Bad advice

[ADiosgracias]

What should I do if a priest give me an advise that is not what the church say.
My husband don’t want to use NFP and the priest said me it is ok.
My conscience tell me to obey the teaching of the church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Church does endorse NFP. That is not bad advice.

 

[ADiosgracias]

The priest said me not to use NFP is ok. and he agree with my husband not to use it!!

 

[michaelmas]

The best thing to do is talk with your priest about your concerns. Tell him what the church says and ask him why it is okay. It is a tough.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I am trying to understand what you are saying here.

NPF (natural family planning) is the only form of “birth control” that is allowed by the church.
It is not required that one practice it,
but one cannot use artificial birth conrol (condoms, “the pill”, etc) instead.

The use of artificial birth control methods is prohibited by the Church.

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

The primary end of marriage is procreation and the education of children.

Perhaps the post VII Church allows NFP. But that does not make it the best option for fulfilling God’s purpose when it comes to marriage.

 

[ADiosgracias]

Let me explain this.
My husband want to use artificial birth control and I want NFP, The priest during confession tell me that is ok to obey my husband will. “you are not the ones who sin”
I want my husband sanctity, and I don’t want to consent what is wrong.

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

Well, honestly, neither are right though are they.

The primary end of marriage is what it is. You knew that when you were married. You should not use either.

If your husband wishes to use contraception, you must inform him that by doing so he invalidates his right to the marriage debt; therefore, unless he consents to fulfill his end of the bargain he made on his marriage day, you may simply with-hold from him the marriage debt.

I don’t think it will take long for him to fall into line if you use this method

Don’t use NFP. It stands contrary to the Faith.

 

[LilyM]

Well, honestly, neither are right though are they.

The primary end of marriage is what it is. You knew that when you were married. You should not use either.

If your husband wishes to use contraception, you must inform him that by doing so he invalidates his right to the marriage debt; therefore, unless he consents to fulfill his end of the bargain he made on his marriage day, you may simply with-hold from him the marriage debt.

I don’t think it will take long for him to fall into line if you use this method

Don’t use NFP. It stands contrary to the Faith.

NFP does not stand contrary to the faith when used for grave reason. If it is invariably immoral for a woman to avoid sex at a time when she knows she is infertile, then certainly that would mean it is also immoral to have sex while pregnant, or once menopause has occurred. Which the Church does not teach.

And what sort of marriage do you have when a husband is bullied and coerced into doing anything, even for his own eternal good? Outward but grumbling conformity contrary to one’s beliefs is not the path to salvation.

St Monica didn’t bully her husband into becoming Catholic, even though they were many years into their marriage before he did so. She simply stormed heaven with prayer.

 

[Corki]

Let me explain this.
My husband want to use artificial birth control and I want NFP, The priest during confession tell me that is ok to obey my husband will. “you are not the ones who sin”
I want my husband sanctity, and I don’t want to consent what is wrong.

The priest is correct. As long as you are not the one using the contraception and you make your position against ABC known to your husband, you are allowed to engage in relations without committing a sin yourself even if you husband is using a contraceptive… You are not required to engage in relations, however. It’s up to you to decide what is best for you and for your marriage.

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

NFP does not stand contrary to the faith when used for grave reason. I

Ok. Where in this thread has evidence been shown of grave reason? Or is your argument somewhat unsupported in this case?

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

The priest is correct. As long as you are not the one using the contraception and you make your position against ABC known to your husband, you are allowed to engage in relations without committing a sin yourself even if you husband is using a contraceptive… You are not required to engage in relations, however. It’s up to you to decide what is best for you and for your marriage.

How would that not be participating in the sins of others?

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

Also, LilyM I am not advocating bullying. But by using contraception the husband invalidates his right to the marriage debt, which removes any and all obligation upon the wife to fulfill the debt. Therefore, if she does not wish to participate in an unnatural act such as said husband proposes she is under no obligation to do so. Refusal to do so is certainly commendable.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It is not right for either spouse in a marriage to withhold the marriage debt in order to get their way, even in the case of one wanting to use artificial birth control.

Corki explained the church position on this issue. I believe it has also been answered by an apologist here. I suggest the OP do a search.

The marital union is so important that in a case like this, where the wife makes known her position to her husband, does not use the birth control method herself, and appropriately discusses it with her husband, she is not sinning if he uses birth control over her ojections.

Here is the answer from Fr Serpa.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135215

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

Right, Mrs Sally, let’s rephrase your comment in more transparent terms, shall we?
You are arguing that the OP is obliged to participate in a mortally sinful act (regardless of the fact that she herself would not be guilty of a mortal sin, her participation would have enabled another soul to have committed a mortal sin - a mortal sin which could not have been committed without her participation).

And secondly, are you stating that there is a limit to the length one ought to go to to try and prevent their spouse from falling into a state of mortal sin?

All I am saying, and it is undeniably supported by the doctrine of Holy Mother Church btw, is that she is under no obligation to fulfill the marriage debt under such circumstances.

And all you are saying, for the record, is that she is obliged to assist in her husband committing a mortal sin and perverting the primary purpose of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Tell me, Mrs Sally, what number of mortal sins does it take to purchase a soul’s damnation?

Is it one thousand?

Is it one hundred?

Is it ten?

But, uh-oh. What happens if it is only… gasp ONE?

You may not believe that it is - but just check what Mother Church has to say about it.

Would you willing aid your husband in mortal sin, even if you were under no obligation to do so?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Please read the quote from Fr Serpa. I am only stating church teaching.

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

The Church has never taught that a person is obliged to aid in the commission of mortal sins; you, however, stated exactly that.

 

[LilyM]

Ok. Where in this thread has evidence been shown of grave reason? Or is your argument somewhat unsupported in this case?

On the contrary, my friend. We are not privy to the OP’s reasons, nor shoukd we be, they are not our business.

suffice it that both she and her husband (and, I might add, their priest) think that there is sufficient reason to avoid childbirth.

Charity demands that we assume that as a group these three between them are sufficiently versed in church teaching and serious about obeying same that they did not collectively err on that point. Unless proven otherwise.

How would that not be participating in the sins of others?

Others, even spouses, are individuals with individual responsibility. The responsibility of spouses for each others’ souls is not so absolute that it is accounted participation when one spouse goes their own way against the expressed will and beliefs of the other.

God did not hold Queen Esther to blame for the paganism of her husband, for example.

 

[Tridentine_Cat]

I think you’re missing the point, Sally.

It’s not about the OP’s accountability. It’s about the fact that her spouse can only commit this mortal sin with her participation - participation which, despite your claims to the contrary, she is under no obligation to give.

 

[LilyM]

I think you’re missing the point, Sally.

It’s not about the OP’s accountability. It’s about the fact that her spouse can only commit this mortal sin with her participation - participation which, despite your claims to the contrary, she is under no obligation to give.

It is certainly within the realms of possibility for him to get a vasectomy without her knowledge, for example. Or to use spermicide while telling her it is lubricant. There may be other possibilities where her knowledge and participation are not required.

Besides which, if he even buys condoms with the intent that they be used, he has committed the sin regardless of whether she ultimately refuses. If I intend to rob a bank, buy a gun and go to the address with the intent of robbery, I am guilty even if for reasons beyond my control (say the bank closed down without my knowledge) the robbery doesn’t proceed.