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

[HailMary]

Hi,

** You need to know that the Church does allow you to engage in sexual relations with a spouse who is using birth control**. The dissenting spouse must be the one who is using it and not you. Also you must continue to educate and encourage the spouse according to the Church’s teachings on this matter.

I encourage you to read and have your wife read “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West. It’s available through shopcatholic.com or by phone 888 291 8000.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135215

I am pretty aware of the Church’s teaching on Contraception, but the part I bolded was definitely new to me. I have never heard of it before and I’d like to see where this was derived from if anyone knows the source.

Whatever apologetic you can give for it, I’m sure I can rebuttal it with a similar one so thats why I’m looking for an authoritative source from the Church.

Thanks and God Bless

 

[Nita]

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;

I can see why the Church would allow sexual relations in the second and third situations.
I am wondering if the permission (that is, sexual relations without being sinful) applies in the first situation? Altho, if the Church considers the marriage to be valid, I doubt sexual relations between the spouses would be considered sinful. The Church would be more likely to consider refusal as sinful.

Nita

 

[Ron_Conte]

If the wife is using chemical contraceptives, which can not only prevent conception, but can be abortifacient (causing an early abortion), then the husband would be a participant in circumstances essential to the commission of an intrinsically evil act. This would be immoral since it is immediate material cooperation in an intrinsically evil act.
ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/cooperation.asp

Also, the husband cannot use contraception himself, since the use of contraception is intrinsically evil; no intention or circumstance can justify it.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’d like to see where this was derived from if anyone knows the source.

Hi HM,

The teaching itself is derived from general principles of moral theology, but if you are looking for a place where the teaching is expressed you can try:

Casti Connubii 59. 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. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin.

VC

 

[gardenswithkids]

… I’m looking for an authoritative source from the Church…

Another source is the Vademeccum for Confessors. I want to point out that while the document is available for lay persons to read, it was written for *priestly confessors, *not lay persons. Anyone in the situation where his/her spouse insist on contraception needs to seek the advise of a good confessor, perhaps bringing along a copy of this document.

A good confessor can distinguish between a penitant who co-operates with the sin of contraception verses a penitant whose spouse imposes contraception against their will. Persons in this situation must take extraordinary care to avoid self deceit. Contraception is still a serious sin.

13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation 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.46, 561).] 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

1. 
   http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...s/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

 

[whatevergirl]

This is a fascinating thread–I did not know this at all. But, then again–some of the RCC’s teachings on sexuality in marriage is new to me. I’m not taking birth control, but used to, and so glad to be rid of that–for a variety of reasons, namely it goes against being open to life. It is interesting though, that if a spouse tries to persuade his/her spouse to not sin, that he/she is doing his/her part…and that the culpability falls on the person who is remaining in sin. I always learn something new every day from you all.

 

[briang72]

I have always struggled to understand this one. By engaging in the marital act with your spouse while he/she is using birth control seems scandalous to me. Even if you are continually reminding your spouse that the use of birth control for the purpose of avoiding conception is intrinsically evil, aren’t you saying it is okay if you continue the marital act? How can anyone successfully evangelize a contracepting spouse in this manner?

I was unable to lead my spouse into what is considered a mortal sin. And how could we say that we don’t know it is mortal in this case? One spouse is educating the other on its gravity (full knowledge), yet the act is still committed (deliberate consent). I guess I am over-simplifying the matter.

Please understand that I am not attempting to attack anyone in this position. I am wondering if I was wrong in my decision.

 

[whatevergirl]

I have always struggled to understand this one. By engaging in the marital act with your spouse while he/she is using birth control seems scandalous to me. Even if you are continually reminding your spouse that the use of birth control for the purpose of avoiding conception is intrinsically evil, aren’t you saying it is okay if you continue the marital act? How can anyone successfully evangelize a contracepting spouse in this manner?

I was unable to lead my spouse into what is considered a mortal sin. And how could we say that we don’t know it is mortal in this case? One spouse is educating the other on its gravity (full knowledge), yet the act is still committed (deliberate consent). I guess I am over-simplifying the matter.

Please understand that I am not attempting to attack anyone in this position. I am wondering if I was wrong in my decision.

No, you are not oversimplifying…that makes a lot of sense, what you’re saying…if we are to help our spouses to get to Heaven…show them when they are in mortal sin…yet they still sin…what does this mean? (It might mean that we are not cuplable, but should a husband for example, refuse relations with his wife, if she insists on taking the pill?) I think you have a good question.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Whatevergirl,

Read Casti Connubii (Pius XI) (On Chaste marriage) which reiterates what St. Paul taught concerning the charity of caring for the other spouse (I assume it applies even to spouses dead in mortal sin for Paul even speaks of Pagan husbands and unbelievers with respect to staying in a marriage if possible). There is a “Duty” in a true marriage (Not only sacramental ones) which is to aid a spouse in their weakness – for “your body is not your own”.

Humanae Vitae brings forth a second principle, that of mercy in not pressuring a sick spouse in the sexual matters (even though the duty exists to protect the marriage). eg: never have relations without considering the mental condition of your spouse. This would be common sense to most couples, if one doesn’t feel well – wait until another time.

The moral issue arises in at least two ways – the contracepting spouse wants relations (a duty for the other spouse), or the non-contracepting spouse has great difficulty abstaining for long periods and hence is exposed to near occasions of sin by not having their spouse. Eg. a common reason/excuse for adultery.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is a mystical difference between the sacrament (permanency?) and marriage (which is natural). Both are good – but one is better because it includes the ultimate image of God ? ]

 

[gardenswithkids]

I have always struggled to understand this one. By engaging in the marital act with your spouse while he/she is using birth control seems scandalous to me. …

First, this doesn’t say that a spouse must engage in relations with a contracepting spouse. Total abstinance may be best in some situation, but that may not always be the case in every circumstances. While we can discuss this on the internet, I really do think that individual cases are best left to a good priestly confessor to help discern the proper course of action.

Contraception is not the only sin that offends God. All forms of unchastiy offend God. Divorce offends God. A parent abandoning young children offends God. Adultery offends God. Lack of charity offends God. The list goes on. In some circumstances, permitting a spouse to commit the sin of contraception (while praying and working towards living in compliance with Church teachings) is less scandalous than the alternatives.

The Vademeccum, which addresses numerous issues on chastity, makes a comment to distinguish the “law of gradualness” from “gradualness of the law.” I don’t think it is intended as a permanent solution, but part of a gradual conversion process. God is patient with us, and we need to be patient with each other.

 

[Chancellare]

I have always struggled to understand this one. By engaging in the marital act with your spouse while he/she is using birth control seems scandalous to me. Even if you are continually reminding your spouse that the use of birth control for the purpose of avoiding conception is intrinsically evil, aren’t you saying it is okay if you continue the marital act? How can anyone successfully evangelize a contracepting spouse in this manner?

I was unable to lead my spouse into what is considered a mortal sin. And how could we say that we don’t know it is mortal in this case? One spouse is educating the other on its gravity (full knowledge), yet the act is still committed (deliberate consent). I guess I am over-simplifying the matter.

Please understand that I am not attempting to attack anyone in this position. I am wondering if I was wrong in my decision.

The marital act is not made sinful simply because the other party is sinful in another act.
On the other hand denying the spouse of the marital act is a sin against charity and marital vows. This makes both spouses sin in different directions.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…On the other hand denying the spouse of the marital act is a sin against charity and marital vows. This makes both spouses sin in different directions.

We must tread carefullly here. Refusing to use contraception–even if that means refusing marital relations–isn’t sinning. I believe “marital rights” to sexual relations with the spouse apply only to uncontracepted relations. However, I agree that remaining charitable and free from all sin would be very difficult when spouses disagree on this matter.

 

[FLCathMom]

This makes both spouses sin in different directions.

I have to disagree here. There is no denial of the conjugal act in the case of refusing relations to a contracepting spouse because there is no conjugal union to be had.

From an article “On Morals and Marriage,” found here: ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

There are exceptions to the obligation of rendering the marriage
due…Finally, there is no obligation of granting it, rather the reverse, if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.

I have read another quote from a papal encyclical to the same effect, but I can’t remember which one. Maybe someone can help me out.

There is not an obligation to refuse, but it is allowed.

 

[gardenswithkids]

It is interesting though, that if a spouse tries to persuade his/her spouse to not sin, that he/she is doing his/her part…and that the culpability falls on the person who is remaining in sin…

…if we are to help our spouses to get to Heaven…

Whatevergirl, your second comment about how spouses help each get to heaven is correct, and it is in that light that I point out your first comment over-simplifies too much. If one spouse truly believes and wants to follow the Church teachings, then that spouse would be seriously concerned for the soul of a spouse who wants to contracept. “Doing his/her part” means doing whatever it takes to help get your spouse to heaven.

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. At least one soul and perhaps both souls are at risk when a couple uses contraception. That’s why I advised caution in applying this principle without the aid of a good confessor when I earlier linked the Vademeccum for Confessors.

Trying to persuade the other not to use contraception is only part of helping your spouse get to heaven. Other parts include things such as praying, fasting, doing penance, living a life of personal holiness, avoiding all sins, and being the best husband or wife you can be. Contraception is a big sin, but again it is not the only sin. I suggest that anyone in this situation seek counsel from a good confessor (who teaches in accordance with the Church) and to stay very close to God in prayer and through frequenting the Sacraments. I would also suggest asking the intercession of Saint Joseph, whom the Church calls “most chaste spouse.” A good husband or wife interceeds to help his/her spouse get to heaven.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

GardensWithKids, thank you for your prudence in pointing to the vademecum which is a summary of the encyclicals as pastorally applied.

For those interested:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html

Nos# 13, & 14 are very pertinent to the present discussion.

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!

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have to disagree here. There is no denial of the conjugal act in the case of refusing relations to a contracepting spouse because there is no conjugal union to be had.

From an article “On Morals and Marriage,” found here: ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

There are exceptions to the obligation of rendering the marriage
due…Finally, there is no obligation of granting it, rather the reverse, if it is going to be abused by the sin of onanism.

I have read another quote from a papal encyclical to the same effect, but I can’t remember which one. Maybe someone can help me out.

There is not an obligation to refuse, but it is allowed.

I am divided in my opinion here because at root I never believe two wrongs equals a right – and so what we are discussing on this thread is the relative gravity of two sins (transgressions).

When one marries, within the ideal made possible by the grace of Christ, a total self giving is sworn. In the image of Christ and his church – when the bride sins, Christ does not cease to give himself to the whole body because some part sins. He has entered under oath to sanctify his spouse – an oath that includes the cross.

If then, one denies the duty to a spouse when they are sinning – it would seem that Christ is unfaithful because his spouse is unfaithful (Two wrongs). Where does the ewtn article come up with the idea that the duty no longer exists? (what is the principle?)

There is a duty to at least protect a spouse (in mortal sin or not) from further temptation to adultury, and to preserve the marriage at least for the sake of the children when possible (And this is not always possible).

So, what I am getting at is that a conflict of charity exists.
If it is permitted to have relations when a spouse contracepts – what rationale is there to deny those relations? (There are some, but they are qualified)

So – what is being pitted is the “Am I my brother’s keeper” against “I have sworn to be faithful” – in good times and bad – in sickness (eventually mortal or not) and health. Both are grave matter – but if a path is permitted, that is venial sin at most!

If abstaining can prevent the spouse from sinning, there is merit in that – but if abstaining drives the spouse to adultery (I have documented cases of just that happening for exactly that reason) – one mortal sin is simply traded for another, rather than the repentance of the sinning spouse and the recovery of the faithful marriage.

 

[FLCathMom]

I am divided in my opinion here because at root I never believe two wrongs equals a right – and so what we are discussing on this thread is the relative gravity of two sins (transgressions).

The point is that it is not wrong to deny in this case. The spouse is not denying the marital act, because when there is contraception involved, there is no marital act.

If then, one denies the duty to a spouse when they are sinning – it would seem that Christ is unfaithful because his spouse is unfaithful (Two wrongs). Where does the ewtn article come up with the idea that the duty no longer exists? (what is the principle?)
One may say, “I am not denying the marital act… it can take place right now, but I will not particpate in this (perhaps substitute a better word) perversion.” This must be done prayerfully, with all charity, and with the guidance of a priest.

If abstaining can prevent the spouse from sinning, there is merit in that – but if abstaining drives the spouse to adultery (I have documented cases of just that happening for exactly that reason) – one mortal sin is simply traded for another, rather than the repentance of the sinning spouse and the recovery of the faithful marriage.

From St. Augustine’s The Good of Marriage, section 12:

“But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.”

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The point is that it is not wrong to deny in this case. The spouse is not denying the marital act, because when there is contraception involved, there is no marital act.

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

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.
Pagans are known to contracept in many cases, yet I see nothing in Saint. Augustine which excuses the spouse from their duty. To quote the passage 11, and 13, which bookend the quote you made from St. Augustine:

13:
And that this sanctity of either of them, even an unbelieving partner does not stand in the way of, but rather that the sanctity of the wife profits the unbelieving husband, and the sanctity of the husband profits the unbelieving wife, the same Apostle is witness, saying, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in a brother.”

But it is clear that to withhold sexual relations from a weak partner will drive them to continued mortal sin, and disintegration of what goods are left in the marriage. On what basis is this justified (unilaterally)?

12:
And, therefore, in a matter allowed, want of moderation, in a husband or wife, is to be borne with, in order that lust break not forth into a matter that is not allowed. Hence is it also that he sins far less, who is ever so unceasing in approaches to his wife, than he who approaches ever so seldom to commit fornication.

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:

But that which goes beyond this necessity [of children], no longer follows reason, but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner,* lest by fornication the other sin damnably.* But, if both are set under such lust, they do what is plainly not matter of marriage.

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!

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?)

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

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Again: Why is it NOT a sin to refuse sexual relations to a contracepting spouse?..

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.

We live in an upside down culture. Spousal marital rights apply to contraception-free relations. If one spouse refuses contraception-free relations, then it is the one who insists on contraception that denies his/her spouse, not a spouse who refuses to use contraception.

While the title of this thread is correct, it should also be clearly stated that the Church does not require anyone to participate in contracepted intercourse with his/her spouse.

 

[Jennifer123]

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.

Just for clarity - are we discussing situations where both spouses are Catholic? Because it is my understanding that there is a slightly different understanding if one is in a mixed marriage.

When I was married, I was Catholic in name only - I didn’t fully understand or submit to the Church’s teaching on contraception. Now my marriage is convalidated and my DH is in RCIA but he is still a Protestant with limited understanding of the Church’s teachings on human sexuality. BUT before even this occurred, refusing to have sex with my DH would have caused much more harm to my marriage and most likely would have turned him off from the Church even further. Oops - I should explain that while I refused to contracept and explained to him the reasons, he was still free to do so, in a manner of speaking, because I couldn’t hold him to Church teachings, being he wasn’t a Catholic.

While we still need to learn NFP, I can see he is slowly coming around to understanding the Church’s position and that is purely the work of the Holy Spirit. My attempts at trying to get him to understand earlier in our marriage, after my recoversion, actually impeded things. I had to leave it to prayer and example. Not coersion through threats. :twocents: