Contraception - Passive v. Active?

[cjaubert]

Here is a hypothet that I would appreciate comment on.

A Catholic woman is married to a non-Catholic man. The Catholic wife believes and accepts Church teaching that all forms of artificial birth control are intrinsically evil (CCC 2370). She has valid reasons for not wanting any more children, which leaves NFP as her only option for sexual relations with her husband.

The non-Catholic husband agrees that the couple should not have any more children at this time, but he also wishes to have sexual relations any time he wants to, and, therefore, wishes to wear a condom (i.e., contracept) while having sexual relations with his wife.

The Catholic wife argues, cajoles, attempts to persuade, gives resources, and tries her absolute best to convince her non-Catholic husband that contraception is wrong and tells him that she is unwilling to have sexual relations with him if he contracepts. The non-Catholic husband will have none of it, is not persuaded at all by his wife’s arguments, and will not budge on his position of wanting to contracept. The wife then gives in and has sexual relations with her husband who wears a condom.

The short question is, can she do this and not be in mortal sin? The longer question is, under ANY circumstance AT ALL can the wife engage in sexual relations with her husband who uses contraception? For example, would “saving the marriage” or “honoring her husband” or “honoring the sacrament of marriage” by giving in to her husband give the wife ANY excuse AT ALL to concede the point and have sexual relations with her husband even though she is 100% against contraception? If she does so, is she in mortal sin and can she receive the Eucharist by claiming, in essence, “I know it is wrong and I don’t want to do it, but I must honor my husband so I will do it anyway?”

I would certainly appreciate opinions on this, but also citation to support the opinions. Thank you, and God bless.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

You may be interested in the following posts from the Ask an Apologist forum:

Marital Sex and Contraception

What does one do when the other party wants to contracept?

May I poke holes in my husband’s condoms?

Am I doing enough to stop my wife from taking birth control?

As I understand it, the Church’s stance is that the first spouse is not sinning by consenting to have sexual relations with the contracepting spouse. The following quotation is from the “Vademecum for Confessors Concerning Some Aspects of the Morality of Conjugal Life” by the Pontifical Council for the Family:

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. This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:

-when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;
-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. 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.

 

[cjaubert]

Wow, this forum is great. Thanks so much for the fast response! I think all these links are VERY close to my question, but perhaps I did not include one detail that leaves it not fully answered. Let me explain:

Fr. Serpa responsed to one post by writing: “The Church does make provision for a Catholic whose spouse insists on using a contraceptive. Such a person is allowed, for the preservation of the marriage, to have intercourse so long as the other party uses the contraceptive.“

The detail I omitted is, in the case of a contracepting husband, is the non-contracepting wife “allowed for the preservation of the marriage” to have intercourse with her contracepting husband every single night, or, does she still have to have intercourse only when, for lack of a better word, it is a “red light” NFP night?

Thanks again for the swift response…

 

[mlldrl]

Guy here…hope you don’t mind if I chime in.

I’d suggest that you continue to practice your NFP method and refrain from relations with your husband during your fertile time. The reason being is that if one day you can get him to forgo the condom, the virtue of chastity will already have its foundation in your marriage. And speaking from my own experience, once I learned how to embrace chastity my relationship with my wife deepened and our relations became more satisfying. After that NFP was a piece of cake! It is one of the best things we’ve done for our marriage.

Not sure what the official opinion is on it but that’s my 2 cents worth.

YIC,
Michael

 

[1ke]

or, does she still have to have intercourse only when, for lack of a better word, it is a “red light” NFP night?

Thanks again for the swift response…

No, that would not be a requirement.

However, if the couple is serious about not having any more children it would be prudent to abstain as condoms have a high rate of failure and to use one on a day you know you ar fertile is, IMHO, insane. The fact that a DH would trust a condom in that situation rather than abstain is just mind boggling.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

The detail I omitted is, in the case of a contracepting husband, is the non-contracepting wife “allowed for the preservation of the marriage” to have intercourse with her contracepting husband every single night, or, does she still have to have intercourse only when, for lack of a better word, it is a “red light” NFP night?

Like 1ke said… yes, she would be allowed.

On a related note, I’ve also been curious for a while whether in such a situation the wife could legitimately refuse relations on such a day. I asked this yesterday in the AAA forum, so hopefully an answer will be posted soon.

 

[cjaubert]

No, that would not be a requirement.

Do you have any authority for this opinion?

 

[1ke]

Do you have any authority for this opinion?

See Jeff’s post #2. The guide for confessors does not distinguish one contracepted sex act from another.

On what would you base your idea that the woman would be required to abstain on certain days? I don’t really understand your line of reasoning on that one.

 

[cjaubert]

On what would you base your idea that the woman would be required to abstain on certain days? I don’t really understand your line of reasoning on that one.

Because if she now has intercourse every day, when she otherwise could not because of her desire to do NFP, she would have a “pass” that the otherwise would not have, soley because her spouse chooses to sin. In other words, if her spouse did not sin by contracepting, she would not be able to have intercourse every day; thus, she is getting a “benefit” from his sin. I see this as no different than her husband robbing a bank against her wishes and then she goes out and buys a car with the illegally obtained money.

 

[Brenda_V]

Because if she now has intercourse every day, when she otherwise could not because of her desire to do NFP, she would have a “pass” that the otherwise would not have, soley because her spouse chooses to sin. In other words, if her spouse did not sin by contracepting, she would not be able to have intercourse every day; thus, she is getting a “benefit” from his sin. I see this as no different than her husband robbing a bank against her wishes and then she goes out and buys a car with the illegally obtained money.

You are assuming she gets pleasure out of such days of intercourse. As the wife of a formerly contracepting spouse (the same case scenario as the OP gave us) I can tell you that I benefitted nothing from his desire to have intercourse anytime and my “giving in” if you will. There are no benefits when you know you have done your best to convince him otherwise and he continues to sin.

Your analogy of robbing a bank and buying a car actually is more accurate if we say, my spouse robs a bank and buys the car all the while I object and try to convince him of the wrongness (sinfulness) of such acts.

Brenda V.

 

[cjaubert]

You are assuming she gets pleasure out of such days of intercourse. As the wife of a formerly contracepting spouse (the same case scenario as the OP gave us) I can tell you that I benefitted nothing from his desire to have intercourse anytime and my “giving in” if you will. There are no benefits when you know you have done your best to convince him otherwise and he continues to sin.

Your analogy of robbing a bank and buying a car actually is more accurate if we say, my spouse robs a bank and buys the car all the while I object and try to convince him of the wrongness (sinfulness) of such acts.

Brenda V.

Regarding pleasure from intercourse: Yes, I am assuming this. But, it is not a predicate to my point. Let me try it this way:

She is pleasured by intercourse: Well, my point is as made. In addition, her marriage is harmed by the nature of cooperating in her husband’s sin, particularly when she is married to a husband who, apparently, does not care a lick about his wife.

She is not pleasured nor unpleasured by intercourse - the intercourse is irrelevant to her: She is still cooperating in sin and married to a husband who is engaged in objective mortal sin.

She is disgusted by intercourse: In this case, is she not, in essence, getting raped?

Regarding the car HE buys: Would you ride in it, or, disavow it’s very existence?

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut…

 

[fix]

Because if she now has intercourse every day, when she otherwise could not because of her desire to do NFP, she would have a “pass” that the otherwise would not have, soley because her spouse chooses to sin. In other words, if her spouse did not sin by contracepting, she would not be able to have intercourse every day; thus, she is getting a “benefit” from his sin. I see this as no different than her husband robbing a bank against her wishes and then she goes out and buys a car with the illegally obtained money.

I would think your reasoning would only be logical if the ban on contraception only is valid when one is likely to conceive. My point is the prohibition is for each and every act no matter if one is ovulating or not.

So, the wife abstaining during fertile times, in this case, is no more a requirement than abstaining during non fertile times.

As for derving pleasure from the acts I see no sin if one is licitly cooperating with evil as the vatican said may happen in such cases. The sin would be to derive pleasure if one were illicitly cooperating with evil.