Father catholics are against contraception

[spotty]

i try my best to be sincere right now and pray that God may have mercy on me if i am wrong and to please show me how i am wrong and show me how this is not what the church teaches. and i pray that if it is wrong then it will influence no one away from Gods will and designs. and may God be praised that this is wrong.
i also pray that should this be true and in all sincerity i do not see how it isnt or how this is not what the church teaches, then may God enlighten the hearts of us all to see the truth. and i pray that all might have the humility to endure a culture that would mock such a design and still speak the truth. but again if it is i who am mocking Gods design may He make that known to me and please forgive me. but Lord it seems that such an act is not unitive, or a sharing and mutual giving of self that is open to procreation in the design which you intended of a conjugal union for the many reasons which i have given. and if this is so then the church forbids such actions and as far as i can understood forbids this in particular. and may God be praised that this true.

 

[Coder]

From the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

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;
      *]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).
   2. 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.

 

[LittleDeb]

Celeste88:

Ok, I’m married to a Protestant. For a while there I thought he would convert to the Catholic faith. But after I told him that oral sex is wrong, masterbation (can I use that word here?) is wrong, ABC is wrong, he is digging in his heels. He doesn’t want to follow these rules and says the same thing - the Church should not be in the bedroom, and he won’t join any religion with so many rules and regulations. So now what can I do? What if my non Catholic husband wants oral sex??( I know that there is a certain amount of selfishness here in one person getting gratification, but I really don’t mind as I’m usually dead tired and want to go to sleep asap.) I don’t want a divorce over these issues.

Yep, you can use those words here. Anything that is proper for a 13-year-old to read is fine.

If I were in your shoes, here is where I would focus. I would ask questions related only to our personal intimacy like: Do you think oral sex makes me feel honored and cherished? If masterbation brings you sexual release then what is my purpose? Is our intimacy about sexual release or is it about a union? If you vowed to to take me for better or for worse, what is my fertility? Is it better or is it worse? Why can’t I have all of you when we are in union together? So I can have your whole heart but not your whole body?

These questions especially in the voice of love will help. They are not “nagging.” If they become nagging then he will dig his heels in deeper. Remember the biggest trouble with Protestantism is “authority.” This is not just that there might be rules, but that there might be definitive rules set by Jesus about every single thing in our lives. A major hurdle is that there is a definitive Truth.

Don’t nag. Lead by example. Please remember that foreplay in the context of the marital act is perfectly acceptable, and a lot of fun! Remind him of that.

 

[Ana]

Coder:

From the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

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;
      *]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).
   2. 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.

1. 
   THANK YOU!! Where have you been all this time?
   
   Spotty, there you see it. From the Vatican. In particular circumstances it is permissable for the non contracepting spouse to engage in relations with a contracepting spouse.
   
   Can you accept this now?

 

[Siena]

Ana:

THANK YOU!! Where have you been all this time?

(see post 121- i think it kinda got lost in the shuffle - but i did p.m. spotty about it at the time.)

 

[Siena]

spotty-

I can tell you are sincerly trying to follow the Lord. I know that if you are called to marriage- you will make a wonderful spouse.

The question of oral foreplay, etc. may not make sense to you right now, precisely because you are not married. If and when you do marry, you and your spouse can more fully question this. You don’t need to have everything “figured out” right now! Just being open to the wisdom of the church is great.

In fact, just today I was reflecting how wonderful it is that this is your concern, v/s so many your age who are engaging in all kinds of sinful behavior, and have no concern at all for theGod they are offending.

God bless you for your fidelity to the Lord.

 

[Siena]

spotty:

** if one person is contracepting, they are both contracepting.** contraception is evil whether you believe is or not. thats how evil works. we cannot stand by and participate in evil just because anothers conscience had been so wounded and twisted by sin that he cannot perceive the horror an evil of such an act

spotty:

. if for GRAVE reasons the woman must be submitted to the lust of her husband, then that is horrible that she must suffer like that…something she doesnt want to do, something that hurts.
…the man is lustful in his heart as to why he is participating in it, but the woman is not. their union is a good thing. this is how a man can abuse the act but a woman not. the fact is that it is an actual unitive act now which is supposed to be good..

Spotty,

I have taken a quote from your original post, and a quote from a recent one. Am I correct in thinking that you no longer believe a person who has sex with their contracepting spouse is in a state of mortal sin? (Spouse contracepting against their wishes)

Are we ok on this point?

 

[spotty]

i will submit to church teaching completely when im
positive in fact that is what the church teaches. and
until then i submit to the fact that this might be in
fact what the church teaches in regards to oral sex.
but i warn everyone do not abuse it, as it has been
made apparent that many are. it must only be an
anticipation of the conjugal act. i still dont buy it
though

i have spoken to a priest about both issues and i
still hold firm in the instance of cooperating with
sin that we are never obliged to accept evil. so was he.
we must never freely choose evil. i consent to that if there is a situation in which a spouse is forced to submit to a an evil act
for grave reasons then alright. like i said before. the spouse does not have to though the fact remains that it is an evil act and the spouse must only be submitting not consenting. and this is still what the section of the document you gave and the entire document seems to say. only for proportionally grave reasons. what those are and how one could do that i do not know. but i definitly know several grave reasons why not too.

(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).

again if contraception is involved, there is no union.

and i dont remember who said it but i know its been said a few times now about me not being married and not being able to understand as well as you the married individual. and thats true im not married. you got me there. but just a thought though on that. you know priests arent married like you either. but then maybe youll think theyre married to God. so alright. its still not the same anyway (i mean theyre still not having sex) but alright. ill give another example. it would be like saying b/c ive never snorted cocaine, i have no grounds to speak against it.

 

[spotty]

Originally Posted by spotty
if one person is contracepting, they are both contracepting. contraception is evil whether you believe is or not. thats how evil works. we cannot stand by and participate in evil just because anothers conscience had been so wounded and twisted by sin that he cannot perceive the horror an evil of such an act

so lets take each sentence i said.
if one person is contracepting then they are both contracepting. true. one might not want to contracept but is forced too for grave reasons. what those might be still escapes me. how can anyone proportionalize evil
contraception is evil whether you believe it or not. true. good and evil are not relative or subjective but objective. the yin yang is a lie
we cannot stand by and participating in evil just b/c anothers conscience has been so wounded and twisted by sin that he cannot perceive the horror and evil of such an act. true. one cannot participate in evil. however if they are not participating but only being subjected to it for reasons that escape me then they are not formally participating. does not change the fact that it is an evil act

 

[Siena]

i will submit to church teaching completely when im positive in fact that is what the church teaches ((( ))). and until then i submit to the fact that this might be in fact what the church teaches in regards to oral sex. but i warn everyone do not abuse it, as it has been
made apparent that many are. it must only be an
anticipation of the conjugal act. i still dont buy it
though

i have spoken to a priest about both issues and i
still hold firm in the instance of cooperating with
sin that we are never obliged to accept evil. so was he.
we must never freely choose evil.** i consent to that if there is a situation in which a spouse is forced to submit to a an evil act for grave reasons then alright. ** Just curious- with the info you have on my situation- would you consider mine to be proportionally grave reasons?

like i said before. the spouse does not have to though the fact remains that it is an evil act (totally agree!!!) and the spouse must only be submitting not consenting. and this is still what the section of the document you gave and the entire document seems to say. only for proportionally grave reasons. what those are and how one could do that i do not know. This is where having a concience properly fomed by the church is vital. We then are required to make the best decison we can. but i definitly know several grave reasons why not too.

(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).

again if contraception is involved, there is no union.

and i dont remember who said it but i know its been said a few times now about me not being married and not being able to understand as well as you the married individual. and thats true im not married. you got me there. **but just a thought though on that. you know priests arent married like you either. but then maybe youll think theyre married to God. so alright. its still not the same anyway (i mean theyre still not having sex) but alright. ill give another example. it would be like saying b/c ive never snorted cocaine, i have no grounds to speak against it. *****Point taken! ***- I can’t speak on behalf of priests- except to say that they (by their very nature as priests) are supposed to be as well versed as possible on the churches teachings. As a formerly unmarried person, however, I can tell you that my opinions and ideas were changed and shaped by my introduction into the married life, just as my ideas about college changed from my high school years to my college ones, and my ideas on parenting changed from my babysitting and daycare worker years, to my motherhood ones. Our perceptions can be changed and shaped by a closer association to something.

Also- I hope you read my post 164.

 

[spotty]

so yes if there is an actual union without a contraception but one spouse is still lustful within the conjugal act and the other is not, then they act is still a good thing in itself in which one can abuse it and the other not.

honestly though i really dont know what these grave reasons are and if i did that might help me understand.

 

[spotty]

yeah i read it. thanks i appreciate it.

in regards to what i think about your situation. i dont know it all for sure so i dont think i should.
the thing about proportionalizing in this respect… i dont know how it could be possible. maybe their talking about proportionalizing good not evil. but even then the church is very specific that the means do not justify the ends. to kill an abortion doctor is wrong. to try and stop murder with murder is wrong. but then it could lead into a whole other set of ideas such as the morality of war. sure we have a duty to protect but then that duty can become so twisted that it no longer becomes a matter of protection.
its complicated and i dont know

 

[Siena]

spotty:

yeah i read it. thanks i appreciate it.

in regards to what i think about your situation. i dont know it all for sure so i dont think i should. I respect that - thank you for your honesty.
the thing about proportionalizing in this respect… i dont know how it could be possible. maybe their talking about proportionalizing good not evil. but even then the church is very specific that the means do not justify the ends. to kill an abortion doctor is wrong. to try and stop murder with murder is wrong. *True- but to kill in self defense is not… *but then it could lead into a whole other set of ideas such as the morality of war. sure we have a duty to protect but then that duty can become so twisted that it no longer becomes a matter of protection.
its complicated and i dont know Pray- pray and pray!

I will pray for you tommorow at mass. Would you do the same for me?

Thank you- and goodnight.

 

[Coder]

spotty:

…i consent to that if there is a situation in which a spouse is forced to submit to a an evil act
for grave reasons then alright. …only for proportionally grave reasons. what those are and how one could do that i do not know…

I like you’re approach spotty - I think you’re on the right track!

 

[Ana]

spotty:

(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).

again if contraception is involved, there is no union.

I am not sure how this paragraph proves your concluding statement that “there is no union.”

Would you please clarify what you mean by union?