The Church does allow you to engage in sexual relations with a spouse who is using birth control

[Huiou_Theou]

This may seem like semantics but there is a big distinction. If the person would participate in intercourse without contraception, then that person is *not *refusing sexual relations but rather refusing to use contraception. Refusing to use contraception is certainly in line with Church teachings. Intent matters–as long as the intent is not to withhold relations then refusing to participate in contracepted intercourse with his/her spouse is not a sin. While the title of this thread is correct, it should also be clear that the Church does not require anyone to participate in contracepted intercourse with his/her spouse.

Please clarify more:
If the church in a qualified way permits having intercourse with contraception – but does not force it – when the spouse in question is NOT the contracepting spouse – then it clearly follows that it is NOT a mortal sin to have intercourse with a spouse who is contracepting.
It also follows in spite of contraception being grave matter that one can not be accused of ‘using’ contraception if they have sexual intercourse with a contracepting spouse – so long as they refuse to actively contracept themselves and clearly explain, ask, beg that the spouse not use contraception. But it seems in your post that the claim is made the innocent spouse is somehow guilty if they DO have sexual relations – because THEY would be contracepting.

Again, if one partner is lustful – the character of marriage is to YIELD according to Augustine. So, why not YIELD if one may do so and benefit the spouse?

The church never forces anyone to have sexual relations with a spouse WHETHER OR NOT the spouse is sinning in any way.
There is, however, a duty which stems from charity to protect a weak spouse from engaging in additional grave sins. The point of Castii connubii is that sexuality is not an appropriate weapon to FORCE the spouse to change anything – it is a gift that is not to be denied.

 

[FLCathMom]

And my point is that it may be more wrong to deny than to not deny.

My point is that one is not denying any marital act in this case.

There is nothing more intrinsically dead in having sexual relations with a Pagan than there is in having relations with someone else who is dead in mortal sin – yet these two cases are analogous:
The spouse is quite possibly in mortal sin (the Pagan spouse rejecting the church, the contracepting spouse rejecting church teaching) In both cases, one is quite likely having sexual relations with a morally dead person.

This is not about denying relations compelely, but refusing to participate in sin. To use this example: A wife is called to be subject fo her husband, but she is not bound to help him commit a crime.

The LESSER sin is also a principle in the very paragraph you cited from Augustine. The lesser evil is also the principle of the preceeding paragraph:

According to the quote from St. Augustine the lesser sin in this case is adultery. “the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.”

One is a lustful partner, the other is not: Using the same argument you propose – why should anyone sin by refusing to have relations with a lustful partner? – YET it pertains to the character of marriage to YIELD in the case of one lustful partner!

Again, it must be made clear that the marital act is not being denied, and it should be stated as such to the spouse.
This is EXACTLY my point, and St. Augustine is working on the same principle. Again: Why is it NOT a sin to refuse sexual relations to a contracepting spouse? (Is it any less detestable to have sexual relations with a spouse lusting after oneself?)

The ewtn article I quoted has an Imprimatur, Nihil obstat, and it expressly states that this is not a sin.

To allow oneself to be subjected to onanism is to allow oneself to be abused. The spritual and emotional pain can be torturous. The Church does not require us to allow ourselves to be abused.

I do not quite grasp the black and white nature of your response.

The OP’s quote from from Castii Conubii states that the offended spouse may reluctantly participate, not that the spouse is obligated to participate. My point is that the offended spouse has a choice to make and that it should be made prayerfully and with the advice of a priest.

 

[briang72]

Now I’m more confused. Is it being said that because one spouse’s refusal to contracept ***MAY ***lead to adultery, it is better to lead the other spouse into a grave matter beforehand, in an attempt to avoid the potential adultery?!

I agree with the argument that when the Church speaks of the marital or conjugal act and refusing it to a spouse, she is not speaking of “contracepted sexual acts”. However, if I can be shown where the Church teaches that a contracepting spouse has rights to sexual intercourse (not the conjugal act), I will stand corrected.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My point is that one is not denying any marital act in this case.

Point granted, but moot. It does not matter if one classifies the act as marital or not. A contracepting Pagan is arguably NOT engaging in a marital act either…

One partner is sinned against.

This is not about denying relations completely, but refusing to participate in sin. To use this example: A wife is called to be subject fo her husband, but she is not bound to help him commit a crime.

I never said it was about denying relations completely – I just said it was of value WHERE it prevents the spouse from committing additional grave sins (eg: adultury).

According to the quote from St. Augustine the lesser sin in this case is adultery. “the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.”

I disagree.

But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose –

Is Augustine talking about sodomy or contraception, I don’t recall the word Onanism ever showing up in the immediate paragraphs being read… That is one interpretation.

Again, it must be made clear that the marital act is not being denied, and it should be stated as such to the spouse.

Again, I never said it was a marital act in the full sense. It is also not a sin to perform the sexual act with a partner who is contracepting.

The ewtn article I quoted has an Imprimatur, Nihil obstat, and it expressly states that this is not a sin.

That’s nice – St. Augustine was a bishop, all he says has an implicit Nihil obstat too. What that means is the way the sentence states things, in some circumstances (at least) it is true. That doesn’t mean you haven’t overlooked something subtle – as people often misinterpret even the Catechism.

To allow oneself to be subjected to onanism is to allow oneself to be abused. The spritual and emotional pain can be torturous. The Church does not require us to allow ourselves to be abused.

Oh – and to be crucified is also to allow oneself to be abused and
to allow oneself to be lusted after is to allow oneself to be abused.
St. Augustine’s advice! and the example of Jesus?

I agree – It is NOT required – “take up your cross and follow after me”. You have a choice. – no, I am not being sarcastic – no I do not condone abuse. We are talking about lesser evils here.

The OP’s quote from from Castii Conubii states that the offended spouse may reluctantly participate, not that the spouse is obligated to participate. My point is that the offended spouse has a choice to make and that it should be made prayerfully and with the advice of a priest.

The church never requires sexual relations in THE FIRST PLACE whether there is sin or NOT – so yeah, I agree.

But you also appear to be refusing to admit that in many cases it may be a sin (in the sense of lack of charity) to continue having said relations. I am, as I have said, divided on the issue – please elucidate how it is UNILATERALLY not sinful in any way to deny the relations IN ANY CASE especially in light of Augustine saying a woman bears shame regardless of whether she allows this to happen or not (whatever it is.)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Now I’m more confused. Is it being said that because one spouse’s refusal to contracept ***MAY ***lead to adultery, it is better to lead the other spouse into a grave matter beforehand, in an attempt to avoid the potential adultery?!

I agree with the argument that when the Church speaks of the marital or conjugal act and refusing it to a spouse, she is not speaking of “contracepted sexual acts”. However, if I can be shown where the Church teaches that a contracepting spouse has rights to sexual intercourse (not the conjugal act), I will stand corrected.

No it is not being said that one OUGHT to lead a spouse into contraception. Come on – I have clearly stated repetitively that one ought to beg, plead, do what is possible to get the other spouse to avoid the sin. The contraception is being forced into the marriage – no one is LEADING anyone else into it.

It is often better to allow it to happen (as the Protestant DH example given above) than to suffer the OBVIOUS consequences in certain cases. When a woman marries a man, there is a good deal of knowledge (often) about how much they can take. Probable. There are exceptions, I would admit.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

As another observation, Onan himself was not the only potential husband of the offspring of Judah. So in that case, no marriage took place to begin with – ever – and the woman who became a “harlot” had intercourse with her Father INLAW which was of FAR MORE HONORABLE than that of sex with ONAN. She had a right to full sexual union which was denied, and became a harlot to get what was hers…

But I digress…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Please clarify more:
…it seems in your post that the claim is made the innocent spouse is somehow guilty if they DO have sexual relations – because THEY would be contracepting…

Let me attempt to clarify. One spouse may be innocent (therefore not guilty of the sin of contraception) in some circumstances when the other spouse forces contraception upon the marriage. Yet I tried to make the point that it is not a sin to refuse relations with a spouse who insists on contraception. As neither would be a sin, the innocent spouse can decide along with his/her confessor the proper course of action to based on the individual circumstances.

 

[CuriousInIL]

As another observation, Onan himself was not the only potential husband of the offspring of Judah. So in that case, no marriage took place to begin with – ever – and the woman who became a “harlot” had intercourse with her Father INLAW which was of FAR MORE HONORABLE than that of sex with ONAN. She had a right to full sexual union which was denied, and became a harlot to get what was hers…

But I digress…

Huh?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Let me attempt to clarify … Yet I tried to make the point that it is not a sin to refuse relations with a spouse who insists on contraception. As neither would be a sin …

Let us agree to this much:
The confessor, whether perfectly right or wrong, has and weighs the ignorance of the penitent and other factors in deciding how to best bring them back to full communion, if possible. This is the confessor’s place by right of judge in the matter of confession.
There is an objective and subjective aspect to this question: A person may formally sin (commit evil in knowledge) and informally sin (ignorance). The gravity of these two are different such that it may be best to allow ignorance in the short run to prevent grave sinning while educating the heart of the penitent for eventual conversion. (I am no judge).

As Jesus says, even to the apostles:
John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

And in casti connubii:

If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]

There is a second issue, though, and that is the idea that in all cases one may choose either choice with no guilt whatsoever.
This is where I have problems, and am in disagreement with many of the statements posted previously by various people, because one may get the idea that they can unilaterally abstain if their spouse is “sinning” (venial/mortal???) – and if sexual abstinance can be used to curb this, then why not any other sin the spouse sees? ( Including lust? ). The confessor is reduced to an arbiter among indifferent choices – that bothers me.

As I tried to clarify before:
It is not the church who obliges married couples to have relations, it is the couple who enters into an oath on their marriage day.
There is a duty to honor one’s own oath. Casti Connubii simply does not clearly address the issue of under what circumstances the “duty” is exempted. Permission is given even in the hard case provided a certain set of conditions are followed – and there is a definite reference to the purpose of marriage which EXCEEDS the procreative and unitive aspect.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

1. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

1. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,”[28] express not only a law of justice but of charity.

And again:

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife;

So, I will repeat – If it is permissible for one to have sexual relations (reluctantly, but in right reason) with one who is contracepting, on what ground is the duty to be denied?

And I will point out the difficult nuance of the argument:
The church can not command one to do what is Evil, nor sanction it – so if it is Permissable, and a duty exists without the sin – what is it about the sin which denies the duty?

The response seems to be “I am aiding them in committing a crime.” – but the condition of the permission is that one DOES NOT aid the spouse in committing the crime. This is contradictory thinking – what is the dividing line in choosing the lesser evil really?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huh?

Genes 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
Genes 38:16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?

Read around this part of Genesis – there are several important points about marriage law (non-sacramental) here – that relate to the bringing forth of the messiah: eg the tribe of Judah (named after Judah) is the tribe the messiah was to come from. The point I am making is esoteric unless you study the scriptures…

 

[FLCathMom]

As I tried to clarify before:
It is not the church who obliges married couples to have relations, it is the couple who enters into an oath on their marriage day.
There is a duty to honor one’s own oath.

My point is that the wedding vows refer only to marital relations and not to any and all sexual relations.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Huh?

Seems like someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.
Cite a church teaching which says one may abstain from the duty which is not to be denied – because the other spouse is sinning in some way – either lust or contraception, and that in all cases there is no sin on the part of the one abstaining unilaterally if the other spouse contracepts (not by mutual consent). (eg: a past vasectomy)

If it is so common sense, then where is it stated? (I don’t know is a valid answer)

I need a definite negative statement of some kind. The argument is beginning to look pharisaical.

Marriage is modeled on Jesus the spouse who gives grace to his church which is FULL of sinners. Not only that, but the act of repentance is itself a gift not unlike that of sexuality promised in the wedding vows. There is a fine hair being split that doesn’t look right to me, and I would like to know why if possible.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To drive the point home:

It is commonly held that a woman to whom pregnancy would be fatal
or highly dangerous is not bound to render the due; the request
for it would be unreasonable. Finally, there is no obligation of
granting it, rather the reverse, if it is going to be abused by
the sin of onanism.

There is no obligation of asking for the due except when harm
would be done by abstinence, a weakening of love, a risk of
impurity. In this connection, husband and wife will learn to
interpret and anticipate the wishes of each other.

even the EWTN article does not cite church teaching here, but only says it is “commonly held”. St. Augustine would NEVER have said risk of death was a reason to abstain in general because he lived at a time when children induced death in childbirth was VERY COMMON. There is something fishy…

 

[gardenswithkids]

So, I will repeat – If it is permissible for one to have sexual relations (reluctantly, but in right reason) with one who is contracepting, on what ground is the duty to be denied?..The response seems to be “I am aiding them in committing a crime.” – but the condition of the permission is that one DOES NOT aid the spouse in committing the crime. …

Look back at the Vademeccum which I quoted earlier. Note that three conditions must be met for the cooperation to be licit. Also, that document mentions the abortificient effect of some methods of birth control also must be considered. If those three conditions are not met, or if the innocent spouse recognizes a significant risk that a child concieved would be aborted, co-operation may not be licit.

"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;47 *
   *]*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).
   14. 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.48 *

 

[gardenswithkids]

…if the other spouse contracepts (not by mutual consent). (eg: a past vasectomy)…

Maybe I split hairs again, but I distinguish sterilization from contraception. I am in no way condoning sterilization when I write that. The Catechism in point 2399 on the regulation of birth says “morally unacceptable means (for example direct sterilization or contraception.)” That seems to distinguish sterilization from contraception in the Church’s eyes.

To my mind, sterilization is a greater evil than other non-abortificient methods, because it mutilates the body and is not easily reversed. Sterilization is one, huge, grave, permanent act, rather than repeated acts of contraception that can be stopped at any time. That permanence is why one spouse may resort to sterilization despite the objections of the other–because by the permanance the subjects of birth control and babies are basically closed. A serious threat of sterilization is an example of what I consider a grave reason for co-operating with the sin of a contracepting spouse.

As we have engaged in this thread discussion, I mistakenly assumed that we discussed on-going acts of contraception, not past sterilization. Once a sterilization has already taken place against the wishes of one spouse, I think that the innocent spouse would be devastated and justly angry. I would hope and pray that the innocent spouse could forgive the offending spouse that the other spouse would eventually come to repent his/her sterilization.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

gardenswithkids,

Splitting hairs is OK when done properly. That’s how confusion ends and people climb out of the pit of sin.

I would agree that in one way sterilization is a greater sin than non-mutilating contraception – but in another way it is less, for the sin itself happens at one time (once) after that the person is living with consequences and not actively sinning (whether or not they can reverse the vasectomy). I will drop sterilization from the argument, as even in the lesser case of temporary contraception the possibility exists for licit use.

I would definitely agree that any method which often causes abortion (eg: traditional IUD’s, RU486, etc,) murders multiple people spiritually and physically. Sometimes the threat of abortion is used as a weapon in fights between spouses when it really is not intended. Sort of lack of charity to the extreme. But no need to drag the argument to the extremes – the common case is more useful to most people.

The basic idea of fornication and contraception (the most common kinds) is included in the vademecum. I will have to think about what you have said some more – point #2 on grave matter seems to be the crux of the issue…

Anger (not malicious), eg: the cleansing of the temple with whips (but still being somewhat merciful to the doves who always come home and are innocent) is a factor in all of this – sometimes one can be angry at the situation and do drastic things to solve the problem. – although Jesus did tolerate the animals for several years before zeal consumed him.

I will reply later when I have time – I am really beginning to enjoy the conversation, but have some duties to perform. God bless you.

 

[FLCathMom]

Anger (not malicious), eg: the cleansing of the temple with whips (but still being somewhat merciful to the doves who always come home and are innocent) is a factor in all of this – sometimes one can be angry at the situation and do drastic things to solve the problem. – although Jesus did tolerate the animals for several years before zeal consumed him.

This is where the advice of a priest comes in. A priest can advise one on how to approach the situation with all charity. Prayer and the advice of a priest are tools God gives us so that we can discern His will and apply it in our lives. Prayers to the Blessed Mother are especially efficacious. She loves chastity!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

gardenswithkids,

A mini review:

Adam ate the fruit and then blamed Eve, but good Catholics shouldn’t be like that. It can be easy for someone to deceive himself or herself and blame the spouse for contraception.

Technically yes, but this is a case where the man was given the law and the woman was not. She was ignorant with the exception of what Adam told her – and what she inherited from Adam when she was created. From her report to the serpent, the message was garbled. Adam’s sin did not primarily occur at the time he finally ate the fruit – it occurred back at the time where he allowed the serpent access to his wife instead of being a guard-ener.

Genes 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

For, if Eve – (who is part of Adam) ate the fruit first, as is clearly implied – Adam was dead by that very communion with his wife.
Where does blame lie except with the wife if eating the fruit were the true sin here? Are you suggesting that if Adam had not eaten the fruit original sin would not have been passed down?

It is Adam’s sin by not stopping her whom he had authority over at the conception of the sin – not the culmination – or else on what ground is he unjustified in accusing his wife of causing him to fall?

Eg: if his wife is right – one must not even to touch the fruit – then tag! Adam your dead because I placed the fruit in your preternatural hand – and it killed you before you ate! so you might as well eat.

Elucidate.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

…continued

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

Both Adam and Eve knew enough not to eat the fruit.

1Timo 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
1Timo 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

And Paul here applies the story to every married couple.
…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Look back at the Vademeccum which I quoted earlier. Note that three conditions must be met for the cooperation to be licit. Also, that document mentions the abortificient effect of some methods of birth control also must be considered. If those three conditions are not met, or if the innocent spouse recognizes a significant risk that a child concieved would be aborted, co-operation may not be licit.

I really do want to understand this in terms of church teaching.

So, rather than using the extremes as an excuse – since I am merely interested in the typical case of contraception. (The common case). eg: Noting than Onanism might be ambiguously used to refer to an act in an already validly consummated marriage (with children) by colloquial use – I am being careful not to mix words – since Onan’s case is in fact different.

Keeping in mind the early post on this thread by Nita (which is excellent):I observe the following points about the Vademeccum’s points.

1. A marriage may forbidden, and therefore illicit. This brings up the idea of impediments from canon law. – A spouse who swore falsely (not knowing the full meaning of marriage, or perhaps lying in their wedding vows) might arguably be a fornicator, illicitly emulating marriage. I think Onan himself falls into this category – as he had the duty to marry, but did not ever truly do so.
   So those who refer to what they think their own oaths refer to with out church teaching – eg: actually looking at what the church teaches the oath to mean – is very shaky ground. Can one marry who does not intend to at least do as the church requires?
2. Grave matter. Again, I will note the marriage oath – and I push the point that if one does not understand that the sin or lust of the spouse is not an excuse to avoid sexual relations – then we could be back to point #1. Again: From St. Augustine --lust itself is not a reason to abstain. This is where the apologetic distinction needs to be made to convince me one way or another on the point – right now I lean toward believing that the marital “duty” – not the marital “right” remains in force even when the spouse contracepts, the innocent spouse still has all their duty’s in a valid marriage.
3. Attempt to correct the spouse – this is also important, but even there it notes that the correction need not be at every moment.

The question then becomes – as I have noted – a conflict of charities. Without justification, I don’t see grounds where the duty is excused although the “right” of a contracepting spouse might be abrogated (I’m not sure) – so where does the church teach that one may add exceptions to their marriage oath (grave matter) – or where does the church teach that the limited case presented which is at least a lesser evil.

I only see three ways out:
Either the spouses are not truly married, every marriage oath may be rash because the spouse could harden in their heart ( ! ), or there is church teaching which I have not yet found in reading through this issue carefully.

Hail Mary? or gardens with kids? convince me.