Atheism has been massively misinterpreted by popular Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens.
What it means is that we massively disagree and we will have to ignore this issue.
You can’t really come on a Catholic forum and say we have to ignore hell.
No it’s not. I’m saying that we disagree on Hell and an argument is not going to take us anywhere and for the sake of others we should ignore the issue.
And I would counter by saying that when you understand what the Church actually teaches, (including understanding all of the nuances of the Church’s true position) it is not at all illogical. In fact, in my study of Church teaching I have been quite impressed by how logical (and nuanced, and understanding of reality) actual Church teaching is. You have an idea already stuck in your head about what the Church teaches but it does not take into account the full teachings of the Church and because of that you think it is illogical. It really isn’t, you just don’t realize what it is that the Church actually teaches.
Because they are two adults and there are limits to the extent to which an innocent party can responsible for the sins of a guilty one, even when they are aware of them.It always takes 2 to tango, just like sex. Unless one is raped, both people are willful voluntary participants in this union.
So how can it not be sinful to for a wife to have sexual relations with her husband, if he insists and continues to use artificial birth control. I don’t understand how " I tell him not to use it…I object him using it… I don’t help him use it" can be used as a justification.
In this instance, the actions of the wife, voluntarily and willfully allowing herself to continue having sexual relations with her husband, despite knowing he is using ABC, is leading the husband to committing sin. The wife becomes a willful participant in the husbands actions or part of the equation in this situation, as her actions dictate the outcome of the situation, which is sin, or no sin. If the wife said, “No, to sexual relations using ABC” in the first place, the sin of using ABC would not come into existence.
I thought in a marriage, spouses have a certain moral obligation to one another, especially when the actions of one spouse can lead to sin or worse yet, hell, especially when a spouses actions play a final role in dictating that outcome.
Actions speak louder than words. The action of willfully participating in sexual relations while using ABC means you agree to using ABC, despite any verbal or any other objection. It’s like having sex, and saying “I don’t agree to getting pregnant…I don’t wan’t to be pregnant” and get pregnant and later saying “I am not responsible for this, I did not agree to getting pregnant”. Well in this case, your actions certainly did agree to getting pregnant. Verbal objection becomes irrelevant. In this instance, you actions certainly agree to committing the sin of using ABC.
To protect or preserve marriage and allowing ABC in this instance is not a justification either. It’s pretty obvious that a persons soul, salvation would be much more important than preserving a marriage. Hell, or a good marriage?
It takes 2 to tango. There is no innocent party here, as you have 2 willful and voluntary participants who are fully aware of the situation. The actions of both participants determine if the sin of using ABC comes into existence, the same with fornication.
It is entirely possible for a woman to be on the pill without her husband knowing, and I dare say it is not impossible for a man to put on a condom discreetly enough that his wife does not know. So no, it doesn’t always take two to tango.
Is there a risk of disease transmission here? The American Bishops condoned condom use to prevent the spread of HIV in 1987, and were criticized by the Vatican. BIshops in southern Africa made a similar recommendation in 2001, and the Vatican did not respond. Opus Dei has stated that condom use is OK under some circumstances. Finally, in 2010, the Pope stated somewhat ambiguously that condoms might be used to prevent disease transmission under some circumstances.
I can understand that, but we are talking about a spouse here. How far one goes is such a subjective issue I see.
This is a situation of a lesser of 2 evils here. It’s still a sin to use ABC, although if one were to fornicate and use ABC to help prevent HIV transmission, it’s a lesser of 2 evils than not using any ABC at all. Although, this is not a justification of using ABC as it’s still evil, not good as, condoms are not fail proof and HIV can still be transmitted. .
Its a matter of the principle of double effect. Having sex with ones spouse is hugely important for the sacred marital relationship. Sex is sacred and holy, and even a duty. If the good of having sex with your spouse and the evil of not having sex with your spouse for extended periods of time balance out the bad effect of failing to stop your spouse from sinning. I can understand why this would be difficult to see, but it is not our duty to destroy a sacred marriage in order to prevent ones spouse from sinning in a particular instance, in fact, mainaining and protecting ones marriage is a moral duty of spouses. If you try to convince your spouse to not use contraception, make it clear that you object to your spouses use of contraception, and refuse to help your spouse in any way to use contraception, such as refusing to pay for it or pick it up etc, then you have done enough to remove your culpability from the situation. Having sex with ones spouse is not intrinsically evil and so it is an action which falls under the principle of double effect in a way that actually using contraception cannot as actually using contraception is an intrinsic evil. So for the situation where ones spouse insists on using contraception against your wishes whether or not to have sex with them is a matter of balancing the good and bad effects of action and inaction. We are not required to prevent others from sinning at any cost, we have to weigh the good and bad results of our actions.