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

[gardenswithkids]

…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…

I like your “guard-ener” pun. Tying your interpretation of Adam’s “primary sin” to the thread topic, spouses should protect each other from temptations and sin. However, Adam did not only fail to protect Eve from sin–Adam willfully participated in that sin.

Just as Adam partook of the fruit Eve offered him, when one spouse falls into temptation and sin, it becomes more difficult for the other spouse to resist. Back to contraception–in most cases both husband and wife agree to use contraception, but only one of them wears/uses a particular contraceptive device or chemical. One spouse might “blame” the other spouse who wears/takes/inserts the contraception. Adam blamed Eve, and a similar danger exists if this Church guideline is misused. Spouses must protect each other from sin, not blame the other.

 

[gardenswithkids]

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. 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. … Can one marry who does not intend to at least do as the church requires?..I only see three ways out:
Either the spouses are not truly married,…

Look at Church teachings together to get a better picture. The Church presumes a marriage exists until proven otherwise. We shouldn’t sit around wondering if a particular marriage is valid—we assume it to be valid unless the Church declares it null. That said, St. Augustine raised similar points—see the quote from St. Augustine towards the bottom of this link: http://www.hli.org/seminarians_eastern_orthodoxy_contraception.html
“Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame….Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.”

…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…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)

You repeatedly site St. Augustine comments about not abstaining because of lust. Pair that against what I quoted above from St. Augustine. Remember he consider that contraception made a harlot out of a wife and an adulterer out of a husband.

The martial “duty” is to have intercourse *without *contraception. The one who brings contraception into the marriage fails his/her “marital duty”.

Now as to charity, the spouse who forces contraception on marriage will answer not only for using contraception, but also for that mistreatment of the innocent spouse. There are cases when an innocent spouse may tolerate that to preserve the marriage. This Church teaching stands to help lovingly and patiently bring spouses into compliance with God’s plan for marriage. However, there are other possible scenarios where abstinence may be better–and more charitable. Charity above all-- the complication is to discover what the greatest charity and most prudent course of action for the sake of the spouse’s soul.

People use contraception when they don’t want to have children or get pregnant—perhaps that person might be willing to abstain from sex. The one who wants to follow Church teachings may be the one struggling with lust and might place pressure for “marital rights” on an exhausted and overwhelmed spouse who then resorts to contraception in desperation. Abstinence may be a more generous “gift of self” than placing one spouse in the position of using contraception.

The Church teaching we discussed needs to be applied with care.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I like your “guard-ener” pun. Tying your interpretation of Adam’s “primary sin” to the thread topic, spouses should protect each other from temptations and sin. However, Adam did not only fail to protect Eve from sin–Adam willfully participated in that sin.

From the outline I gave, your response is not quite satisfying.
Adam may have already thought he was dead – and indeed he was by the time his wife ate the fruit, for she is part of him.

Since he was already guilty of part of the law – he was guilty of all of it before he ate the fruit. How then, does eating the fruit, himself, affect the sin of Adam (at all) since he was already guilty of that sin when his wife ate – and the consequences were already set? ( They are one flesh ).

If Adam hadn’t eaten the fruit, God might have pulled another rib from Adam – I suppose – but then would Eve have been saved?
(I’m not sure that would have helped, anyway, as he was already guilty by proxy.)

The church sees a saint in Adam today because of repentance (the fig leaves), although it sees the sin as his too – because he was the one given the law – and because the actual deed took place through his wife, the salvation was also promised through his wife in a way more subtle than the serpent.

Sequences of events don’t make cause and effect.
Notice in Timothy, it says Adam was not deceived – nor does
it accuse him of the transgression directly, even though the church calls it the sin of Adam because he was responsible by omission.

Just as Adam partook of the fruit Eve offered him, when one spouse falls into temptation and sin, it becomes more difficult for the other spouse to resist. Back to contraception–in most cases both husband and wife agree to use contraception, but only one of them wears/uses a particular contraceptive device or chemical. One spouse might “blame” the other spouse who wears/takes/inserts the contraception. Adam blamed Eve, and a similar danger exists if this Church guideline is misused. Spouses must protect each other from sin, not blame the other.

I agree with you on this point:
In most cases they both assent to it, and this is wrong. (It is undeniably wrong/wicked when even one chooses it.) I can see for example a case of a man who marries a woman and says 'I don’t want children YOU use the diaphragm…" and then perhaps he smugly thinks to himself – since she is using it, I’m not guilty.
(BTW: I am not sure he actually thought that, but the rest is true – and a gullible bishop asked this guy to be a deacon!)

Continued shortly…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Look at Church teachings together to get a better picture. The Church presumes a marriage exists until proven otherwise. We shouldn’t sit around wondering if a particular marriage is valid—we assume it to be valid unless the Church declares it null. That said, St. Augustine raised similar points—see the quote from St. Augustine towards the bottom of this link: http://www.hli.org/seminarians_eastern_orthodoxy_contraception.html
“Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame….Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.”

Fair enough, one is made a harlot – or the man is an adulterer with his wife. (But one is innocent) In the former case she is made a sexual object, and in the latter he sins against himself, because adultery is against the man. (Is that literally adultery in the Latin?, I’m not very good with Latin…)

If both are lustful, no marriage.
If one is lustful, one is a harlot or one is an Adulterer – what of the innocent spouse’s duty, though? how is it circumvented?

Hosea, remember was joined to a Harlot by the command of God.
Certainly Hosea was married, and it was his duty to bear children (at least I hope they were his…) to be signs.

Hosea 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
Hosea 1:3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son

So, to be sure, if the lord Join them – even a whore is a wife.

You repeatedly site St. Augustine comments about not abstaining because of lust. Pair that against what I quoted above from St. Augustine. Remember he consider that contraception made a harlot out of a wife and an adulterer out of a husband.

Aye, I see but it doesn’t help. What difference does it make if one is a whore or an adulterer – I have admitted from the beginning that there is a sin in one partner. I just don’t see what that has to do with the oath entered into.

… continues …

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The martial “duty” is to have intercourse *without *contraception. The one who brings contraception into the marriage fails his/her “marital duty”.

Yes, to that I certainly agree. But does one failure in duty excuse two?

Now as to charity, the spouse who forces contraception on marriage will answer not only for using contraception, but also for that mistreatment of the innocent spouse. There are cases when an innocent spouse may tolerate that to preserve the marriage. This Church teaching stands to help lovingly and patiently bring spouses into compliance with God’s plan for marriage. However, there are other possible scenarios where abstinence may be better–and more charitable. Charity above all-- the complication is to discover what the greatest charity and most prudent course of action for the sake of the spouse’s soul.

Yes, and that is where I get stuck.
What is the dividing line of lesser evil to save the marriage?
An oath is grave matter, contraception is grave matter, etc.

People use contraception when they don’t want to have children or get pregnant—perhaps that person might be willing to abstain from sex. The one who wants to follow Church teachings may be the one struggling with lust and might place pressure for “marital rights” on an exhausted and overwhelmed spouse who then resorts to contraception in desperation. Abstinence may be a more generous “gift of self” than placing one spouse in the position of using contraception.

The Church teaching we discussed needs to be applied with care.

I agree, however – now we are creating the hard case again.
So perhaps it isn’t escapable.
But let’s examine this case you propose: The one wanting to follow church teaching is struggling with lust – and the one contracepting in desperation drives them to mortal sin where none was before.

So, the Devil wins – he kills the one struggling with lust unless that one is able to abstain, and perhaps they simply can’t without committing another mortal sin. Abstinence may be the desirable gift, but perhaps it is just murder by the devil here because God wants the exhausted one to follow his will – he is after all the one to open and close the womb. (should a priest counsel the exhausted one to force the other to abstain, he would be forcing the expansion of the mortal sin.)

So, I agree it does need to be applied with care – but I still have seen nothing which says one may unilaterally deny relations to a spouse … period.

I suppose if it were sodomy rather than contraception, one could argue that the spouse does not have that right – because the relations are unnatural (which is a sin) – but in the normal contraceptive case one spouse contracepts, the other spouse is not necessarily doing anything unnatural, are they? (or else the church could never sanction them doing the act – ever – because one may tolerate a lesser evil, but never do evil so that good may come of it) – having sexual relations with a sterile partner is not a sin – sterilization is.

So that is the fine line, and I don’t quite see how if it is licit (because one is innocent) that the innocent spouse could escape the duty. Could you clarify how they gain the right to force the spouse, instead of remaining in the duty to give themselves as sworn in the marital oath?

 

[gardenswithkids]

From the outline I gave, your response is not quite satisfying.
Adam may have already thought …

If I failed to respond to your outline earlier in a way that satisfies you, it is because I may have a different understanding of Adam’s sin. According to the Catechism and traditional interpretation, Adam’s sin was not merely a sin of ommission; his sin was a deed, freely committed. He actively commited an act of disobedience. Your interpretation of Genesis that Adam only committed a sin of omission (by not guarding Eve) contrasts with CCC 390 “The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation give us the certainlty of faith that hte whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.” CCC 391 “Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy…”

I heard previously a similar interpretation that Adam somehow neglected his role of protecting Eve. Trying to tie your interpretation to back to the thread’s discussion, I believe spouses have a role to protect each other from serious sin.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, to that I certainly agree. But does one failure in duty excuse two?

It takes two for it to really be the marital act. Otherwise, it is not truly the “marital act” but a form of Onanism with a partner.

…What is the dividing line of lesser evil to save the marriage?
An oath is grave matter, contraception is grave matter, etc.

I agree, however – now we are creating the hard case again.

This teaching only applies to the hard cases when needing to choose “lesser evils”. In anything other than hard cases, both spouses would agree to follow the Church teachings and contraception wouldn’t be an issue.

But let’s examine this case you propose: The one wanting to follow church teaching is struggling with lust – and the one contracepting in desperation drives them to mortal sin where none was before.

So, the Devil wins – he kills the one struggling with lust unless that one is able to abstain, and perhaps they simply can’t without committing another mortal sin. …

Fall and redemption–that’s the story of Christianity. Christians must all personally struggle with our sins while turning to Jesus for His grace. He won the battle for us, but we must do our part. There is a mystery where grace meets free will and a transformation takes place. The devil can’t win unless the one struggling gives up the struggle and lets the devil win. Jesus gives the grace needed through Prayer and the Sacraments–particularly the Sacrament of Confession. God give grace also in the Sacrament of Marriage. If one spouse undertakes a personal struggle with sin in order to save his/her spouse from sin, I do not believe that God would abandon them.

…I suppose if it were sodomy rather than contraception, one could argue that the spouse does not have that right – because the relations are unnatural (which is a sin) – but in the normal contraceptive case one spouse contracepts, the other spouse is not necessarily doing anything unnatural, are they?

So that is the fine line, and I don’t quite see how if it is licit (because one is innocent) that the innocent spouse could escape the duty. Could you clarify how they gain the right to force the spouse, instead of remaining in the duty to give themselves as sworn in the marital oath?

The “normal” contraceptive case? Sex involving contraception is unnatural and abnormal.

The innocent spouse allowing the abnormal and unnatural act by the guilty spouse may act licitly–that doesn’t make “the act” licit. Tamar was the innnocent victum of Onan’s sin, but what Onan did was certainly not licit in the eyes of God. Nor is contraceptive intercourse licit in the eyes of God, but God is more merciful and patient with many of us compared to Onan.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If I failed to respond to your outline earlier in a way that satisfies you, it is because I may have a different understanding of Adam’s sin. … the original fault freely committed by our first parents." CCC 391 “Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy…”

Oh, I gathered that much, but we do need to look at this more closely together, perhaps I have missed something.

Firstly, yes, even the CCC notes that it was PARENT(S) plural. Yet, I have already said that Adam fell the moment Eve ate the fruit – he was already guilty. I still see nothing which forced the actual eating of the fruit by Adam after Eve to have anything to do with additional guilt – but I do see something which makes Adam’s guilt be before he actually ate the fruit. In your response, you seem to say “it is a DEED and therefore NOT an OMISSION”
Do you mean you believe the actual eating is the DEED of Adam which he is guilty of (correct me if I am wrong.)?

That is why I quoted scripture in addition to the CCC – Adam was not deceived, but Eve was – and Eve ate first, and it was Eve who placed the fruit into Adam’s hand, which if she were right in her version of the “law” of God – her act was a lethal touch even before Adam did anything visible to break the law of God. She, whom is the woman called well, (eu-an ευ-αν) eu-thanized her husband BUT – One who is guilty of part of the law is Guilty of the whole revealed law. Adam was guilty of committing the DEED when Eve did before anyone actually ate anything, and secondly by the fact that she is him as flesh – Eve IS part of Adam, in the original marriage – so when Eve ate, Adam already ate by proxy.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.

Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

Even an omission is a murderous ACT, and thus a deed.

…continued…

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I heard previously a similar interpretation that Adam somehow neglected his role of protecting Eve. Trying to tie your interpretation to back to the thread’s discussion, I believe spouses have a role to protect each other from serious sin.

Yes, to push the CCC point further, here, the fallen (but valid) marriage is also marked by: “lust and domination” CCC 400 because of the fall. Lust is the root of contraception.

Yes, but what about when a spouse has already totally fallen into sin in their heart – once a spouse has transgressed, what is the other (innocent) spouse to do? It wouldn’t be a hard case otherwise, I mean one can say no because they are sick and all – but for how long? and why? will they withold the mercy indefinitely?

To tie it to the OP again, the examples of Adam and Eve is manifold with respect to contraceptive issues which are acts of “lust” on the part of at least one spouse. The root cause of the contraceptive act appears to be lust – but marriage itself is remedial for lust in God’s plan.

Also, on why Augustine is so important to the OP:
Re-reading Casti Connubi, et. all – the main foundation of the logic quoted is none other than Augustine who reflects on Adam and Eve and all the other characters in the history of scripture – which also makes him difficult to read, because one has to be careful what they take Augustine’s words to mean or else there will be scriptural contradictions. Augustine is a brilliant (if very difficult) scripture scholar.

The “normal” contraceptive case? Sex involving contraception is unnatural and abnormal.

The innocent spouse allowing the abnormal and unnatural act by the guilty spouse may act licitly–that doesn’t make “the act” licit.

Ahh, even in this idea you present – as in euthenasia – they would both be guilty. There are two acts of two people who become one in sexual union – Tamar was made a harlot by Onan because he used her as a harlot (for lust), but she was innocent of it. On the other hand – Onan was an Adulterer because Tamar would be Judah’s wife for real (Onan makes Tamar’s true husband look like an adulterer – which he was – so Onan unwittingly sinned against his father.). The innocent Tamar found a way out of her conundrum because Onan never really married her – but she didn’t shirk her duty to bring forth children even if it meant exposing the sin of her father in law. He was guilty, not her for how he raised his sons, and which he ratified by denying her his final son – and she was more just than he, although he certainly shamed her by his forcing her abstinence. Now that is a hard case.

So, in any case, how do we select a lesser evil? What is a lesser evil – and more importantly (and consistently) WHY?

The blind lead the blind into the pit, help me see.

 

[gardenswithkids]

If Adam’s primary guilt was only his association with Eve, (which I don’t believe but you might further explored that topic on a thread in Sacred Scripture) trying to tie your interpretation of Genesis back to the thread topic, it doesn’t seem consistent with your other position that the one spouse must always participate in relations even when the other uses contraception.

…Yes, but what about when a spouse has already totally fallen into sin in their heart – once a spouse has transgressed, what is the other (innocent) spouse to do? It wouldn’t be a hard case otherwise, I mean one can say no because they are sick and all – but for how long? and why? will they withold the mercy indefinitely?..

“Withhold the mercy”? Once a spouse has transgressed and fallen into sin, the other spouse should interceed and beg God for mercy on behalf of the guilty. You seem to take the position that it is *always *more merciful for the innocent spouse to participate in intercourse involving contraception; that is not always the case, although it may be sometimes.

…The root cause of the contraceptive act appears to be lust – but marriage itself is remedial for lust in God’s plan…

Before the Fall, Genesis records God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. You greatly underestimate God’s plan for marriage if you only see marriage as a remedy for lust. God created marriage before the Fall–before sin and lust.

…Ahh, even in this idea you present – as in euthenasia – they would both be guilty. There are two acts of two people who become one in sexual union …

No, spouses are not always both guilty of contraception. Just as I distinguish euthanasia from assisted suicide, I recognize that in the case of contraception one may be a guilty participant or an innocent victum. The Church states very clearly that one spouse may be innocent, and I do not dispute that.

As already sited on the first page of this thread from the Vademeccum: “In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish co-operation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist…” Also from Casti Connubii as sited on post #4 of this thread “Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order…”

While I admire your reading and quoting St. Augustine, the Church teachings on marriage and sexuality are more than just what St. Augustine wrote. His writings are part of the Churches teachings, but more recent writings also can help us understand God’s plan for marriage and sexuality.

…So, in any case, how do we select a lesser evil? What is a lesser evil – and more importantly (and consistently) WHY?

The blind lead the blind into the pit, help me see.

Might I ask at this point, why do you need to “see” this? Are you at risk of “falling into the pit” or of misguiding someone else? The specifics of each case are particular to the individual spouses involved. Selecting the “lesser evil” in extreme cases where one spouse forces contraception on a marriage is up to the innocent spouse to decide in prayer and with the assistance of a good confessor.

You seem to want a clear cut answer to apply for each and every case, such as how you declared it “always a sin to withold relations”–when the Church has made no such declaration. Persons in this situation must discern the proper action in prayer and through seeking God’s grace in the Sacraments. If you desire to help others avoid falling into sin, lead them to God in prayer and the Sacraments, and pray for them and their confessor.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

If Adam’s primary guilt was only his association with Eve, (which I don’t believe but you might further explored that topic on a thread in Sacred Scripture) trying to tie your interpretation of Genesis back to the thread topic, it doesn’t seem consistent with your other position that the one spouse must always participate in relations even when the other uses contraception.

No, I didn’t say it was only his association with eve – but I did say that an omission IS a deed. He chose to allow something to happen, because he let his trust in God fail – the logic after that choice is rather moot. No matter how one argues it, Adam is already guilty.

“Withhold the mercy”? Once a spouse has transgressed and fallen into sin, the other spouse should interceed and beg God for mercy on behalf of the guilty. You seem to take the position that it is *always *more merciful for the innocent spouse to participate in intercourse involving contraception; that is not always the case, although it may be sometimes.

I did say I was divided on the issue, so it isn’t exactly fair play to overstate what I have said – but I AM pushing that argument in hopes of determining the truth. I have openly admitted that if BOTH are lustful – there is no marriage, and hence it can only be a sin. But other than that, I am not fully convinced of anything.

So far the truth seems to be to change topics when specific church teaching is Analyzed… evade…
If one can choose either choice without sin – which seems to be your position – eg:

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.

– then it isn’t wrong to choose to participate. But at the same time, there are several indicators that you condemn the act in some cases – none of which have been proffered.
We are only talking about the case where one chooses to contracept, the other does not, that no help is offered to the one contracepting.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Before the Fall, Genesis records God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. You greatly underestimate God’s plan for marriage if you only see marriage as a remedy for lust.

Puhleeeze — I never said that! ONLY a remedy? no not at all!
It is the sacrament of our salvation through the messiah.

God created marriage before the Fall–before sin and lust.
No, spouses are not always both guilty of contraception. Just as I distinguish euthanasia from assisted suicide, I recognize that in the case of contraception one may be a guilty participant or an innocent victum. The Church states very clearly that one spouse may be innocent, and I do not dispute that.

As already sited on the first page of this thread from the Vademeccum: “In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish co-operation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist…” Also from Casti Connubii as sited on post #4 of this thread “Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order…”

While I admire your reading and quoting St. Augustine, the Church teachings on marriage and sexuality are more than just what St. Augustine wrote. His writings are part of the Churches teachings, but more recent writings also can help us understand God’s plan for marriage and sexuality.

No doubt. My comment is just related to the basis of the documents brought up so far.

Might I ask at this point, why do you need to “see” this? Are you at risk of “falling into the pit” or of misguiding someone else? The specifics of each case are particular to the individual spouses involved. Selecting the “lesser evil” in extreme cases where one spouse forces contraception on a marriage is up to the innocent spouse to decide in prayer and with the assistance of a good confessor.

You seem to want a clear cut answer to apply for each and every case, such as how you declared it “always a sin to withold relations”–when the Church has made no such declaration. Persons in this situation must discern the proper action in prayer and through seeking God’s grace in the Sacraments. If you desire to help others avoid falling into sin, lead them to God in prayer and the Sacraments, and pray for them and their confessor.

No, it would not appropriate to ask right now – if the donkey had a remark in the OT – you don’t want to hear mine. But I must go for a while now – so I can’t address the question properly. If you have details from official church teaching, please, bring them forward – I will try to discuss this later when I have a chance to think things over some more.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The innocent spouse allowing the abnormal and unnatural act by the guilty spouse may act licitly–that doesn’t make “the act” licit.

I never said it was. There are TWO acts by two people, why do you make it only one except to trip me up? If that were the case should one contracept, the other is always guilty since there is only one act.

“Withhold the mercy”? Once a spouse has transgressed and fallen into sin, the other spouse should interceed and beg God for mercy on behalf of the guilty. You seem to take the position that it is always more merciful for the innocent spouse to participate in intercourse involving contraception; that is not always the case, although it may be sometimes.

Um, yes. But isn’t it obvious that one can have relations AND beg God for mercy? (is that somehow less merciful ! )
And is mercy – mercy – if one deserves it? (That’s called justice)

Besides I never said it is always merciful – I asked how long can one withold relations --eg: FOREVER? witholding mercy.
There is a cruelty in witholding relations from a weak spouse at some point. Two wrongs do not make a right.

NOW – you claim there is a case – OK explain – perhaps it will help.

I distinguish euthanasia from assisted suicide,

But assisted suicide IS euthenasia, so what’s the point?
The reverse is not true. (besides, my idea came from Adam and Eve. I am just leaving the interpretation open.)

I did say both were guilty in the case presented by you, because you reduced TWO acts down to an “the act” which it is not true in any case where one does not consent to contraception – and the other forces it. (am I wrong?) (I’ll try to expand my sentences, because I must be talking past you.)

If it were one act only, then they could not escape both being sinners. Again back to casti connubi – one of them is WITHOUT ANY SIN provided a certain set of conditions is met (abstinence is not one of those conditions).

Castii connubii does say one may participate reluctantly (by which it means at least try and convince the other spouse not to do it) – but nowhere does it say a spouse may unilaterally decide to FORCE the other spouse to not have sexual relations. IT DOES mention a duty which must not be denied. And in another article, there is mention of Priests leading penitents into pits, as I quoted before.
Sexuality is not a weapon to reform one’s spouse with.

You seem to want a clear cut answer to apply for each and every case, such as how you declared it “always a sin to withold relations”–when the Church has made no such declaration. Persons in this situation must discern the proper action in prayer and through seeking God’s grace in the Sacraments. If you desire to help others avoid falling into sin, lead them to God in prayer and the Sacraments, and pray for them and their confessor.

Nice quote, which post did “always a sin to withold relations” come from? (please be careful, I am trying to be.)

This isn’t my goal to analyze every case. I have spoken generally about the spouse who feels sick – if she can’t perform her duty, it isn’t required. The “darling I have a headache” is fine – so it the two week buissness trip. However a unilateral decision to refuse the other spouse relations for an extended time – could definitely be a sin in some cases. Not all cases does the woman or man have a “right” over their body – their bodies are NOT their own.

So, you have a non-abortion, one spouse contracepting – the other not – case. What is it?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I don’t know what other church documents you are referring to – so I will list the CCC again to perhaps help out. If anyone else can help – I would appreciated it too. The highlights point to my scruple?

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

• Conjugal fidelity

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149

2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.

And that’s the crux – God is faithful whether we are or not – should one eat and drink his body and blood worthily, it is salvation. But if not, they damn themselves – but the BODY and BLOOD is still there – fidelity.

In a communion of spouses, how does one abstain for long periods without the consent of a valid spouse (whom is sinning or not) without bringing out the portion of Adam and Eve called not lust – but domination?

 

[gardenswithkids]

…No, it would not appropriate to ask right now – if the donkey had a remark in the OT – you don’t want to hear mine. …

I didn’t mean to pry. I think you just answered what I wanted to know when I asked the question. I wondered if this was merely an intellectual exercise/debate (as is often the case in apologetics discussion), or if it had some relevance to your life. I do not enjoy debating for the sole purpose of debating.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That’s OK gardenwithkids. I understand.
I don’t feel quite right saying some of the things I could say –
but perhaps this will help (If you check my back posts I am rather consistent).

The archdiocese where I live has had a bit of trouble with priests giving bad advice (among following it themselves). When trouble hit for me recently, for example, one brought up St. Thomas and said “if you kill your wife you can remarry according to St. Thomas” (Maybe he was joking, I don’t know – he’s generally a good priest) But he might have given the advice because my wife made his life hell. ( I also didn’t like being compared to the Godfather when my son’s leg was broken which had nothing to do with me PROVABLY – probably an innocent remark by the priest too – but it is hard to tell when you are sensitive and receiving hate phone calls. )

Now the first priest I knew some 14 years ago as a confessor, being the early part of my marriage, who was at the Cathedral in Portland, and whom to my chargin I supported at one time – sort of started dating a woman on the side. Upon the bishop making a rather bold remark on another subject, that priest left the priesthood and married the woman civilly (eg: without permission from the bishop). This is the first priest I had whom gave me confessional advice on sexuality issues – and whom baptized my eldest son.

In the intervening years I moved a few times, and somehow (although pedophiles and the like only make up 2% of all good priests) I managed to have some extremely bad luck. In one instance, I was forced to go to a class on baptism where the lady in charge tried to convince all of us that it was really a party for the parents and had nothing to do with salvation, really. Well – When my wife and I complained to the priest – he wasn’t able to help us in any way. ( Ironically, it was under archbishop Leveda’s orders that he couldn’t help us – in fact it was rather irresponsible to have him anywhere near us! )

So, I won’t fill out the rest of the details – but suffice it to say – I rather dislike St. Thomas, and some advice I have been given – because I have had him shoved down my throat in rather irresponsible ways – hypocritical even. Injury and insult knew no end until I started rubbing videos in certain peoples faces.

Now, presently, I am out of state – and some of the bad advice is healing – some is not. I am not all that excited about going back – to be honest. The lastest priest I have talked to asked if I would consider (not divorce) but separation. I have been doing my best to follow his advice without violating my wife’s rights (and incidentally I was hoping perhaps to get an annointing of the sick for myself – but christmas and all sort of made that impossbile.).

I have been quite sick over the last three years due to how I have been treated. The apologetics is not exactly applicable presently, but I do have a lot of past anger that I would like to lay to rest by understanding fully what really is church teaching – and I would hope that others are not pulled into the same kind of trap I was because of an apologetic deficit, and rather poor teaching on the part of priests (both example and word.)

So, no, I am not messing with you on totally intellectual grounds – nor am I going to name all the names and details that would just make me relive things yet again and be used to attack the innocent as well as the guilty.

Also, please note, I have had the best counselling the archdiocese knows about – medical and psychological – and even she started shaking when I told her what happened. So, there, you can rest assured it isn’t all imaginary – although no need to go imaging the worst, for there isn’t such a thing.

God bless you.

 

[gardenswithkids]

There are TWO acts by two people, why do you make it only one except to trip me up? If that were the case should one contracept, the other is always guilty since there is only one act…

I am not trying to trip you up. The sexual act makes two become one. It changes and does not make two-become-one if one refuses to give self and recieve of the other fully. Contraception gets in the way of the two-become-one union. That obstruction can be seen physically in the case of barrier methods of contraception as a physical barrier is placed between them.

An innocent spouse can give fully and be willing to recieve fully even if the other withholds his/her fertility.

…isn’t it obvious that one can have relations AND beg God for mercy? (is that somehow less merciful ! )
And is mercy – mercy – if one deserves it? (That’s called justice)

I believe that mercy and justice are often the same thing.

What I disputed (and still dispute) is that it is not always “merciful” to have relations with a spouse who forces contraception onto the marriage. It may be more merciful to withold relations to demonstrate the severity of the contraception. By withholding relations sometimes the contracepting spouse may decide to abandon the use of contraception. Other times, witholding relations may place the marriage at risk.

Discernment is needed. What is the proper course of action at one point may need to change over time. Grace is needed. Even if a particular confessor gives bad or unhelpful advice, the sacrament of confession imparts grace. Charity is needed. While the innocent spouse may not be guilty of the sin of contraception, that innocent spouse will have to struggle with other sins to remain charitable. Patience is needed. The problem will likely take time to correct; maybe it won’t change until after the wife goes through menopause if they live so long. Above all, trust in God is needed.

 

[gardenswithkids]

That’s OK gardenwithkids. I understand.
I don’t feel quite right saying some of the things I could say –
but perhaps this will help (If you check my back posts I am rather consistent).

The archdiocese where I live has had a bit of trouble with priests giving bad advice (among following it themselves). …

I’m sorry. Again, I didn’t mean to pry. Nor did I intend for my post from earlier today to sound abrupt.

I am well aware that not all priests offer good advice or live out the teachings of the Church. If you carefully read my posts you may have noticed I wrote to seek cousel from a ***good ***confessor. (I always like to qualify that with the word “good”.) In the absence of access to a good confessor, God still offers grace through the Sacrament–apart from the personal holiness of the priest.

It may sometimes even be the case where the spouse forcing contraception was mislead by a priest. The innocent spouse who does not wish to use contraception may have to carry the cross for both his/her spouse and part of the priest’s cross as well. Ill add a word here to pray for our priests.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Gardenwithkids,

No problem, I understand that.

I agree with you on confessor credentials – as already noted.

Finding a Good confessor is the caveat here as the remedy and the problem are different for different couples, and a confessor with finesse often relies on statistical norms which do not always apply – but: hard cases make bad law. Tread carefully is right!

The sexual act makes two become one.

OK that statement is more traditional, and I understand it better.
It’s not one act, unless there is a true union of souls – but marriage “one flesh” does not cease because of sin.

They are one flesh, so in a certain way – based on the theology of Adam and Eve one spouse is responsible for what the other does; It should be that the union makes even a spiritual one-ness between the spouses, rather than lust and domination.
But, to move forward,

I believe that mercy and justice are often the same thing.

What I disputed (and still dispute) is that it is not always “merciful” to have relations with a spouse who forces contraception onto the marriage. It may be more merciful to withold relations to demonstrate the severity of the contraception. By withholding relations sometimes the contracepting spouse may decide to abandon the use of contraception. Other times, witholding relations may place the marriage at risk.

I don’t think mercy and justice are incompatible, but there is at least a finite difference between them. Mary is the icon of mercy, though the rest of the human race has to deal with justice of the crucifixion to receive mercy. That they might “often” be the same, I don’t dispute – but I always think mercy is slightly above mere justice (eg:right relationship) – and on a human (finite) level they differ quite drastically because our justice is dependent on the mercy of God.

There are, however, several things which trouble me about your statement because you appear to be advocating a moral calculus.

Christ rarely inflicts unilateral punishment as he once did to Onan. I understand that since Onan was in the line of Judah, cutting off the promise made to that tribe by denying the firstborn was tantamount to preventing the salvation of anyone at all – the whole human race. Onan received the just sentence of what he was trying to do to the rest of us. Although contraception in today’s world attempts to prevent that same salvation, not as a whole – but in part since Jesus is already born – it is intrinsically evil but none the less not of quite the same severity as Onan.

The fidelity of Christ is independent of our fidelity. So, I have a very difficult time accepting your argument as presented so far. There appears to be two ways to argue the case – Augustine seems to argue on the basis of lesser evil – whereas casti connubi says there is no sin on the part of the innocent spouse should the other impose contraception. (ergo: not a lesser evil issue). Also, Casti Connubi does not say that it is licit to forcibly withold relations as a remedial action – so the argument posed by this thread is trying to read a “rights” statement where silence appears in the encyclical. (eg: in analogy – the right to abortion is also a reading of silence in the right to privacy)

My problem with the argument is that it appears very utilitarian – where the good end justifies the means. Inevitably, utilitarian theories are a moral calculus. I have this vision of the word Emanual becoming Imanuel. (who would notice its just a spelling difference). But the problem is the morality goes from ends, means, and tolerating a lesser evil to an infliction of evil to procure Good. Even if a venial evil as I can imagine will be argued.

The one spouse says to the other – even though I promised totally my gift of self as the christ has set as the standard, you Kant have sexual relations, because I have computed a probability of improving you through infliction of suffering. In Kantian philosophy – only the hard path is the right one – it isn’t the right path BECAUSE it is good, but because it is hard.

In my mind, that is God’s task. If I took my marital “rights” to the extreme, it would become rape or extortion to rape. Force the spouse to have relations without contraception – and what else is it in the extreme case? That is the problem of rights and dominating language. God is the only one who has the right to force anything as our creator, and even then he rarely does.

The second thing that troubles me about your approach is that the other spouse will now have something of evil to accuse the first spouse of. ( Yes, quite obviously the first spouse can retort – that the other spouse is committing a worse wrong – but none the less, this is domination. )

So, elucidate.

 

[jkarp]

I think there would be a difference between

1. knowing BEFORE marriage that one’s (future) partner intended to use contraception - as opposed to
2. having the situation arise at some point in time after marriage.
3. Or, at time of marriage, both accepted birth control, but later one partner repented/converted;

With regard to #1, not being open to life is an impediment to marriage so with this situation, the possibility exists that the marriage would not even be valid. In such a situation, all sexual activity would be sinful.