Marital sex question

  • Thread starter Thread starter southpaw85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

southpaw85

Guest
My wife and I are both Catholic and have been married for almost two years. We practiced NFP for the first few months of our marriage and had a wonderful, healthy child. My wife is currently on contraception, a tube blocking insert, and is too afraid to go without it again. I have spoken with her on the Church’s teaching about contraception, but she just gets angry and will not hear my arguments against it. If we have relations, would I be sinning since she is on contraception? I’m guessing that is probably the case and I will have to abstain. It’s just frustrating as a young, married man to have to abstain from sex with his wife.

Also, I have convinced her to set up a meeting with our parish priest to discuss this. Please pray for us and the priest, that he may give her a firm, definite response in favor of the Church’s teaching and not some watered down feel-good talk. I will be very furious if that happens because my wife will always point to that meeting to justify contraception. – I suppose I should not get angry now over things that have not come to pass.

Any advice? Answers? Thoughts?
 
Go talk to the priest yourself, before you go with your wife. If his response is coherent with Church teaching on contraception, let the appointment stand. If not, find a HOLY priest to go and talk to.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Go talk to the priest yourself, before you go with your wife. If his response is coherent with Church teaching on contraception, let the appointment stand. If not, find a HOLY priest to go and talk to.
Click to expand...
Good idea! Lawyers often say “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. It works well in court. I think it is good advice here.

Also, there a couple great CDs out that explain why contraception is wrong morally by presenting biblical/moral reasons why it is not acceptable and presenting the alternative in a very positive way. Here is a link to one Contraception Why Not? They also have an MP3 download.
 
Praying will also help. But I know Jason Evert has a lot to say on the matter and it’s really effective, also go to blogs like NFPandme.co. and Conversion Diaries, even though some bloggers that blog about NFP have kids, on the NFPandme site the lady has been married for almost two years maybe a little more, and she doesn’t have kids plus the scientific data from Science Daily. Also Simca Fisher wrote a article about tips for those on NFP. Hope it helps your halfway there you just need to get the wife on board. Also touch upon the side affects and that you really just want what’s healthiest for your wife, and your marriage will be better because of it. I say this being single, because I believe that God’s way is the right way. 👍
 
jbarbaretta said:
Good idea! Lawyers often say “Never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to”. It works well in court. I think it is good advice here.

Also, there a couple great CDs out that explain why contraception is wrong morally by presenting biblical/moral reasons why it is not acceptable and presenting the alternative in a very positive way. Here is a link to one Contraception Why Not? They also have an MP3 download.
Click to expand...
That is an EXCELLENT resource, thanks for bringing it up! Dr. Janet Smith is a wonderful, very clear speaker. Her website has a wealth of our resources about pre-marital sex, contraception and their consequences for individuals and society.

Janet E. Smith
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Go talk to the priest yourself, before you go with your wife. If his response is coherent with Church teaching on contraception, let the appointment stand. If not, find a HOLY priest to go and talk to.
Click to expand...
Really? You think that when he cancels the appointment because the priest didn’t back him up and he finds a priest that does his wife won’t smell shenanigans?

He doesn’t get to make and cancel appointments for her, she is not a child. Now what he can do is go with her. If the priest tells her that BC is ok, he can call him on going against church teaching and ask for him to back up his opinion with church documents.

To the OP: No, having sex with a contracepting spouse is not a sin. She is sinning, but you are not.
 
She needs time. This isn’t going to change overnight. It is going to take a LOT of patience, prayers, and understanding.

You need to talk to a priest about this, but I don’t think you would be sinning by consummating your marriage in these circumstances. You understand the teachings on contraception, want to live by them, and are doing everything you can to live by them. In that light, abstaining MIGHT do more harm than good. I would encourage you to talk to a priest by yourself about this.

Take your time. Have patience, and do your best to understand your wife. Don’t try to force, try instead to understand. And again, have patience, it might take years before your wife’s heart begins to soften. Love her anyway.
 
What a difficult situation. I’m so sorry you’re in this, be assured of my prayers. My humble advice is to pray like crazy for her. If I could offer one piece of advice for a skeptical wife: love her. Her mind won’t be changed by guilt or shame but love. (It’s how my husband won me over to the NFP side) Also, your soul (and hers) are more important than sex. I know it may be difficult to abstain but I think that it is the most appropriate thing at this moment. Although that is for you and your wife to discern (not some rando lady on the internet. 😉 ) You stated she was using an IUD which generally work by irritating the lining of the endometrium so that implantation is near impossible and therefore commits a very early abortion. I’m not saying this to shame you or make you feel guilty but just so that you have the information and can share it with your wife. I don’t know if she knows of the abortifacient properties of many contraceptives and that may be important to her. Also, I think the meeting with the priest is a fantastic idea. I hope that he is a good and holy priest!

Also, NFP is hard. I hated it when we started but there are certain methods that work better for each person. I would really recommend Marquette for your situation. It uses a fertility monitor (like ClearBlue Easy Ovulation Prediction Kits) to assess potential fertility. I have heard that for people who are skeptical of NFP it’s a better method because it’s relying on definitive science (by measuring your actual LH surge instead of the signs of your LH surge.) Please let me know if I can help you in anyway (PM here or on my blog) and know that I’ll be praying for you.
 
southpaw85 said:
If we have relations, would I be sinning since she is on contraception? I’m guessing that is probably the case and I will have to abstain.
Click to expand...
If you have made your objection to contraception clearly known to your wife (which it sounds like you have), and if you are not actively involved in obtaining or using the contraception (e.g., you do not pick up her contraceptive prescription at the pharmacy, or you do not use condoms yourself), then my understanding is that you are not sinning by having relations with your wife. However, if she is using a contraceptive that potentially could be an abortifacient (such as the birth control pill), then I’m not sure if it is still OK for you to have relations with her.

Disclaimer: This is my understanding, but I have no formal education in moral theology, and I could possibly be mistaken.
 
You can be intimate without her sin becoming yours. You’ve already taken the initial steps required of confronting her with the truth. Don’t be pushy from here on out. She’ll likely listen to church teaching and dissent anyways. If that happens, don’t despair. Just be gentle with her, be the best husband you can be and do your best to subtly remind her and yourself often that sex and babies are NOT separate topics, but two aspects of the SAME topic. Most of all pray for her and love her. That’s the most persuasive thing you could ever do.
 
I still don’t get this. A husband isn’t sinning if he agrees to something that involves his wife sinning, in order to avoid another sin (abstinence, divorce)? Basically it’s all right because he disagrees and can go along like that for the rest of his life while his wife is still unconvinced it’s wrong. What if she has a heart attack afterwards and goes to hell because of a mortal sin on her soul? What a bunch of BS.
 
Rkdajr said:
I still don’t get this. A husband isn’t sinning if he agrees to something that involves his wife sinning, in order to avoid another sin (abstinence, divorce)? Basically it’s all right because he disagrees and can go along like that for the rest of his life while his wife is still unconvinced it’s wrong. What if she has a heart attack afterwards and goes to hell because of a mortal sin on her soul? What a bunch of BS.
Click to expand...
Well, unfortunately, Rkdajr, we all have free will. The wife in that case would have had ample time to change her belief and get right with God. She is well aware that she is sinning. I don’t think a loving husband is going to want to just “go along like that for the rest of his life…” I think they would be and will be having discussions and he will be praying and will stay in touch with his priest. It will be painful for him to know that he is separated from his wife because she is using contraception. It’s not like what you describe.
 
What do you suggst Rkdjar? Beat her until she gives in? (relax, hyperbole) Sexual blackmail? You can only lead by example and influence, not domination. If she’s taking the pill, she’s certainly not making virtue any easier for him to practice (temptation to enjoy the contraceptive mentality corruption), but it doesn’t necessarily make him guilty. The sin of contraception is not about the externals, but the INTENT. If he doesn’t have the intent, he bears no guilt.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Well, unfortunately, Rkdajr, we all have free will. The wife in that case would have had ample time to change her belief and get right with God. She is well aware that she is sinning. I don’t think a loving husband is going to want to just “go along like that for the rest of his life…” I think they would be and will be having discussions and he will be praying and will stay in touch with his priest. It will be painful for him to know that he is separated from his wife because she is using contraception. It’s not like what you describe.
Click to expand...
This isn’t about whether she will change her mind or he will keep on doing this, it’s about saying what’s a sin and what’s not. Whether she does change or however many discussions he has with his priest, what I am hearing is that it is technically moral for them to continue this way. Yes that would be painful, but declaring one mortal sin not one (even if it’s not in your guy’s eyes…) to avoid a couple from avoiding another mortal sin sounds just wrong.
manualman said:
What do you suggst Rkdjar? Beat her until she gives in? (relax, hyperbole) Sexual blackmail? You can only lead by example and influence, not domination. If she’s taking the pill, she’s certainly not making virtue any easier for him to practice (temptation to enjoy the contraceptive mentality corruption), but it doesn’t necessarily make him guilty. The sin of contraception is not about the externals, but the INTENT. If he doesn’t have the intent, he bears no guilt.
Click to expand...
How would he be leading an example by giving in? And what does intent matter if he still commits the act even if it’s just the other side who ‘actually’ bears the guilt. If he didn’t agree to it, she wouldn’t be committing a sin, how is that not culpable. Even if he couldn’t do anything to change her mind, I don’t see how going along with her would make it easier to do so.
 
The bad things I see that could arise from this are:
  1. The husband withholds sex as blackmail to convince her - But If he had the right intent, he would be abstaining in order to avoid sin.
  2. The wife never changes her mind which leads to a divorce - But justifying one sin in order to avoid another one is just wrong.
All I hear about contraception is that it’s a grave sin, it’s not unitive, not procreative, etc. but if one of the spouse’s doesn’t agree with it, it’s okay because it’s not their fault and they can keep doing it. How is no one not seeing this, it’s so ridiculous.
 
Because it is the INTENT to render the encounter sterile that is the sin, not the sterility itself. If HE has no intent that way, he bears no guilt.

With contraception, the sin is in the internal substance, not in the external ‘accidents.’ (to borrow from elsewhere in catholic vocabulary)
 
Back to the OP. Ok, and this is just something that occurred to me and I hope that it comes out the right way since it is meant as a genuine suggestion.

Just because your wife does not want to practice NFP, does not mean you can’t. Let me explain (and yes this will be hard). Is there any way you can respect her free will and not ask her to remove the IUD but ask her to still keep track of her cycle and only have sex on those days. Just because you wife has arranged it that she does not get pregnant does not mean you have to have sex with her on her fertile days.

It may be a way for you to soothe your conscious by showing God you are still willing to abstain at times

Just a though
 
Rkdajr said:
This isn’t about whether she will change her mind or he will keep on doing this, it’s about saying what’s a sin and what’s not. Whether she does change or however many discussions he has with his priest, what I am hearing is that it is technically moral for them to continue this way. Yes that would be painful, but declaring one mortal sin not one (even if it’s not in your guy’s eyes…) to avoid a couple from avoiding another mortal sin sounds just wrong.
Click to expand...
I think the idea is that if she is using the contraception against his will, and he neither consents to its use nor in any way implements it (e.g., he doesn’t apply a condom or help his wife take a pill, etc.), then she is the one who is potentially committing a mortal sin (assuming that she has full knowledge, etc.), not necessarily him.

Another way to look at it is as follows. For a sin to be mortal, all three of these criteria must be met:
  1. Grave matter
  2. Full knowledge that the act is gravely wrong
  3. Full consent of the will
Condition #1 is met for his wife. Is it met for him? I’m not sure, because she is the one “implementing” the contraception, though they both engage in the act which has been rendered sterile. Condition #2 is met for him, and maybe also for his wife, but we can’t be certain. Condition #3 is met only for his wife, not for him, because he does not consent to the use of contraception within the marital act. So it seems to me that the husband in this case does not meet at least one, and maybe two, of the criteria for the sin to be mortal.

But of course he should give careful consideration to the fact that by consenting to relations, he may be leading his wife to commit a mortal sin. But this must be balanced against the fact that he is obligated not to withhold relations from his wife without a serious reason (though one might argue that this qualifies). It also must be balanced against the fact that the marriage breaking up would also be a grave evil, and that one spouse denying relations to the other could contribute to that eventual outcome. It is my opinion that he is not obligated to deny relations to his wife in this scenario, and that perhaps it would even be wrong for him to deny relations.

Again, I will add the BIG disclaimer that this is all just my understanding, along with a bit of “thinking out loud.” I am not claiming that I am 100% certain on any of this. Also, this analysis does not even consider the possibility that the contraceptive being used has the potential to act as an abortifacient, which I think would change the moral equation in a significant way.
 
manualman said:
Because it is the INTENT to render the encounter sterile that is the sin, not the sterility itself. If HE has no intent that way, he bears no guilt.

With contraception, the sin is in the internal substance, not in the external ‘accidents.’ (to borrow from elsewhere in catholic vocabulary)
Click to expand...
Even if that’s not his intent, he still agrees to an act with the knowledge that his spouse does have that specific intention. So really, it’s like it’s an indirect intention, because he complies and the outcome is the same whether he disagrees with the view or not. I don’t see how intention can be given priority, it’s a slippery slope. There has to be some basis for the sin even if it is in the internal substance - the wife is aware she’s using contraception (even if the actual object isn’t sinful) and she and her husband know it would be a sin to use it. Somewhere in the equation, there is sin, (husband + sin + wife = sin) and they are both aware of it.
PaulGH said:
I think the idea is that if she is using the contraception against his will, and he neither consents to its use nor in any way implements it (e.g., he doesn’t apply a condom or help his wife take a pill, etc.), then she is the one who is potentially committing a mortal sin (assuming that she has full knowledge, etc.), not necessarily him…
Click to expand...
Condition #1 - Like you said, they both engage in the act which has been rendered sterile, what does it matter who actually uses the contraception?
Condition #3 - He is basically consenting to it’s use by going ahead with it, actions speak louder than words.

Let’s say she meets all three conditions, then it would also be a sin for the husband to lead his wife to commit a mortal sin. Just like with the heart attack question…we know only God can judge our hearts at our final moment, so it wouldn’t be very loving of the husband to take risks.

To avoid the possibility of divorce - well then, that could make any sin justifiable. For example, allowing masturbation for the wife of an impotent man, allowing a couple to use NFP who don’t have a serious reason, or allowing condom use to prevent the transfer of an STD from one spouse to another. Some couples are called to abstain and some not, so why wouldn’t the husband in this situation be called to abstain because he has a legitimate reason?

I’m not sure but isn’t it a sin to have relations if a husband can’t complete inside his wife (retrograde ejaculation, anejaculation, etc.) because it doesn’t meet one of the requirements? That seems similar to using contraception. And wouldn’t it be wrong to call it the marital act because it is not procreative? Then the husband wouldn’t be really denying what Catholics truly define it as.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top