Contracepting spouse

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bonaventurian said:
So this is my situation right now. I converted to the faith last year and my wife is still non-religious with no real interest in it at all. We have 2 kids right now. I’ve had the discussion of NFP with her a few times, but it never goes well. I’ve brought this up with multiple confessors and all of them have said that I am not complicit in this sin if she absolutely refuses to get off of it. I can still engage in relations with her for the good of the marriage.
It’s lead to a lot of scruples with me, but every time I confess it I am told it is not my sin.
Click to expand...
This is my situation as well. Except my wife is a Protestant. We have a 3 year old an 18 month old and a 5 month old. I have no problem with the church teaching on contraceptives. But my wife doesn’t want to be pregnant again for awhile. So she uses birth control. I do not, in any form. My confessor has told me it’s her sin, not mine.
 
Nexplanon. It’s an implant that prevents the egg from dropping from the ovaries. It’s not abortofacient from what I’ve read about it, not that it makes the practice okay.
 
From nexplanon’s website.
It prevents pregnancy in 3 ways
  1. Suppresses ovulation
  2. Thickens cervical mucus inhibiting sperm traveling to egg should egg be released.
  3. Thins the uterus so if the first two mechanisms fail implantation is prevented.
The third mechanism is abortifacient in nature and the first two are to prevent there from being anything to abort.
So it is designed that if it fails in the first two mechanisms it has a possible a abortifacient mechanism purposely built in.

This is just information for your discernment.

I for one could not take part in the marital act knowing that should conception happen human life could be destroyed on purpose.
 
Bonaventurian said:
So this is my situation right now. I converted to the faith last year and my wife is still non-religious with no real interest in it at all. We have 2 kids right now. I’ve had the discussion of NFP with her a few times, but it never goes well. I’ve brought this up with multiple confessors and all of them have said that I am not complicit in this sin if she absolutely refuses to get off of it. I can still engage in relations with her for the good of the marriage.
It’s lead to a lot of scruples with me, but every time I confess it I am told it is not my sin.
Click to expand...
If ever there was a time to ask your confessor and follow his instructions, this is it. No matter what people on the Internet say, this is not a cut and dry situation. One must weight all the intricacies of the situation in order to determine the best course of action. This is even more true when the spouse is not Catholic and the other is a recent convert.

I’m in the same situation, and I have been advised that it’s not my sin.
 
So it depends on which confessor you draw if it is sinful or not?
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
So it depends on which confessor you draw if it is sinful or not?
Click to expand...
Who’s to say?

What I do know is that it is the priest’s vocation and responsibility to instruct his sheep. And, he must answer for how he leads the sheep at his particular judgment.

There is no black and white answer and so we rely on the priest who has authority over us to lead us and guide us.
 
To a well formed conscience there is a black and white answer for any situation.
 
I would go back and ask the priest what Hooser said about it being abortifacient. It’s not logical to risk the life of a concieved child.
 
Yes, I saw that too. I typically avoid the act anyway (no time due to kids, energy, or libido due to my medication). So it’s not like I’m indulging myself because I got a “pass” from my confessor. I would rather not even risk option 3 coming about, so I only engage in the act of my spouse requests it. So I’ve gone months without engaging in the conjugal act at a time.
 
Last edited:
Let us exclude the abortion effect, scandal, and circumstances for a second. The answer to whether this is formal cooperation depends on the precise object of direct contraception (in its various forms)

The husband’s cooperation in sex is somewhat remote to the act of his wife swallowing the pill, his hands are not necessary to help his wife lift the pill up to her mouth.

Regarding intercourse with condoms, the act cannot occur without the direct participation of his wife. Therefore, a wife can never cooperate with the condomistic sex of her husband, ever, period.

But what about the hormonally contracepted sexual intercourse later in the day, is that direct contraception? It depends on whether it is in itself ordered towards procreation. If it isn’t, then the husband is formally cooperating in the evil of his wife’s intercourse.

The “object” of an act has a material and formal dimension, the formal dimension being where the intellect cognizes the end that the act is ordered towards (and other essential constituents of the object… which are not circumstances). Does the wife’s intellect recognizing that she is in a sterilized state as a result of a past act of direct contraception, make her present sexual intercourse intrinsically evil? The answer to this would also answer whether spouses can consummate a marriage while using contraception (is it an act suitable for procreation?) My thoughts.
  1. The majority of the Vatican’s expert Cannon Lawyers for the revised 1983 Code of Cannon Law thought that sexual intercourse was still ordered towards procreation, regardless of contraception use, because by uniting in this way it was inherently connected to insemination, the proximate end.
  2. The formal dimension of the object of sexual intercourse (after contraception use) is not directly deducible from the Magisterium as it stands. Therefore, all we have are two “theories.” When conservatives have the Magisterium on their side, the Church typically does not change. However, in the absence of guidance either way, the Church typically tends, over hundreds of years, towards the more permissive theory.
  3. Conservatives who argue that sexual intercourse after direct contraception, is not suitable for procreation have to make overly complicated theories of the Moral Object (and while the Moral Law may just be complicated, the simpler theory may be more probable). Essentially, if the “formal dimension” of the object of sexual intercourse involved the knowing choice, that is, the intellect recognizing the temporary infertile state because of direct contraception, then why wouldn’t the formal dimension also involve the intellect recognizing the infertile state as a result of direct sterilization (say after a vasectomy)? For the conservatives to get around saying all wives cooperating with a husband who got a vesectomy need to be abstinent for the rest of their marriages, they then make overly complicated theories of the moral object. Therefore, it appears less probable.
My advice? Yellow light! I will not green light it and say it’s not direct contraception, but I won’t red light either. I’ll wait for more guidance! Form your conscious well!
 
Last edited:
  1. Consider my previous post that we do not know with certainty whether future acts of sexual intercourse (where the intellect recognizes that one is in a contracepted state as a result of a prior act of direct contraception), may be deprived of procreation in the object, and intrinsically evil.
Finally, the abortion effect is very important.
  1. Certain types of direct contraception that work though abortion means, with a sufficiently high chance of an abortion effect, may very well be abortificant in the object. These acts may be intrinsically evil and never justified.
  2. Even if you pass steps 1 and 2, and it is not intrinsically evil, a proportionate reason is still necessary. Therefore, given Catholics care about the embryo just as much as any other human being, and detest contraceptive effects, a grave circumstance (death, losing your house, starvation), is likely required to justify this cooperation. Below is the Vademecum for Confessors, which clearly says a proportionate GRAVE reason is needed. Also, Denzinger 2795 also requires a grave reason to cooperate with onanism. Although Natural Onanism is more proximate than direct contraception to the sex act of the cooperating spouse, it is still a very probable opinion (combined with potential abortion effects), that a grave reason is required!
A) when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself
B)when proportionally GRAVE reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse

My advice? Look at the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) website and do not cooperate with the contraception for any reason if your wife is taking anything on the list with a potential abortion effect. Also, even if not on the list, still be concerned/ do research about rare abortion effects! Just like we wear seat belts, even though car accidents are somewhat rare, treat the embyo in a similar manner as any other human and similarly flee from the abortion effects (even if rare)!

Here is one other consideration in the Vademecum for confessors.
  1. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
Also, your intentions, motivations, and desires, must ALWAYS be purified. Make sure you are not intending the evil effect. Even if you are relieved you will not have kids, do not let that become your intention, motivation, what is in your heart. Always and everywhere have disgust and repulsion for direct contraception.

Finally, two other sins to consider: sins of omission and sins of scandal.

Make sure you are not omitting anything you could have otherwise done! For example, if your wife were taking contraception to treat a disease, then it is almost certainly an omission, if you could have gotten that effect without resorting to hormonal contraception. So make sure, no omissions!

As for scandal, make sure you are not leading anyone astray by your actions! Make sure you make it clear to everyone that you detest and utterly disagree with direct contraception!
 
Last edited:
I’m wondering if the sin of the moral object in the act being non procreative in a man’s vasectomy happens once, while oral contraceptive happens daily.

Plus, in the circumstances, a male vasectomy is not abortifacient while abortifacient female contraceptives are abortifacient.
 
That first post was excluding abortion effects, sins of omission, scandal, and proportionate circumstances (I know, it can seem like a ton of considerations).

I was looking at “formal cooperation in evil.” If it is not formal cooperation in an evil act of sexual intercourse (because the object is moral/ ordered toward procreation), then like you said, the only cooperation left that a husband or wife is doing is with the prior acts that got the other spouse in that infertile state.

And like you said, the fact that the pill is being taken every day, but the vasectomy only occured once, would make the pill more proximate in cooperation.

This is because, the wife keeps needing to commit the sin of swallowing the pill over and over again, to keep her in that contracepted state. And she needs to be in that state for months on end, because the husband keeps having intercourse that she keeps needing to avoid the consequences of. So in that regard, the husband is more proximately cooperating (his intercourse is contributing to why she is persisting in taking the pill).

But like I said before, whether there is no other option than complete abstinence, depends on whether the sexual intercourse, not what got you in the infertile state to begin with, is intrinsically evil… because then it would be intrinsically evil for the other spouse to cooperate in that intercourse… because the other spouse is a necessary agent to perform the intrinsically evil act… and abstinence is the only moral option.

However, if it is not formal cooperation in evil, and it is potentially moral to cooperate with the marital relations, then what you are saying entirely makes sense, the vasectomy is more remote than the pill! Plus, once adding in the abortion effects that I purposefully excluded, the pill would totally be worse! I hope I’m making sense!
 
Last edited:
One thing not mentioned is that the pill is not 100% effective. Bottom line, we are not responsibility for another’s actions. Have sex with your wife and continue to pray for her conversion. Also, follow the advice of your confessor. The Lord will honor what advice you get.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top