinful. And, I find that interesting. I will give a number of thoughts or reasons why. First, it does not require the consent of both husband and wife for marital relations. If there is no impediment like grave sins against the 6th commandment, then each spouse has a right to the marital debt. So, this agreement of the spouses turned on its head, is not consistent. Because, it doesn't require consent of both spouses for the marital act to be lawful, in fact if one does not agree, it can easily be unlawful and sinful on the part of the denying spouse. That is interesting.

You seem to understand the marital debt as meaning that there can be marital relations without consent. This does not make sense. It would mean that one may force a spouse to have relations.

Here is an explanation of the marital debt that I find helpful:

Quote

Is it a mortal sin to refuse one’s husband or wife the marital debt?

Conjugal relations are rightly called the "marriage debt", which each spouse owes the other in justice the relations that are apt to engender children. It is this very particular right over one’s body that is given up to one’s spouse by marriage vows. Saint Paul is very explicit about this:
Quote
Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (I Cor. 7:3 & 4)

A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed. However, marriage relationships are a serious matter and of great importance. Furthermore, the refusal of the marriage debt may cause a danger of incontinence. Consequently, it is a mortal sin to deprive one’s spouse of these relationships. The typical example of this is when a wife feels that she is justified in withholding the marriage debt because her feelings are hurt, or she is not appreciated enough. However, there is no excuse for the husband to withhold the affection and care for his wife’s feelings, for is responsible for them as head of the family.

However, it is possible for the couple to agree, by mutual consent, to abstain for a short period of time, for example for penance, during Lent. However, it must be by mutual consent, and on the understanding that either spouse can withdraw it at any time. Saint Paul speaks of this also:
Quote
Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer (I Cor 7:5).

There can, however, be good reasons that excuse a husband or wife from rendering this marriage debt, such as adultery of the other spouse, or unreasonable demands (e.g. frequency, intoxication) or grave danger to health or life (e.g. by the possible communication of infectious diseases), or a husband who refuses to perform his duty of supporting his family (Jone, Moral Theology, pp. 557 & 558 ). There can also be special circuмstances that reduce the culpability of refusing the marriage debt, so that it is only a venial sin, for example "if the petitioner will readily renounce his right, or if rendering it is only briefly postponed, or when the use of the marriage right is frequent and its refusal is only rare" (ibid). [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]

PG · « **Reply #2 on:** February 01, 2018, 08:06:27 PM »

jaynek - it just doesn't make sense to you. Because, only within reason I am implying it. Thanks be to God grace is attached to the sacrament and extremes in marriage are not intended and therefore rare. But, it is surprising. And, that is because marriage is a mystery. Mystery translated means sacrament. So, to the point, it means that I am in no way advocating for spousal violence or whatever your wandering mind might be implying. So, we can get that out of the way right now. I guess you cannot be to blame when you/we are brought up in a culture where man and woman are not mentioned anymore, only individual(s).

However, the spiritual reality is that married man and woman are divided. And, when involved in matters like procreation, the lines of individual which is such a favorite word in our carnal society, blur, and the word consent doesn't have the same meaning or importance. And, that is because procreation involves God, and God is spirit. Flip this on its head, when procreation and God are excluded, then individual concerns become everything. And, consent becomes everything. But, what about God? What about procreation. Doesn't God have a say? Yes, he does. The marital act must be open to children. When adam and eve sinned, they were cast out of the garden of eden. It was not God who is cast out. Consent played no part in their expulsion.

Finally, to give you some perspective on where your mind ventured off to from my comment, we will go to the extreme. Denzinger says this about such extreme situations in marriage. "1916 it is declared that a wife because of a threat of death or grave injury can cooperate in an interrupted copulation with her husband. Now, this is important for two reasons. One, it is describing a situation even worse than what you were implying I meant. Because, in this situation, the copulation is interrupted, and their are threats. Now, that does not mean the church is saying the husband has such a right to do this. No. But, it is implying the importance of the marital debt and the respect due to the bond of marriage. So much so that it would tolerate even this extreme situation. It is a disturbing way to have to show that, but I think it does.

Jaynek · « **Reply #3 on:** February 01, 2018, 08:28:47 PM »

Quote from: PG on February 01, 2018, 08:06:27 PM

jaynek - it just doesn't make sense to you. Because, only within reason I am implying it. Thanks be to God grace is attached to the sacrament and extremes in marriage are not intended and therefore rare. But, it is surprising. And, that is because marriage is a mystery. Mystery translated means sacrament. So, to the point, it means that I am in no way advocating for spousal violence or whatever your wandering mind might be implying. So, we can get that out of the way right now. I guess you cannot be to blame when you/we are brought up in a culture where man and woman are not mentioned anymore, only individual(s).

Thanks for clarifying. I was not sure what you meant. I understand the teaching on marital debt as saying that one consents because one knows there is an obligation. You seemed to be saying that there is no consent because there is an obligation. I suspect there is no real disagreement between us and it is just a problem with wording.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #4 on:** February 02, 2018, 10:08:44 AM »

One's consent is given only once - at the altar rail, in front of God, where you consent to marry your spouse. Marriage is a giving of one's body to the other, as St Paul says. Once married, there is no more consent, because consent implies permission or agreement. Technically speaking, a spouse does not need permission/agreement, because the Church teaches it is a DUTY.

In reality, one wants their spouse to fulfill their obligation with love, so a wise spouse will approach the topic with love and understanding, but this is not required. Though, if feelings/emotions are not taken into account, the marriage will suffer. So, it is a balance between the sexes, because none of us is perfect. However, my overall point is that to use the word 'consent' when describing such situations is wrong, for consent is given only once, with the 'I do', and it applies for the life of the marriage.

Last Tradhican · « **Reply #5 on:** February 02, 2018, 10:32:50 AM »

NFP is a Vatican II religion thing. NFP is a precise science which did not exist before, it is not the "rhythm method".

Jaynek · « **Reply #6 on:** February 02, 2018, 10:42:40 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 02, 2018, 10:08:44 AM

One's consent is given only once - at the altar rail, in front of God, where you consent to marry your spouse. Marriage is a giving of one's body to the other, as St Paul says. Once married, there is no more consent, because consent implies permission or agreement. Technically speaking, a spouse does not need permission/agreement, because the Church teaches it is a DUTY.

In reality, one wants their spouse to fulfill their obligation with love, so a wise spouse will approach the topic with love and understanding, but this is not required. Though, if feelings/emotions are not taken into account, the marriage will suffer. So, it is a balance between the sexes, because none of us is perfect. However, my overall point is that to use the word 'consent' when describing such situations is wrong, for consent is given only once, with the 'I do', and it applies for the life of the marriage.

I can see why you would want to say this in order to counter the secular culture's errors around the idea of consent. But I think it needs a bit of tweaking since "consent" is used concerning marital relations in Scripture (I Cor7:5):

Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #7 on:** February 02, 2018, 10:56:10 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 01, 2018, 06:47:38 PM

It would mean that one may force a spouse to have relations.

So, do you believe that it's possible for a husband to "rape" his wife ... as the modern feminist legal system now holds?

Marlelar · « **Reply #8 on:** February 02, 2018, 11:41:00 AM »

The topic of marital sex pops up routinely and I have noticed that it is the men who are concerned about their own rights, and the wife’s obligations rather than the other way around.

I think that all marriages would benefit if the husbands AND wives spent more time thinking about their own obligations and responsibilities within their marriage as a whole rather than about their rights between the sheets.

Jaynek · « **Reply #9 on:** February 02, 2018, 11:43:36 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 02, 2018, 10:56:10 AM

So, do you believe that it's possible for a husband to "rape" his wife ... as the modern feminist legal system now holds?

No, this idea is not logical and is a legal novelty. I suspect that this is what Pax Vobis had in mind when making those comments about consent. But forcing a spouse to have relations would not be charitable.

Jaynek · « **Reply #10 on:** February 02, 2018, 11:45:22 AM »

Quote from: Marlelar on February 02, 2018, 11:41:00 AM

The topic of marital sex pops up routinely and I have noticed that it is the men who are concerned about their own rights, and the wife’s obligations rather than the other way around.

I think that all marriages would benefit if the husbands AND wives spent more time thinking about their own obligations and responsibilities within their marriage as a whole rather than about their rights between the sheets.

The marital debt is a mutual obligation, not just for wives. It is a widely misunderstood teaching of the Church and we should be concerned to see it better understood.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** February 02, 2018, 12:06:00 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 02, 2018, 11:43:36 AM

No, this idea is not logical and is a legal novelty. I suspect that this is what Pax Vobis had in mind when making those comments about consent. But forcing a spouse to have relations would not be charitable.

Agreed. Permitted in strict justice, but contrary to charity (in some cases).

Let's say, however, that a wife had been refusing the debt for a long time without sufficient justification. Could a husband, without a violation of charity even, forcibly collect on the debt as it were ... say, because, he felt himself being in danger of incontinence if the situation continued ... provided of course that the wife was not ill or otherwise greatly burdened to render the debt? I would think so.

Of course, there's a part of me that thinks that this debt should always be freely given ... at least ideally. Of course, in pronouncing the marriage vows, that consent had already been given and remains in force throughout the marriage. Yet there's something that seems just a little off about forcibly collecting the debt, almost as if you were trying to force someone to love you. Love by its nature seems that it could and should only be freely given ... and I view the debt similarly. Yet I would not accuse a husband of any sin for acting in the manner I described above.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #12 on:** February 02, 2018, 12:11:01 PM »

Quote from: Marlelar on February 02, 2018, 11:41:00 AM

The topic of marital sex pops up routinely and I have noticed that it is the men who are concerned about their own rights, and the wife’s obligations rather than the other way around.

I think that all marriages would benefit if the husbands AND wives spent more time thinking about their own obligations and responsibilities within their marriage as a whole rather than about their rights between the sheets.

I don't know of anyone who would say that the husband is not equally bound to render the debt. I just think it far more common for women to withhold the debt than for men to do so. Perhaps that's why it appears that the concern is a bit one-sided.

But I really do believe that their "rights between the sheets" are extremely important to the marriage bond. It's scientifically well docuмented that various hormones and neurotransmitters are increased that cause a sense of bonding between the husband and wife ... that foster intimacy and mutual affection, etc. When couples are more physically intimate, there's also a greater likelihood that they have a strong affection for one another and are more generous overall in the relationship. And Catholic theologians have always focused on this debt as being the defining right/debt in marriage.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #13 on:** February 02, 2018, 12:14:32 PM »

Quote

I can see why you would want to say this in order to counter the secular culture's errors around the idea of consent. But I think it needs a bit of tweaking since "consent" is used concerning marital relations in Scripture (I Cor7:5):

Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

St Paul is talking about periods of chastity in marriage. He's saying it's allowed, for a time, IF BOTH CONSENT. If one of the spouses does not consent, then it's not allowed. This has nothing to do with normal, everyday marriage.

Jaynek · « **Reply #14 on:** February 02, 2018, 12:18:44 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 02, 2018, 12:06:00 PM

Agreed. Permitted in strict justice, but contrary to charity (in some cases).

Let's say, however, that a wife had been refusing the debt for a long time without sufficient justification. Could a husband, without a violation of charity even, forcibly collect on the debt as it were ... say, because, he felt himself being in danger of incontinence if the situation continued ... provided of course that the wife was not ill or otherwise greatly burdened to render the debt? I would think so.

Of course, there's a part of me that thinks that this debt should always be freely given ... at least ideally. Of course, in pronouncing the marriage vows, that consent had already been given and remains in force throughout the marriage. Yet there's something that seems just a little off about forcibly collecting the debt, almost as if you were trying to force someone to love you. Love by its nature seems that it could and should only be freely given ... and I view the debt similarly. Yet I would not accuse a husband of any sin for acting in the manner I described above.

In this hypothetical situation the wife is clearly committing a serious sin and damaging their relationship. If the husband were to force the wife this would further damage the relationship to a point that it might not be reparable. I can't see this being a good solution. He would probably be better off fighting the danger of incontinence. After all, single people do it all the time.

Author Topic: NFP Thought (Read 8414 times)

PG

NFP Thought

Jaynek

Re: NFP Thought

PG

Re: NFP Thought

Jaynek

Re: NFP Thought

Pax Vobis

Re: NFP Thought

Last Tradhican

Re: NFP Thought

Jaynek

Re: NFP Thought

Ladislaus

Re: NFP Thought

Marlelar

Re: NFP Thought

Jaynek

Re: NFP Thought

Jaynek

Re: NFP Thought

Ladislaus

Re: NFP Thought

Ladislaus

Re: NFP Thought

Pax Vobis

Re: NFP Thought

Jaynek

Re: NFP Thought