Contraception and Spouses

[Anima_Christi]

I have always been under the impression that if one spouse refuses to be open to life during intercourse (uses contraception), the other spouse should withhold marital relations that are not open to life. This is the morally acceptable thing to do, is it not?
Michelle Arnold claims that, for example, if a husband is open to life and the wife is not, as long as she is the one using the contraceptive (the wife is taking birth control pills, for example; the husband is not wearing a condom or personally using any contraception) they may still engage in sexual relations! This seems incorrect. Here is the post I am referring to: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76765
Do you agree with Michelle Arnold, or with the priest who refused the man absolution? I agree with the priest.

 

[Catholic2003]

Michelle Arnold gave a link to the Church teaching, which says:

1. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
   1. *]when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
      *]when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
      *]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).

1. 
   I see no reason to question it.

 

[Madia]

Maybe this thread will help you:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74056

 

[1ke]

Anima Christi:

I have always been under the impression that if one spouse refuses to be open to life during intercourse (uses contraception), the other spouse should withhold marital relations that are not open to life. This is the morally acceptable thing to do, is it not?
Michelle Arnold claims that, for example, if a husband is open to life and the wife is not, as long as she is the one using the contraceptive (the wife is taking birth control pills, for example; the husband is not wearing a condom or personally using any contraception) they may still engage in sexual relations! This seems incorrect. Here is the post I am referring to: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76765
Do you agree with Michelle Arnold, or with the priest who refused the man absolution? I agree with the priest.

I agree with Michelle Arnold, who provided documentation from the Vatican. I believe the priest was in error in this case.

 

[Madia]

First off, birth control pills which contain aborifacients can cause a chemical abortion of the child if it is conceived:
all.org/issues/bc01.htm

when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;

What proportionally grave reason would there be for permitting the death of a child?

I agree with Michelle Arnold, who provided documentation from the Vatican.

Are you talking about #15 of Humanae Vitae?
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

“Forseeable impediment to proceation” means a contraceptive or sterile effect, not aborifacient effect. Aborifacients are not an impediment to procreation; they attempt to abort a child that has already been conceived.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the aborifacient effect of the pill unknown at the time the Encylical was wrote?

 

[1ke]

Madia,

Please click on the link provided by the original poster for the link ot the Vatican website.

And, while I respect American Life League, Judie Brown is not a theologian or a representative of the Magesterium and I disagree with ALL’s position and I concur with Michelle Arnold’s.

 

[Madia]

Please click on the link provided by the original poster for the link ot the Vatican website.

From Vadecum For Confessors:

1. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.48

(48) “From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74).

Lets try an example. Say a bedridden woman in a hospital is on medication that can cause her to possibly hemorrhage if she drinks alcohol. She, however doesn’t care and asks her husband to get her some. The husband doesn’t want her to hemorrage but decides to buy his wife the alcohol anyway. The woman drinks it and dies from a hemorrhage. Now, since the husband did not intend for his wife to hemorrhage was it ok for him to give her the alcohol? Do you think he’ll be held accountable for her death? Couldn’t the death have been prevented by the husband not giving his wife alcohol?

Now, when a woman is on an abortifacient pill her child can possibly die when conceived. She, however doesn’t care and asks her husband to engage in sexual relations. The husband doesn’t want the child to die but performs the marital act anyway. The woman’s egg is fertilized by the husband’s sperm but the child is then chemically aborted. Now, since the husband didn’t want the child to die is ok for him to have performed the marital act with his wife? Is he in any way accountable for that child’s death? If he didn’t perform the marital act, would that child still have died?

And, while I respect American Life League, Judie Brown is not a theologian or a representative of the Magesterium and I disagree with ALL’s position and I concur with Michelle Arnold’s.

Is the breaking up of a marriage a proportionatley grave reason to permit the death of a child?

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I think one of the problems here is that in the original post the gentleman **does not specify ** how they are “not being open to life” ie. either a contraceptive method (condoms, etc.) or a contraceptive/abortifacient method (pill).

One group is arguing based on the idea that they are not being open to life via contraception, and another is arguing that they are not being open to life** via the pill**, with abortifacient (causes an abortion if conception should occur) **and contraceptive ** (“A device, drug, or chemical agent that prevents conception”) qualities.

The Church document presented mentions the situation as “a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund”. So it is important to think of what the term infecund means, which would be lacking fecundity, which means barren; infertile. Now infertile means incapable of producing offspring; sterile. Which to me sounds more like not able to conceive, rather than conceiving and then killing the embryo.

So basically it all depends on **how ** they are not being open to life and what ** the Church means ** by rendering the unitive act infecund (which I think clearly means not allowing for conception rather than causing an abortion after conception had occurred).

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

lifeisbeautiful:

I think one of the problems here is that in the original post the gentleman **does not specify **how they are “not being open to life” ie. either a contraceptive method (condoms, etc.) or a contraceptive/abortifacient method (pill).

But in Michelle Arnold’s reply she uses the Pill as an example.

Malia

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Feanaro's Wife:

But in Michelle Arnold’s reply she uses the Pill as an example.

Malia

Oh, wow, that is true, you are right.

She said: *"Although you cannot yourself use contraception (e.g., condoms), you can engage in marital relations with your wife even if she insists on using contraception herself *(e.g., the Pill). ** You are required to make known to her your objection to using contraception, to pray for her and to provide her with information on the issue of why you oppose contraception (e.g., moral and physical dangers); but, for the sake of maintaining the marriage, you are not required to abstain from the marital act with her."

Wow, then it doesn’t make much sense to me either. The Church uses the terms: “a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund”. Unless the definition for infecund includes causing death, which I seriously doubt, then I cannot see how using an abortifacient can be ok.

Here’s one secular site that states that oral contraceptives are abortifacient:
e-gynecologic.com/birthcon.html

Here is a pro-life site on contraceptives with abortifacient qualities too:
quiverfull.com/birth_control/pill_abortifacient.html

Also, the Church’s document she posted a link to says:
“14. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.48”

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Catholic2003:

Michelle Arnold gave a link to the Church teaching, which says:

I see no reason to question it.

Actually, you didn’t include the next line in the Church’s Document:
“14. Furthermore, it is necessary to carefully evaluate the question of cooperation in evil when recourse is made to means which can have an abortifacient effect.48”

And that number 48 leads to a foot note that says:
48) “From the moral standpoint, it is **never licit ** to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (John Paul II, Enc. Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, n. 74).

And this is on the link Michelle Arnold posted.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

Has anyone posted a follow up question to AAA to clear this up?

Malia

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Feanaro's Wife:

Has anyone posted a follow up question to AAA to clear this up?

Malia

Yeah, someone should definitely post a follow up question. You or I could do it if no one else has done it already.
Just let me know, I am totally available to do it.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

lifeisbeautiful:

Yeah, someone should definitely post a follow up question. You or I could do it if no one else has done it already.
Just let me know, I am totally available to do it.

Go for it…mine never seem to get answered, lol.

Malia

 

[Madia]

…direct participation in an act against innocent human life…

The question we must ask is whether the form of marital relations (action) taking place while the woman is on an abortifacient pill (in a concrete situation) can be defined as direct participation in an act against innocent human life. It seems to me that it is.

Now, marital relations by their nature are obviouslly not an act against innocent human life. However, it seems by the form marital relations take when the woman is on an abortifacient pill the marital act then becomes an act against innocent human life since the marital act can lead to a chemical abortion. By engaging in marital relations with his wife who is on an abortifacient pill the husband is directly partipating in an act against human life. There would be no act against innocent human life if the husband never engaged in marital relations with his wife while she was on the pill.

For example, a husband placing his child in a crib is obviouslly not an act against innocent human life. However, by the form placing a child in a crib takes when the husband’s wife puts three plastic bags in the crib the same act of putting his child into a crib becomes an act against innocent human life because placing the child in a crib with three plastic bags can lead to suffocation. By placing the child in a crib with three plastic bags the husband is directly partipating in an act against human life. There would be no act against innocent human life if the husband never put his child in the crib that the wife placed three plastic bags in.

 

[rayne89]

I agree with Michelle Arnold. If your spouse chooses to use contraception that is his/her sin not yours.

 

[Karen10]

I had a similar problem with the priest’s (Fr. Serpa?) answer to the woman who wanted to take the pill to regulate her cycle, with the aim of improving chances of conception later. The answer seemed incomplete.

I would have added, “It’s okay, *as long as you abstain from sex” *(assuming the Pill will be the abortifacient kind. My pro-life gyn said that only the Mini Pill is abortifacient–you can do your own research to deny or confirm that).

My point being, it’s not worth risking life just to regulate a non-life-threatening health problem (irregular cycle).

I did follow up to the Ask An Apologist forum.

 

[Madia]

If your spouse chooses to use [abortifacient] contraception that is his/her sin not yours.

From priestsforlife.org:

Some “contraceptives” have a backup mechanism whereby a newly-developing life may be destroyed in its microscopic stages. These drugs and devices are abortifacients, capable of causing early and usually unknown abortions. The morally relevant point here is that “it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974, n.12-13). If your action might kill a person, and you do it, you declare your willingness to kill a person (like shooting at what is behind the bush when you are uncertain whether it is a bear or a man).

By engaging in marital relations with a woman who is on an abortifacient pill (or iud) then then the couple is risking the murder of their child. Whether or not the husband intends the death he is still providing a means for the child’s death by allowing his child if conceived to be placed in an environment inhospitable to human life.

It seems that when on an abortifacient or iud the woman is changing her uterus (womb) from a hospitable into an inhospitable environment. I’m not sure of the specifics but basically it seems that the pill/iud will either irritate or inflame the lining/wall of the woman’s uterus in an attempt to prevent the child to attaching to the wall of the womb to get nourishment. If the child cannot implant, then it starves to death.

Do you believe that it is licit for a husband to allow his child to placed in an environment where the child could starve to death (engaging in marital relations while woman is on abortifacient pill/iud) when he can prevent that child from being in that environment (abstaining from marital relations)?

I had a similar problem with the priest’s (Fr. Serpa?) answer to the woman who wanted to take the pill to regulate her cycle, with the aim of improving chances of conception later.

This answer makes more sense to me:
all.org/issues/hayes001.htm

 

[kaymart]

What would happen in the case of a couple who against the wishes of the other becomes sterilized or years later one or both of them realizes their sin and truly confesses, must they seperate or abstain for life? Unlike a pill or IUD-chances of reversal are slim and expensive.

 

[Karen10]

kaymart:

What would happen in the case of a couple who against the wishes of the other becomes sterilized or years later one or both of them realizes their sin and truly confesses, must they seperate or abstain for life? Unlike a pill or IUD-chances of reversal are slim and expensive.

One of the apologists answered this question in Ask an Apologist recently. Their answer was that they do not have to abstain. It seems to be a grey area for me; it might be something best left to one’s conscience. Some people in this situation, after repenting, opt to practice NFP as if they were fertile (as a sort of penance) if the risks or costs of a surgical reversal are too great.