What is the Catholic husband to do?

[duskyjewel]

The wife cannot, in reality, FORCE the husband to do anything, especially anything as involved as putting on a condom. (BTDT, long story.) Regardless of the fact that she is insisting, he is making his own choice, though it may not be an entirely free choice because of pressure/coercion, to put that condom on.

Just like my confession is no good for my husband’s salvation, the wife’s insistence is not sufficient for her husband’s damnation. He must participate himself and make the choice to put on the condom, which he is doing.

Since contraception is always sinful, he is sinning. Though one might be able to argue that his culpability is mitigated because the marriage relationship, and the sexual aspect of it, can be very powerful, and she is using that to coerce him.

 

[1ke]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the op described that the man is the one wearing the contraception. (the op wrote things like: "his wife is encouraging him to use “protection” “he uses contraception”.) If the man is wearing a condom (or other male contraception/sterilization), I think the man participates in the sin.

If they are using a female method of contraception, then the man needs to take some care that the method is not an abortificatient method, (ie artificial hormones or IUD that may destroy very young humans.) That sin there is slightly different from contraception. From the Vademeccum:

Yes, you are misunderstanding, I was replying not to the OPs original question, but to his subsequent query.

We had already previously established that the man could not contracept.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Yes, you are misunderstanding, I was replying not to the OPs original question, but to his subsequent query.

We had already previously established that the man could not contracept.

I knew you were responding to the next question, but from that question I thought he was asking about still being the one who used contraception. I don’t know, maybe I’m just dense today, (and don’t say it’s not just today. )

So,** if the man is fearful of what would happen if he refused his wife** - i.e. it may split up his family, has tried to discuss the issue with her and convince her why it is wrong, and still used artificial contraception when she initiated relations. Is the man’s decision a mortal sin or a venial sin, given the circumstances?

 

[1ke]

I knew you were responding to the next question, but from that question I thought he was asking about still being the one who used contraception. I don’t know, maybe I’m just dense today, (and don’t say it’s not just today. )

Maybe it’s me who misunderstood… I thought he meant if she used contraception.

So, to clarify-- if he were to use contraception then it would be a mortal sin.

 

[larry85704]

I guess it is better to be single.

I have a couple of questions. If divorce is sinful, ok I can see that. Now if the Church comes along later and declares the marriage never existed, it is annulled, was the divorce sinful?

There are valid reasons to get an annulment. A simple one is that one person is married to someone else at the time. So, does a good person that marries someone that is married to someone else sin when they get a divorce and an annulment?

Historically, if I remember my religious studies classes, the Church has been responsive to what was happening in the world. If memory serves, the Church used to tell people to stay married basically no matter what. After many women, mostly, were killed by their abusive husbands the Church responded. Now, it is a requirement of every person remotely associated with the Church, in Tucson anyway, to notify the police if abuse is suspected. I am sure that a person would have no trouble getting an annulment if their spouse was in jail for abuse.

Marriage is supposed to be between two people deeply committed to God with the full fruits of the Holy Spirit. Now, as good as that sounds, no marriage is perfect. The fruits of the Spirit are given to people differently and still abundantly. Part of a marriage is learning to accept and appreciate the way your spouse has been gifted.

As far as the Church is concerned, the teachings of the Church try and document that relationship between God and man. For example, the Church says a couple must be open to creating life. Put another way, they must have sex. They are saying that a married couple that doesn’t have sex, at all, is not doing what God wants (sinning). And this area is also grounds for annulment.

So, while there are grounds for divorce, or annulment, in the Church this is an area that is evolving.

Anyway, getting back to people being deeply committed to God, because I am more interested in that, a person that loves God more than anything does not sin. Paul, in Romans talks about the law and sin and what it means to a follower of Christ. I hope that is an authoritative document.

 

[1ke]

I have a couple of questions. If divorce is sinful, ok I can see that. Now if the Church comes along later and declares the marriage never existed, it is annulled, was the divorce sinful?

In general, yes.

If there was an impediment or if consent or intent was lacking, that can be corrected-- new consent given, impediment dispensed, etc-- and the marriage could become valid.

There are valid reasons to get an annulment. A simple one is that one person is married to someone else at the time. So, does a good person that marries someone that is married to someone else sin when they get a divorce and an annulment?

An innocent party deceived by fraud would not be sinning to dissolve the (fake) marriage bond.

Historically, if I remember my religious studies classes, the Church has been responsive to what was happening in the world. If memory serves, the Church used to tell people to stay married basically no matter what. After many women, mostly, were killed by their abusive husbands the Church responded

The Church teaches that a person, for physical safety, may separate-- but the marriage bond remains. The church does not teach that an abused spouse must stay physically present in the same house as the abuser. But, the church also does not teach that this person divorce and/or seek an annulment. The marriage may very well be valid.

Now, it is a requirement of every person remotely associated with the Church, in Tucson anyway, to notify the police if abuse is suspected. I am sure that a person would have no trouble getting an annulment if their spouse was in jail for abuse.

You misunderstand what a decree of nullity is. Spousal abuse, in and of itself, does not render a marriage invalid.

As far as the Church is concerned, the teachings of the Church try and document that relationship between God and man. For example, the Church says a couple must be open to creating life. Put another way, they must have sex. They are saying that a married couple that doesn’t have sex, at all, is not doing what God wants (sinning). And this area is also grounds for annulment.

I suggest that you procure a good book, such as Annulment by Michael Smith Foster.

A marriage that has not been consummated can be dissolved by the Pope. A husband and wife who cease relations after the marriage has been consummated are not in an invalid marriage, per se.

So, while there are grounds for divorce, or annulment, in the Church this is an area that is evolving.

This is incorrect.

Canon law governs the Sacraments and lays out the impediments to marriage. While some can be dispensed-- those of ecclesial law-- other cannot be dispensed nor changed-- divine law impediments. Nor can the Church’s teaching regarding the indissoluability of a valid marriage change.

 

[setter]

Given the OP’s post, if there is a perceived loss of personal integrity, then one might spend more time dwelling on the issue of personal integrity, as they would be basing their personal integrity on something not required by the Church.

I would have spoken better by stating that the non-contracepting spouse may refuse to participate in contraceptive intercourse; because it is such an affront to conjugal fidelity that it represents a proportionately greater evil than ever cooperating with the grave sin of contraception for the sake of …

As in, being more Catholic than the Pope. Generally, not reccomended

.
True. However, it seems to come across as accepting compromise to ‘meet someone where they are at’ in order to work toward their conversion and the secondary gain of preserving the marriage against instability, divorce, …like being leveraged into cooperating with someone else’s sin choice:

1. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
2. 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). link

I have a hard time reconciling the admonishments of St. Paul :

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”** Ephesians 5: 25-27 **

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for God will judge the immoral and adulterous.” **Hebrews 13: 4 **

…with a Christian “cooperating in the sin of the other spouse”. It seems like compromise of the gospel to accommodate the unbeliever/sinner. I am simply surprised that the Church would allow this as a lesser or two evils. I also realize that Jesus did not mention “to set a man against his wife”, though he did state that “a man’s foes will be those of his own household”:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10: 34-38

These are my pondering thoughts.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Wow…someone said it was better to be single. NO KIDDING!!!

If someone in the seminary has doubts that being a celibate chaste priest is a challenge, they should look at this post. They would be wearing the collar in no time.

I can see why this guy is stressed out and losing sleep!

 

[1ke]

Wow…someone said it was better to be single. NO KIDDING!!!

It is better to be single than be unequally yoked, absolutely. The Bible and the Church counsel against such unions.

However, I would disagree that it is “better” to be single than marry a spouse equally committed to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. Then, it becomes a matter of vocation not of one state being better.

 

[setter]

Wow…someone said it was better to be single. NO KIDDING!!!

If someone in the seminary has doubts that being a celibate chaste priest is a challenge, they should look at this post. They would be wearing the collar in no time.

I can see why this guy is stressed out and losing sleep!

It is too late, you are already married …:ehh:

 

[chevalier]

The husband can have sex with the wife despite her taking the pill (or whatever else she’s using) if he makes his beliefs in the matter clear and keeps instructing the wife, but he can’t use artificial birth control himself.

The husband should remember that if he doesn’t use the condom and the wife doesn’t want to have sex with him, then it’s the wife who’s withholding sex, not he. He shouldn’t be led to think he’s refusing her anything.

 

[pprimeau1976]

OK, I hope you all know by now that this situation is a real one. The person in this situation has talked to his wife. She is unwilling to even learn about NFP, but she believes that sex is better in a hedonistic sense without a condom - he believes it is better from a spiritual sense without a condom.

They have sex (sorry - I hate euphemisms) only once a month anyway (to his chagrin) and I convinced him to just not initiate anything with her when she is fertile. She knows (or thinks she knows) when her “safe” times to have sex are, so I told him to just hold off until those times. Incidently, he does want to have more children (currently has 2), and even said to his wife in front of me: “Children aren’t expensive: lifestyles are.” So, I know what the impediment to wanting more children is, and yes - they can afford 3, 4, or 6 if they wanted and he would gladly change all their diapers and do the things that some male chauvenists call “the wife’s job.”

I know that this isn’t perfect, but I feel for his sake, this is the only way that he can compromise with her, and yet not compromise his faith. In the process of our discussions, he asked me “Was it God’s will that we got married?” “Would it be God’s will that we divorce?” He really stumped me there with that one! All I could tell him is to pray to the St. Joseph, pray to St. Peter, pray to St. Thomas More, pray to any saint that was a husband! I even told him to pray for his wife and for wisdom on both ends.

He also asked about going to communion. Should he not go? He told me he went to confession two weeks ago and that the incident (when it was her idea to have sex) happened after that. He is concerned that he won’t be able to have communion at Easter. I told him that it was okay to recieve it and just to make sure, “FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, GO TO CONFESSION” after Easter, that is. I think he is contrite enough and I do think he is sincerely sorry sometimes too sorry than he needs to be. Luckily, we can both chuckle whenever I get passionate like that. The way I wrote my last quote, it pretty much the way I said it to him.