Wife No Longer Open to Marriage Act after Contraception Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter kjfurther17
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
of course she would, if she would do it, as she now know it is a sin.

And that does not solve the problem that she may use a methos that may act after fertilization, which is much more problematic.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Withholding the marriage debt is not a recommended way to uphold marriage vows. We give ourselves, not only when our spouse is perfect, but even when they are sinners.
Click to expand...
Well by that standard, we should never separate or divorce.

And sex with contraception definitely doesnt constitute marital debt.

But I do agree that we give ourselves unconditionally. Just how Hosea was asked to be with Gomer (his unfaithful spouse) as a model of God to His people.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but sin is objective. We should not start from the subjectivity of each person. If we asked to the average person the answers would be no.
But it doen’t matter. Truth is objective.
 
What matters, is if she knows the Church Teaches it is intrinsically evil, and her husband does not want to do it. She may not understand why, but she doesnt need to. She only needs to trust and respect.
 
She seems pretty willing to respect it. She’s willing to be abstinent.
 
That’s not respecting your husbands desires.

Just so you know, I have reason to believe she was misunderstanding her husband, and is actually respecting.
 
Last edited:
And if I understand, the OP is too.

It is just not their perfered option, the default for both (maybe more for her).
 
It seems it is. She is willing to forego sex if he is unwilling to use contraception.
 
That’s only justified if both spouses agree.

Your standard in this debate is not Catholic marriage, but some type of secular relationship, with Catholic influence.
 
Last edited:
Which appears to be the standard the OP’s wife was assuming was in effect when they had their marriage convalidated.
 
Ammi said:
Well by that standard, we should never separate or divorce.
Click to expand...
Yes. Divorce is only tolerated in a very narrow situation:

[2382] The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175

Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176

[2383] The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2384
 
Yes, I wish our Church upheld this way more than it does.

Discipline no longer exists. Only compromises
 
Last edited:
You seem to expect the OP to continue contracepted relations because he did before his civil marriage, and that he is partly responsible for her demanding it, even though she married him in the Church and was informed of an open to life commitment in their relations.
 
Ammi said:
even though she married him in the Church and was informed of an open to life commitment in their relations.
Click to expand...
She was informed after their marriage was convalidated.

Also, I’m not expecting him to do anything except talk to his priest—there’s a definite misunderstanding about what the Church allows.

At this point, it doesn’t seem to be that controversial—she appears to be fully willing to abstain to avoid pregnancy.
 
The personal talk was after… the priest did relate the requirement to be “open to life” before the ceremony, which I understand she was misunderstood about. Which, in this day and age, should be addressed MUCH more carefully!

In any case, I am very happy to have heard the OP and his wife have discussed it further. She thought her husband was saying they needed to always try for conception. I believe she has agreed to avoid contraception.

He doesnt need to talk to his pastor, btw. She also can. It would probably do their pastor as much good as for themselves.

Also, many people have lost confidence in their pastor’s guidance for good reason. How do we know they will interpret Vademecum properly? That’s aside from the strangeness of it anyhow.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top