Mass with spouse who contracepts

[EasterJoy]

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.

You are seriously misinformed, to the extent that you do not appear to know “the basics”–that is, the things that a child ought to know before making her First Holy Communion concerning what is required of us if we are to be prepared by God to receive Holy Communion in a worthy manner and how we are to know what is or is not a serious sin. Perhaps the problem is that a child is more willing to believe that the Church has the authority to teach her than you are willing to be, since she sets herself up as the Church’s pupil instead of as the Church’s judge?

 

[EasterJoy]

My wife contracepts (IUD). She has begun to receive Communion again based on the advice of a friend. Last Sunday after Mass, conversation came up about somebody we knew who is having another baby and my wife said, “I’m done having babies. Period.”

It is bad enough for her to receive the Eucharist unworthily, but then within an hour after Mass she says this out loud. It makes me sick to my stomach, but I do not know what to do. Should I stop going to Mass with her?

I can see where this must be very hard for you. Please talk with your pastor (or spiritual director) about how to handle this situation. The goal must be to handle your relationship with your wife not in a way that causes you the least amount of embarrassment, but in the way most likely to lead to an amendment in her thinking and that allows you to have some peace in the meantime (because it could be a long time before that happens).

Expect to be told that you are going to have to be very patient, though, OK? As you know, this is the kind of problem that cannot be solved by force, but it is one that can be made very much worse by it. I think you will find this cross easier to bear, though, if you get counsel from a good priest about what you are and are not duty-bound to do about your wife and her conduct.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth,I am not playing the “Jesuit card” but how nice of you to be so sweetly condescending.

(1) You have played the Jesuit card on CAF, and often, implying that the Jesuits, and the Pope as a Jesuit, will reverse or hvae reversed Catholic doctrine.

I agree with you completely. Those who want our new pope to unify all Christian churches into one Catholic Church will probably be disappointed. Jesuits are known to be tolerant of other religions and keep things simple, like all of us sharing our love and devotion to the same God.

Growing up in a Jesuit parish and working at a Jesuit school I rarely heard that this person or that person was going to hell, something I read on this site way to much. Jesuits focus on the good people do and can do in the world. They bring people into the church with forgiveness and love, not damnation and fear. I believe Pope Francis will make it simple, focusing on the most important things about are faith and not all these “amendments” that have come from the men in the church over the last few centuries.

He will be about compassion, just my opinion.

Jesuits are about moving forward and dealing with the realities of the world we now live in.These things are not what is wrong with the Church

"einna:

all the Jesuit priests I know, none were not pulling for Benedict to be Pope.

Yes, I know the Jesuits teachings very well. Are you schooled in the Jesuit teaching? Why don’t you tell me their main focus.

I have only known Jesuit priests all my life, so I never felt very comfortable with the Popes in the past. The Jesuits are very different, but in my opinion they are absolutely wonderful, not better, just different. From reading many of the post on this site it often sounds like I am reading Protestant views only to find out the writer is Catholic, but not the kind of Catholic I am used to being around. Most Jesuits focus on love, forgiveness, and how to grow stronger bond with God and others.

I have talked to many, many priest and I could talk to thousands more and they would never all agree on if this is a mortal sin or not. I also spoke to a priest when I did artificial insemination, which I do not believe is a mortal sin and something I have never been sorry I did. If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked. You speak like every single priest in the world is going to give the same exact response to every question.

(2) It appears that I am not the one being “sweetly condescending,” judging by the entire tone of your post here.

Your naive if you think that the Vatican is not worrying about losing followers and why

There was a very good reason that Pope Francis was voted in as our new Pope so unanimously so quickly and if you know the Jesuits, you know that they have not always been that highly thought of among other Catholics in the past. I might be completely wrong, but there are many who believe that all those priest that voted him in were looking for him to possibly have a Vatican III because so many people around the world are leaving the Church over issues like these, not over IUDs but other forms of birth control. There are many Catholics that feel that the Church is saying too much about too many things in peoples’ lives, like some governments.

A Vatican III has actually been proposed by several insiders within the Church, to correct errors which were loose and non-authentic understandings of Vatican II. No one who seriously knows what’s going on within the Church Universal right now is proposing relaxing, further, those misinterpretations.

 

[EasterJoy]

… I also spoke to a priest when I did artificial insemination, which I do not believe is a mortal sin and something I have never been sorry I did. If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked…

Please tell me that you do not think that if you achieve the end for which you sinned or if you never have guilt feelings about something you did that this proves that your action could not have been sinful. You never learned that from a Jesuit.

 

[einna]

(1) You have played the Jesuit card on CAF, and often, implying that the Jesuits, and the Pope as a Jesuit, will reverse or hvae reversed Catholic doctrine.
NO I have not implied that, you just chose to put that spin on it. No Pope alone can change anything. You seemed to be threatened. Were you someone that followed past Pope because they lead the Church? Well now you have a different personality that you must deal with. I was told by every Jesuit priest I know that there would never be a Jesuit Pope in my lifetime but here we are. There was a reason the Pope Francis was selected and I believe that was for change, to what extent that change will be, we will all just have to wait and see. Some have said married priest, some have said female deacons, some have said there will be no changes at all, and some have said it will be the attitude of the Church, who knows. No one is saying he is going to reconstruct all the Church’s teachings, again something he could not do if he wanted to.

(2) It appears that I am not the one being “sweetly condescending,” judging by the entire tone of your post here.

A Vatican III has actually been proposed by several insiders within the Church, to correct errors which were loose and non-authentic understandings of Vatican II. No one who seriously knows what’s going on within the Church Universal right now is proposing relaxing, further, those misinterpretations.

 

[catholicmamajoy]

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.

In addition to preventing pregnancy, oral contraceptives and the IUD are also known abortifacients.

The product info sheet that comes with each IUD will explain how the device works. Here is one for “Paragard”, which is one of the more widely-used IUD’s in North America.

paragard.com/images/ParaGard_info.pdf

Halfway down the sheet, under the heading of “Information for Patients” is the question “How does Paragard work?” It then states, “Ideas about how ParaGard® works include preventing sperm from reaching the
egg, preventing sperm from fertilizing the egg, and preventing the egg from attaching
(implanting) in the uterus.”

As far as oral contraceptives, here’s the product info sheet from a popular brand:

thepill.com/sites/default/files/pdf/OTC_LO_PI_-03H268.pdf#zoom=100

Under Clinical Pharmacology, it states that " Although the primary
mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)."

So, you have the manufacturers commenting that they believe it works in several ways, one of which includes preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus and the other commenting that it reduces the likelihood of implantation. If you have a device whose sole purpose is to prevent pregnancy and one of the ways its own manufacturer states that it works is by causing a fertilized egg to not implant,which is considered an early intended abortion, would that not be a mortal sin?

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Again, I did not say that MOST priest told me something contrary to Church teaching, I said I have spoken to many and that there are more that would tell me the same thing. I am not trying to escape anything, I am stating that I do not believe it is a mortal sin. When speaking to the priests I also talked about leaving the Church over issues such as these and they did not tell me I should leave the church over it. They told me to pray about it and to follow my conscious which I did and I am ready to face God and have Him judge me. Maybe the posters wife did the same.

I didn’t say you should leave the Church nor does the Church.

Again, what you should do is spelled out very clearly. If we cannot obey church teachings on such serious matters, we should continue to pray to God to help open our hearts and minds, while refraining from the Eucharist.

The Church does not teach that if you disagree leave, nor does it teach that if you disagree, falunt it and go about your business as usual.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

A Vatican III

We are averaging a Vatican counsel about once every thousand years. These aren’t morale building weekends put together by the HR department. You may have another 1000 years before there is another.

 

[Rau]

I also spoke to a priest when I did artificial insemination, which I do not believe is a mortal sin and something I have never been sorry I did. If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked. You speak like every single priest in the world is going to give the same exact response to every question.

The “Will of God” - how often do we hear that expression misused and abused? From where comes this idea that everything that happens is the Will of God? Do you expect that God will intervene and overrule the laws of nature on a regular basis so that the universe unfolds in a particular way? This would have us surrounded by “miracles” on a daily basis, and feeling we have little real control of our lives.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The “Will of God” - how often do we hear that expression misused and abused? From where comes this idea that everything that happens is the Will of God? Do you expect that God will intervene and overrule the laws of nature on a regular basis so that the universe unfolds in a particular way? This would have us surrounded by “miracles” on a daily basis, and feeling we have little real control of our lives.

Like if someone points a loaded gun at another person and pulls the trigger and says if it is Gods will that this person live He will intervene. This is the attitude with Birth Control that is being displayed and it is false.

 

[einna]

The “Will of God” - how often do we hear that expression misused and abused? From where comes this idea that everything that happens is the Will of God? Do you expect that God will intervene and overrule the laws of nature on a regular basis so that the universe unfolds in a particular way? This would have us surrounded by “miracles” on a daily basis, and feeling we have little real control of our lives.

First of all I know nothing. I think and believe certain things, I do not know anything. I almost never say anything about the “will of God”, but I think God is capable of anything and everything, but I don’t know to what extent He intervenes in life and I would never venture to guess. There are “miracles” happening on a daily basis, there is also horrible things happening everyday. To what extent we really have control over are lives I have no idea. We have choices and sometime things turn out the way we want and sometimes they don’t.

Let you tell me a bit about where I am coming from. At the Catholic high school I attended we had to read a book titled “The Great Divorce” by T. S. Elliot for Theology class. The premise of the book was that people on earth (Hell) could get on a bus and travel to another place (purgatory) where they were each met by an “angel” who tried to help them see that they had to give up there controlling attitudes, material things, family, religion, etc. and make everything about God above all else, just God, not the rules of any religion. If they did they could move on to heaven, if not, they had to go back to Hell.

Now how many people would argue and fight if they were to find out that something like that, defending the Church to the end. Yes I know that most of you will say that is simply not possible because the Church cannot be wrong about dogma, but again with God anything is possible. How many people could give up their Catholic faith and live among non-Christians to be saved if that is what God asked of us? I would bet some of you you simply could not do it, arguing that was not what we learned on earth.

The school I went to was not a new liberal Catholic school. It is over 100 years old and the bishop over sees what is taught. Now they never taught us that the Church was wrong, but they did tell us that with God all things are possible and at what lengths were we willing to go to if God asks? No one, no one, has a true full understand of God not even the Church.

 

[einna]

Like if someone points a loaded gun at another person and pulls the trigger and says if it is Gods will that this person live He will intervene. This is the attitude with Birth Control that is being displayed and it is false.

Gee how many times have we heard of someone being shot and had a bullet travel through their brain and body but never die, when every doctor said they should have never survived? How many women have become pregnant when doctors have verified that they never would? How many babies have fought all odds to live when other much healthier babies have died.

I have no idea how much of that is in the hands of God and what is luck and medicine. Again I don’t know, you seem to be the one with all the answers. I do not promote birth control in anyway, nor do I go around looking to change someones mind in the matter. If you do that is great. I do other things to try to help the world, we all can’t do everything for everybody. I have only said that I made a decision I will have to face God with and that I do not think it is worth losing your marriage on pushing this particular issue with your spouse. That is only my opinion, if you don’t like it that is fine.

So many people are absolutely sure of what is to come and exactly how thing will how and for who. I would never presume to know what God will do in in the end.

 

[Father_of_10]

So many people are absolutely sure of what is to come and exactly how thing will how and for who. I would never presume to know what God will do in in the end.

But you can be sure there will be a judgement…

 

[Lasting_faith]

Yes. You are. You said it was not in the Bible. The Bible specifically addressed it. You discounted that with some sort of false understanding of the early church that you either are using to not see something that is written plain as day or have been mislead about. There was the eucharist in the early Church. THAT IS WHAT PAUL IS WRITING ABOUT.

I will ask you. What would that passage have to say differently to make you understand the point about the Eucharist.

Christ did not "only teach about sins in the Bible pages that quote him. Your assumptions have no basis in Catholic or Christian theology or history.

There was confession, and there was every type of sin known to man. Where are you coming up with these ideas about the Early Church? Who is telling you these false assumptions?

First off all, nobody is “telling me theese false assumptions”. Then, tell me where St.Paul writes that before breake bread (wich BTW is a Jewish view on our Eucharist) we must confess our sins? And to whom? There was no priests except Jewish priests or teacher of the faith at that time. And before you condemn me have you thought about the possibility that you might be wrong?

 

[Rau]

Gee how many times have we heard of someone being shot and had a bullet travel through their brain and body but never die, when every doctor said they should have never survived?
…
I would never presume to know what God will do in in the end.

Well, it’s incredibly rare actually, compared to the number of deaths that ensue when bullet speeds through brain. Interestingly, the guillotine - a separating of the head from the body - is always fatal.

Your last sentence above is surely true, yet you made the statement earlier (in reference to artificial insemination):
If God did not want me to have children, it simply would have never worked.

This statement presumes that God may take a position on whether you should have children, that he may conclude in the negative, and if so, he would act to overrule nature. This is a lot of presumption.

I think the more important considerations in life are about** the choices we make **- since we control these. We will be judged (fairly) on the choices we make. The consequences of our choices can’t be used in any way to validate those choices, and least of all by appealing to a role that we presume God has taken in their unfolding.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

First off all, nobody is “telling me theese false assumptions”. Then, tell me where St.Paul writes that before breake bread (wich BTW is a Jewish view on our Eucharist) we must confess our sins? And to whom? There was no priests except Jewish priests or teacher of the faith at that time. And before you condemn me have you thought about the possibility that you might be wrong?

No, I am not wrong. Yours is the faulty view of history and Catholicism. Paul was writing about the Eucharist. This has always been understood that way. There were priests… They may not have been called that, but that is what they were. Are you denying the Eucharist confected by the very hands of the apostles? The saints and the Early Fathers?

If you wish to discuss the basic fact that Paul is speaking of the Eucharist then we need to start a new thread. Until you can provide some sort of proof that 2000 years of history is wrong then this conversation is over.

I cannot believe that on a Catholic site we debate the Eucharist, Teaching on ABC and basic basic theology. This is what our faith has become? Something where even the basics are lost!?

 

[Kal2012]

My wife contracepts (IUD). She has begun to receive Communion again based on the advice of a friend. Last Sunday after Mass, conversation came up about somebody we knew who is having another baby and my wife said, “I’m done having babies. Period.”

It is bad enough for her to receive the Eucharist unworthily, but then within an hour after Mass she says this out loud. It makes me sick to my stomach, but I do not know what to do. Should I stop going to Mass with her?

Admittedly, I haven’t read the whole thread, but the thing that gnaws at me is how is it that OP knows that wife uses an IUD, but is upset when wife wants to take communion and participate in church life.

Before people get all upset at me, my point is that usually spouses talk to each other before using birth control. Most wives don’t just “get it” and hide it from their husbands.

There’s a mutual understanding that birth control will be used by the wife in the marriage. There are conversations about getting the birth control before it is used.

So, when did OP stop being okay with the fact that wife got the IUD in the first place? Was he never okay with it, but went along because it would make wife happy?

I’m not suggesting that wife is okay using the IUD because she needs to be taking advice from her priest, not her friend.

However, I really don’t buy the idea that OP is blameless in the situation and I wonder if he should be taking communion as well. (If we are going to judge who should and shouldn’t be taking communion…Honestly, I don’t think that any of us lay people are qualified for that job in the first place.)

I know Catholics across the political spectrum who think they are being good Catholics, regardless what the church teaches.

I think both OP and his wife need to talk to their priest and figure this out. Neither can be a “lone ranger” Catholic when it comes to being in a marriage.

 

[Lasting_faith]

No, I am not wrong. Yours is the faulty view of history and Catholicism. Paul was writing about the Eucharist. This has always been understood that way. There were priests… They may not have been called that, but that is what they were. Are you denying the Eucharist confected by the very hands of the apostles? The saints and the Early Fathers?

If you wish to discuss the basic fact that Paul is speaking of the Eucharist then we need to start a new thread. Until you can provide some sort of proof that 2000 years of history is wrong then this conversation is over.

I cannot believe that on a Catholic site we debate the Eucharist, Teaching on ABC and basic basic theology. This is what our faith has become? Something where even the basics are lost!?

OK, here we are. Two grown up guys discussing a matter that is far from what the OP did ask, and yet once fail to help him. Well, what can I do? (Suicide did cross my mind.)

So there was priest but they where not called priests. I buy that one. You want me to produce evidence that Eucharist did exist in the early years when The Church took shape. They did not have churches back then, they did get togheter in different places to pray and the elders did teach the truth about Christ and our faith. There was no Mass order, that came later on. And at this point I think it is time to tell you that I have this tiny problem with reading. I can read any book for hours and don’t understand a thing. Doctors do not know why, but for some reason beyond understanding I can read The Bible, as I do every day, morning and evening, and that is the only book I understand. And nobody know why. If I need to look up something in the CCC I can do it, if the text is short and include words I can memorize, but that’s it. I learn foreign languages by listening and then I write as I would talk, (and I speak and write and understand many languages) and nobody understand that either. So you see my friend, I can not read any Scriptures, all I have is my Bible and what I can learn by listening. I can not learn a thing from any book. And to my knowledge there is nothing in The Bible that imply that there was a bann on share the bread and vine as we do today. What they started would be what we have today. A Holy, the most Holy among Holy Sacraments. In the early begining of the dawn of The Catholic Church they did gather to remember Christ when eating bread as His Flesch and drink vine as His Blood but it was not the Communion we have nowdays. Then nobody even thought about the fact that they maybe where not in the state of grace as today is required. That is what I know. If I need to ask, I ask a priest. If I am wrong I am, if I am right it give me little or non delight because it come on someone elses expense and I am sure God did not put me on this earth to have joy by knowing more then someone else. But this time I am close to absolutely sure that I am right. But if I am, I am sorry if you feel bad. It ain’t worth that. So, I am rather wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

OK, here we are. Two grown up guys discussing a matter that is far from what the OP did ask, and yet once fail to help him. Well, what can I do? (Suicide did cross my mind.)

So there was priest but they where not called priests. I buy that one. You want me to produce evidence that Eucharist did exist in the early years when The Church took shape. They did not have churches back then, they did get togheter in different places to pray and the elders did teach the truth about Christ and our faith. There was no Mass order, that came later on. And at this point I think it is time to tell you that I have this tiny problem with reading. I can read any book for hours and don’t understand a thing. Doctors do not know why, but for some reason beyond understanding I can read The Bible, as I do every day, morning and evening, and that is the only book I understand. And nobody know why. If I need to look up something in the CCC I can do it, if the text is short and include words I can memorize, but that’s it. I learn foreign languages by listening and then I write as I would talk, (and I speak and write and understand many languages) and nobody understand that either. So you see my friend, I can not read any Scriptures, all I have is my Bible and what I can learn by listening. I can not learn a thing from any book. And to my knowledge there is nothing in The Bible that imply that there was a bann on share the bread and vine as we do today. What they started would be what we have today. A Holy, the most Holy among Holy Sacraments. In the early begining of the dawn of The Catholic Church they did gather to remember Christ when eating bread as His Flesch and drink vine as His Blood but it was not the Communion we have nowdays. Then nobody even thought about the fact that they maybe where not in the state of grace as today is required. That is what I know. If I need to ask, I ask a priest. If I am wrong I am, if I am right it give me little or non delight because it come on someone elses expense and I am sure God did not put me on this earth to have joy by knowing more then someone else. But this time I am close to absolutely sure that I am right. But if I am, I am sorry if you feel bad. It ain’t worth that. So, I am rather wrong.

You are misinformed about the early Church and about the Eucharist. You are reading the Bible without an understanding of it. And basing your theology off of that.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

Admittedly, I haven’t read the whole thread, but the thing that gnaws at me is how is it that OP knows that wife uses an IUD, but is upset when wife wants to take communion and participate in church life.

Before people get all upset at me, my point is that usually spouses talk to each other before using birth control. Most wives don’t just “get it” and hide it from their husbands.

There’s a mutual understanding that birth control will be used by the wife in the marriage. There are conversations about getting the birth control before it is used.

So, when did OP stop being okay with the fact that wife got the IUD in the first place? Was he never okay with it, but went along because it would make wife happy?

I’m not suggesting that wife is okay using the IUD because she needs to be taking advice from her priest, not her friend.

However, I really don’t buy the idea that OP is blameless in the situation and I wonder if he should be taking communion as well. (If we are going to judge who should and shouldn’t be taking communion…Honestly, I don’t think that any of us lay people are qualified for that job in the first place.)

I know Catholics across the political spectrum who think they are being good Catholics, regardless what the church teaches.

I think both OP and his wife need to talk to their priest and figure this out. Neither can be a “lone ranger” Catholic when it comes to being in a marriage.

How can you assume all these things? In fact, I have been opposed to my wife using birth control for as long as I have been Catholic. I have been gentle about it, but the topic comes up every week now that she is receiving communion, whether we talk about it or not. Before, when she was not receiving communion, it was much easier to let the weeks pass without talking about it. It is much harder now.