Mass with spouse who contracepts

[Dorothy]

The Lord uses us to offer loving correction , and that is one way to turn it over to God

 

[thewanderer]

I get that it is not “Grave” reasons. Someone earlier said that it is just “just” reasons, as if that meant something trivial. So my question is what do the two words the Church uses in her documents mean “Just Reason” What does that mean. You don’t need to give me a list of reasons just tell me how I know what a “Just reason” is.

Just as the Church does not tell people how much food to eat every day to avoid the sin of gluttony the Church does not tell us exactly what circumstances are serious enough to avoid conception. It is the kind of thing that cannot be given as it depends on the particular people involved. Different people can take different levels and different kinds of stress. As for determining when you have serious reasons, you form your conscience according to Church teaching. You do your best to think as the Church does. Read Humanae Vitae, contemplate it, then think about your particular circumstances, and use your reason and conscience to form a judgement for your particular circumstance. Yes, this is not nearly as concrete as many people want, but because of the nature of the matter in question its kind of the best that can be done. Make sure you realize that children are the natural result of marriage, one of the primary reasons of marriage, that married love is expressed most fully through having children and raising a family, that it is the greatest reflection of the love of the trinity when this occurs, that each new life is a gift and a blessing, a new immortal soul who will have the opportunity to love God and be with Him in heaven, that God desires the human race to continue and so we need sufficient numbers to continue, and not just as a whole, but in the different areas (so if you’re living in a country with a below replacement fertility rate you would have a greater reason to have more children than if you lived in a country where the fertility rate was way above replacement, if you lived in a place that was severely overpopulated you may even be called to refrain from having children for the good of the society in that place) the good of siblings to your children, making sure your care as you age doesn’t fall all on one child etc etc, You consider all of the reasons why you should have children and why it would be a good thing, for you, for your family, for society, for living out your vocation more fully, etc, and then you think of all the reasons why it would be imprudent for you to have another child at the moment and you weigh the two out against each other. Thats the best anybody can tell you about how to determine it. Form your conscience according to official Church teaching, pray about it, discern it, and then do what you believe is right.

 

[thewanderer]

Does this apply to any sin? How is it that only God knows something and does not communicate what is right to his flock? What kind of God would that be? Is that a good shepherd? Is that a loving God?

Your answer is not what the Church and God himself teaches. It is you, putting your own faulted opinion above God himself and what he has communicated to his Bride. It is wrong, prideful and certainly not based in any sort of Church or Biblical teaching of the Jesuits!

Actually, well, to a certain extent, she is right. Besides official Church teachings, none of us knows for sure what God wants. We do our best, we pray, we discern, we try to discover God’s will and follow it, but apart from Divine Revelation we are all going on fallible opinions. So this woman who prays and discerns to have no more children may be wrong, she may be right, we don’t know and its not our place to judge. All we can do is advise her to do her best to try to discern God’s will and pray for her discernment. God does actually teach, through official Church teaching, that once we have formed our consciences according to Church teaching we are to trust our conscience and follow it. We may end up being wrong, but that is how we are to live out our life.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You yourself know what God teaches, wow. No, you know what the Catholic Church teaches and are closed minded that some interpretations may have been clouded.

I did not give my opinion of which you seem to bash so readily, I only stated what some others think. You don’t sound very God like to me, but maybe that is you own faulted opinion of yourself.

You yourself know what God teaches, wow.

Yes, I know this through revelation and the Church.

you know what the Catholic Church teaches and are closed minded that some interpretations may have been clouded.

Yes, my mind is closed to clouded interpretations.

]I did not give my opinion of which you seem to bash so readily, I only stated what some others think. You don’t sound very God like to me, but maybe that is you own faulted opinion of yourself

You gave your opinion which is false and is not what the Church teaches.
I am not God like. I strive to be Christ like. You should too. And Christ instituted his Church that you seem to be against.

My point and what the “Spiritual Exercises” of St Ignatius teaches is to find God in everyone and everything and to look first at what we are thankful for first and be grateful for God’s blessings. For this man it should be that he has a happy, health family that could break up if he does not turn this over to God

That was not your point. Not at all. And it does not apply to the situation at hand. How is one to find God in sin? You cannot.
That is not what the Jesuits or Ignatius teaches and it does not apply? Are you schooled in Jesuit theology? Because you are grossly misrepresenting them.

 

[einna]

Yes, I know this through revelation and the Church.

Yes, my mind is closed to clouded interpretations.

You gave your opinion which is false and is not what the Church teaches.
I am not God like. I strive to be Christ like. You should too. And Christ instituted his Church that you seem to be against.

That was not your point. Not at all. And it does not apply to the situation at hand. How is one to find God in sin? You cannot.
That is not what the Jesuits or Ignatius teaches and it does not apply? Are you schooled in Jesuit theology? Because you are grossly misrepresenting them.

 

[einna]

einna:
I never said I was against The Church and that is your interpretation of what I said, which wrong. Yes, I know the Jesuits teachings very well. Are you schooled in the Jesuit teaching? Why don’t you tell me their main focus.

You find God when you look inside your self and love the sinner even though you do not agree with their actions. That is for Gos to judge not you. We are all sinners.

I know what my point was, don’t be so arrogant as to think you know better just because I didn’t phrase it to your liking.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I never said I was against The Church and that is your interpretation of what I said, which wrong. Yes, I know the Jesuits teachings very well. Are you schooled in the Jesuit teaching? Why don’t you tell me their main focus.

You find God when you look inside your self and love the sinner even though you do not agree with their actions. That is for Gos to judge not you. We are all sinners.

I know what my point was, don’t be so arrogant as to think you know better just because I didn’t phrase it to your liking.

Your point was neither Jesuit nor Catholic. It was from the Church of you.
You seem to have a misunderstanding or wrong interpretation of the Jesuits. Yes, I am schooled in the subject and you can PM me if you wish and we could set up a conversation.

You find God when you look inside your self and love the sinner even though you do not agree with their actions. That is for Gos to judge not you. We are all sinners

I don’t exactly know what this means. The first sentence actually makes no sense to me but I think you point is Love the sinner, don’t agree with their actions. But you are misapplying the reasoning. Sin is sin. And we do not love someone when we allow them to sin uncorrected. This is basic theology that you are misapplying to say do nt judge others and that is not at all what Christians, Catholics Jesuits or otherwise believe or teach. It may be what you believe but it is disingenuous of you to assign that to an entire religious order.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I know what my point was, don’t be so arrogant as to think you know better just because I didn’t phrase it to your liking.

For someone who does not think we should correct or judge someone you sure like to accuse me of something. Perhaps you should apply your theology evenly. Who are you to Judge my arrogance or even call me arrogant.
I speak the truth. The truth may bother you but it is the truth.

 

[einna]

Nice spin, you are right. I am glad you know the truth, and it doesn’t bother me one bit.

I will pray that this couple will continue to grow in their marriage and their faith and not let this issue drive them apart.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Nice spin, you are right. I am glad you know the truth, and it doesn’t bother me one bit.

I will pray that this couple will continue to grow in their marriage and their faith and not let this issue drive them apart.

Thank you.

 

[bsroufek]

YOU should not stop going to Mass, whether or not you continue to go with your wife.

Personally, if my wife were using an IUD, which essentially causes abortions by preventing implantation or by destroying the newly created child, I would not continue to have sex with her, so that my children wouldn’t be aborted.

 

[Lasting_faith]

With all due respect, I said “when possible” and “encourage her”.

No, it is between her, God, AND her husband. What she is doing affects him directly. In marriage, the two become one. It is his business.

And she is not on the pill, she has an IUD.

Sorry. I did not mean to offend anyone.

One thing though, maybe people should not turn everything in to a religius problem? Yes, it affect her husband, and yes, she should not receive Communion in a state of sin, but at least that is between her and God, and we really don’t know what God think is right. He is very forgiving and understanding and even if the Sacrament of Communion is the most holy among holy Sacraments we know only what The Church say about this. Reading The Bible there is no mention on when one can receive Christ Body and Blood. I think it is far from wise, and Christian to first find all possible sins and then start a debate that once more will not help anyone. I have a notion that this is not a religius problem. We know only what we the OP did write, and he need a substantial advice, and my hunch that this has nothing to do with religion and all to do with depression and being fed up with her present life. Probably we will never get a answer to that aspect. And as my son use to say, “keep it simple”. (And yes he is a atheist but nobody on this forum have my permission to comment that he is a atheist.) Maybe we should keep it simple.

And “1ke”, I do respect you, you have more knowlegde then I can dream about, but I have a right to display my opinion. And pardon me for not knowing what IUD is.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

I think the concern of many is that your erroneous interpretation of church teaching is being put out there as fact. From your very first post, when you used and even capitalised the word “grave” (which has a very different meaning to “just” and “serious”), we knew you did not have authentic knowledge of the teaching.

The term “open to life” is somewhat vague language, but it certainly does not mean “exercise no control over family planning” as you seem to suggest. It’s about not altering the sex act, and about lovingly accepting the children that come along.

Interesting, but Caps aside, would you have said the same if she quoted Pope Pius XII using the word grave (and no, this isn’t a “bad translation”)… Don’t get me wrong, I do agree that you can find different terms in different documents, which is why it is important to take the whole document into consideration (and the Catechism clearly uses the word just), but I do think it is a bit strong to suggest that if someone uses the word grave they do not have authentic knowledge of the teaching because of the use of that term (I have not read the rest, I just randomly got on here and saw this post yesterday, and thought it would be helpful to show a document on the Vatican’s site that uses that word (a document which is referenced in Humanae Vitae when saying ‘the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses.’)
Vatican link:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/speeches/1951/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19511029_ostetriche_it.html
(here is the English translation):
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

He uses the word grave, more than once. His descriptions are similar to descriptions you will find in other documents using other terms. He also uses the word serious… seems like interchangeably. I particularly find this segment of the document interesting:

Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent,** which would result in the marriage being invalid,** because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

However if the limitation of the act to the periods of natural sterility does not refer to the right itself but only to the use of the right, the validity of the marriage does not come up for discussion. Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner—in this case, mankind.

The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the . The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.

Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called “indications,” may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circumstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.

Going back to the original topic (will have to be my next post, ran out of characters ) …

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

OP I would talk with your pastor about this, but from over here I see nothing to be gained by not going to Mass with her. Do you feel that would help her or just push her farther from you (and possibly the Church)? As a husband you should want to help get your wife to Heaven, and you know this behavior isn’t a good choice, and it sounds like you want to help her. But be very careful to make sure it is done in the most loving manner you can.
Honestly, there are two reasons I would talk with your pastor first. 1. to see if he is in the ABC is ok camp…something that is not in line with the Church but unfortunately some priests out there do preach it, and 2. to get advice from him on what you can do. Prayer and fasting is what come to mind for me. And then gently encourage her to talk with your priest. Gently, lovingly. It sounds like you have already told her it is wrong to receive in that manner. It is good that you have, we owe it to the people we love to try to help them, but sometimes we have to realize that part of helping is doing it lovingly and carefully to not push them away further!

ETA: About the comment, I understand your feeling upset if it sounded anti-children! I do agree that there are cases where having another child could have devastating effects on the health of the mother, for example (I know one family in that situation) and so they really do not want to get pregnant again, are very careful in using NFP to avoid, but even is situations such as these we, as Catholics, have to be careful with our wording with regards to children out in public. The mother of the family I was talking about does say she cannot have any more children, but never in a way that sounds anti-children… hard to explain here. She is honest, but is not contributing to that mentality.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Sorry. I did not mean to offend anyone.

One thing though, maybe people should not turn everything in to a religius problem? Yes, it affect her husband, and yes, she should not receive Communion in a state of sin, but at least that is between her and God, and we really don’t know what God think is right. He is very forgiving and understanding and even if the Sacrament of Communion is the most holy among holy Sacraments we know only what The Church say about this. Reading The Bible there is no mention on when one can receive Christ Body and Blood. I think it is far from wise, and Christian to first find all possible sins and then start a debate that once more will not help anyone. I have a notion that this is not a religius problem. We know only what we the OP did write, and he need a substantial advice, and my hunch that this has nothing to do with religion and all to do with depression and being fed up with her present life. Probably we will never get a answer to that aspect. And as my son use to say, “keep it simple”. (And yes he is a atheist but nobody on this forum have my permission to comment that he is a atheist.) Maybe we should keep it simple.

And “1ke”, I do respect you, you have more knowlegde then I can dream about, but I have a right to display my opinion. And pardon me for not knowing what IUD is.

You are kidding right?
1Cor. 11:27-30

The Bible speaks DIRECTLY to this.

Here is an explanation from Patrick Madrid in the OSV

In 1 Corinthians 11:17ff, in addition to St. Paul’s explaining the tradition of the Eucharist in more detail, he also points out why it is so important for non-Catholics, and Catholics in the state of serious sin. St. Paul points out that the person who intends to receive the Eucharist must not do so if (1) he is “unworthy” to do so (i.e. he is in the state of mortal sin [cf. 1 John 5:16-17]), (2) he has not “examined himself” to make sure he is in the state of grace, and (3) he does not “recognize” the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

According to St. Paul, those who receive the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily “eat and drink judgment” on themselves and are “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” – a euphemism for “murder.” If the Eucharist were merely a symbol, as many Protestants claim, then a Christian who received the Eucharist unworthily could not be guilty of such a sin. But if the Eucharist really is the body and blood of Christ under the appearances of the bread and wine, as the Catholic Church teaches, then one would in fact be committing a grave sacrilege by receiving it while in the state of mortal sin or when disbelieving what the Church teaches about the Real Presence.

 

[sdeco]

I guess I don’t see how NFP can possibly be used “selfishly.” First of all, charting is really annoying. It involves meticulous observation of signs, recording the signs, and interpreting them. Sometimes it is very difficult to interpret fertility signs. So many things affect it - diet, medications, stress, etc. Sometimes you have to modify your diet and go to pretty great lengths to get clear signs. It’s much harder than just putting on a condom or taking a pill.

Secondly, it involves abstinence, which is a sacrifice. Sometimes it involves a LOT of abstinence when signs are difficult to read. Unless there is some other problem in the marriage, most couples will want to have sex.

I just can’t envision a situation where someone would go through the hassle of charting and the sacrifice of abstinence if they didn’t have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It just seems to me that if they are willing to go through all that, a serious reason is a given. If they didn’t have a serious reason, they wouldn’t bother. They would either have a baby or use contraception.

Can someone explain to me how it is possible to use NFP selfishly?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I guess I don’t see how NFP can possibly be used “selfishly.” First of all, charting is really annoying. It involves meticulous observation of signs, recording the signs, and interpreting them. Sometimes it is very difficult to interpret fertility signs. So many things affect it - diet, medications, stress, etc. Sometimes you have to modify your diet and go to pretty great lengths to get clear signs. It’s much harder than just putting on a condom or taking a pill.

Secondly, it involves abstinence, which is a sacrifice. Sometimes it involves a LOT of abstinence when signs are difficult to read. Unless there is some other problem in the marriage, most couples will want to have sex.

I just can’t envision a situation where someone would go through the hassle of charting and the sacrifice of abstinence if they didn’t have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy. It just seems to me that if they are willing to go through all that, a serious reason is a given. If they didn’t have a serious reason, they wouldn’t bother. They would either have a baby or use contraception.

Can someone explain to me how it is possible to use NFP selfishly?

I think there are other threads for that. This one specifically deals with contraception. ABC.

I think a case can be made that NFP can be used selfishly. The ease or difficulty of NFP for a particular couple has no bearing on weather it is used selfishly.

 

[Xantippe]

Theoretically, if one spouse weren’t at all interested in having sex, I can see that NFP might be used selfishly as a pretext to deprive their spouse of marital relations, but that’s very different from what people usually mean by selfish use of NFP.

 

[Xantippe]

I think there’s a misunderstanding that NFP means “woohoo–party time!” whereas it’s actually the reverse.

 

[einna]

NFP, IUDs, the pill all do the same thing, prevent pregnancy. Yes the church states NFP is ok but the others are not. The Church also states that abuse of food or alcohol, body piercings, abusing ones body, etc. are forbidden. How many here have their ears pierced? How many here have gone out Saturday night and had way too much to drink but still received communion on Sunday.How many are obese? All of these things go against the Churches teaching. Where does using a IUD fit into being a mortal sin?

Unless we go to confession everyday the majority of us are unworthy to receive communion on Sunday. I can see where this is a huge issue for some, but I agree that we should master the basics before we start to think we know everything God wants from us.