Bad advice

  • Thread starter Thread starter ADiosgracias
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LilyM said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those cases, you are right, do not negate the marriage debt. But a case in which she has outright knowledge of his using contracteptives, does. This is the first stumbling block, as you have not addressed your claim that it does not negate the marriage debt in this case - please do so. I would like to see exactly upon what you have established this.

Now, given full knowledge, why on earth would any good Catholic willingly aid their spouse in mortal sin?

Here is the second question, which I have asked several times, that you have outright avoided.

Please address these.

And also, if he buys with intent but does not follow through the sin is lessened for a start, as he has for example avoided onanism. There are several other relevant factors which could be in play depending on the nature of the specific situation as well.
Of course, this too is far from the ideal, but much better than simply taking the attitude you are proposing: Oh well, you’re gonna do it any way, so how can I help?

Thanks,

🙂
 
I disagree with the tone you are using, Cat.

Her husband is committing sin against her. It against the meaning and purpose of the marriage, this is true. Should she seek anullment, she would be in her rights to do so, but, she is not obligated to. In fact, it could be morally virtuous, even heroic, to tolerate an evil man. That is what I was told by a priest, and, it eventually converted my husband.

With all due respect, the traditionalist mindset is so legalistic, it trumps charity, and encourages divisivenss. I think our traditionalist friend, sincere as she is, is oblivious to the fact that she is attempting to take over the thread by starting (yet another) legalistic arguement at the expense of our OP’s very real and serious problem.

My advice, dear One, is to be very straightforward about your feelings, and let him know God comes before him in your affections. Then, shower him with love. See what happens.

😉
 
Tridentine_Cat said:
The Church has never taught that a person is obliged to aid in the commission of mortal sins; you, however, stated exactly that.
Click to expand...
You are correct that the non-contracepting spouse is not **obligated **to participate in the marital act if her husband is contracepting. However, neither is she culpable if her husband contacepts against her objections and she aquieses to having relations.

If her husband insists on having contraceptive sex with her, she is the victim. The victim is not culpable for the sins of the other.

A discussion about the marital debt is somewhat misleading. The failure regarding the marital debt here is the husband’s, not the wife’s. The husband, by not fulfilling his obligation for the marriage act to be procreative and unitive, is not fulfilling **his **marital debt.
 
Ceil-1 said:
I disagree with the tone you are using, Cat.

Her husband is committing sin against her. It against the meaning and purpose of the marriage, this is true. Should she seek anullment, she would be in her rights to do so, but, she is not obligated to. In fact, it could be morally virtuous, even heroic, to tolerate an evil man. That is what I was told by a priest, and, it eventually converted my husband.

With all due respect, the traditionalist mindset is so legalistic, it trumps charity, and encourages divisivenss. I think our traditionalist friend, sincere as she is, is oblivious to the fact that she is attempting to take over the thread by starting (yet another) legalistic arguement at the expense of our OP’s very real and serious problem.

My advice, dear One, is to be very straightforward about your feelings, and let him know God comes before him in your affections. Then, shower him with love. See what happens.

😉
Click to expand...
An annulment in this case would be invalid.
The exclusion of children is certainly a grounds for a declaration of nullity, but only when there is an explicit, provable, and positive act of the will to avoid children, that is, only when the obligation of having children, as being the fulfillment of the first purpose of marriage, is explicitly excluded. For this is an intention contrary to the substance of marriage itself. The difficulty in such cases is to determine whether it is the obligation of having children which is refused, or whether it is simply the fulfillment of this obligation (cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, I, pp. 532,533).
Click to expand...
 
For starters I never said she had no right to refuse. I just said I didn’t think it was wise. And what happens when there is a Mexican standoff, as there almost certainly will be, with neither side wanting to give in? Adultery? Divorce? Are these so much better than contraception?

Your theology is a bit off, by the way. Sin begins in the heart - if his heart is intent on contraception then he is guilty, even if it doesn’t eventuate because of a lack of ‘willing accomplice’ for want of a better word.

And if he gives in to keep her happy, all the while still believing that contraception is fine and dandy, the situation is not hugely improved. God wants conversion of the heart, not outward conformity purely based on his desire for continued sex! Such a motive never got anyone to heaven.

However, a little bit of understanding on her part combined with a lot of prayer just might inspire him to look into, and accept, her views. St Paul talks about believing spouses sanctifying unbelieving ones in this way.
Tridentine_Cat said:
Those cases, you are right, do not negate the marriage debt. But a case in which she has outright knowledge of his using contracteptives, does. This is the first stumbling block, as you have not addressed your claim that it does not negate the marriage debt in this case - please do so. I would like to see exactly upon what you have established this.

Now, given full knowledge, why on earth would any good Catholic willingly aid their spouse in mortal sin?

Here is the second question, which I have asked several times, that you have outright avoided.

Please address these.

And also, if he buys with intent but does not follow through the sin is lessened for a start, as he has for example avoided onanism. There are several other relevant factors which could be in play depending on the nature of the specific situation as well.
Of course, this too is far from the ideal, but much better than simply taking the attitude you are proposing: Oh well, you’re gonna do it any way, so how can I help?

Thanks,

🙂
Click to expand...
 
Corki said:
You are correct that the non-contracepting spouse is not **obligated **to participate in the marital act if her husband is contracepting. However, neither is she culpable if her husband contacepts against her objections and she aquieses to having relations.

If her husband insists on having contraceptive sex with her, she is the victim. The victim is not culpable for the sins of the other.

A discussion about the marital debt is somewhat misleading. The failure regarding the marital debt here is the husband’s, not the wife’s. The husband, by not fulfilling his obligation for the marriage act to be procreative and unitive, is not fulfilling **his **marital debt.
Click to expand...
I have not once said she will be culpable of any sin.

What I have consistently stated is that he cannot commit this mortal sin without her participation, a participation which she is under no obligation to give. Therefore she is well within rights to act in the interests of the common good and in the interest of the wellbeing of the soul of her spouse, by refusing to participate.

What she does do is, ultimately, her choice. However I am offering a point of view that, despite not one single other poster here agreeing with, nobody has yet been capable of refuting.

🙂
 
Tridentine_Cat said:
My theology ends at '62. My statements are based in canon law (1917). How does this make them “off” ?
Click to expand...
Your theology sadly neglects Scripture - ‘whoever looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart’. The thought is equivalent to the act in many cases, my friend.

As for your idea that no valid theology has been produced in the last 50 years - shame on you for assuming Our Lord and the Holy Spirit would neglect the Church so!
 
LilyM said:
Your theology sadly neglects Scripture - ‘whoever looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart’. The thought is equivalent to the act in many cases, my friend.

As for your idea that no valid theology has been produced in the last 50 years - shame on you for assuming Our Lord and the Holy Spirit would neglect the Church so!
Click to expand...
Lol. That is not a statement which can be attributed to me. I merely said that my theology stops at 62. I am, after all, a Traditional Catholic.

Besides, Our Lord and the Holy Ghost cannot have neglected us, for they gave us His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St Pius X, without whom all pre-VII Tradition could not have been here today! I kid you not; all lineages of all current Trad Cat groups trace back to His Grace in some way, shape or form.
Those which did not have died out.

There are some other factors which surround that Scripture quote, and it can be interpreted very specifically by certain Doctors and by Mother Church herself.

AS far as “thought and act” in this case, the thought is certainly sinful in and of itself. Depending on certain relevant factors it may be venial or mortal - one cannot say without a greater insight, perhaps only his spiritual director will ultimately know!
However, if he commits this sin in thought and not in act at the very least he has committed the lesser of two evils both overtly, and also covertly as in commission of the act he could only be guilty of mortal sin and also he would be inherently be guilty of onanism as well.

I do not wish to argue about the matter any further as it is descending into bitter zeal. This does not benefit the OP in any way, shape or form.

My advice is what it is; if she wishes to follow it, for the reasons I have given or perhaps reasons of her own, then she is welcome to - and there is no sin in doing so.

If she follows your advice, she is not culpable of her husband’s sin.

She may choose as she wishes, she may choose some of column A and some of column B; she may choose another course of action altogether.

I merely hope to have offered some helpful advice.
 
Also LilyM I do owe you an apology: earlier in the thread I called you Sally, as I confused you with another poster in the thread. Sorry about that.

🙂
 
Tridentine_Cat said:
What she does do is, ultimately, her choice. However I am offering a point of view that, despite not one single other poster here agreeing with, nobody has yet been capable of refuting.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point of view, and, you have made it very clear. Well done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top