FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Spousal Contraception Qs
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(11-16-2011, 06:54 PM)Gris Wrote: [ -> ]Well, Mith, if you feel the need to bring my fish rating down to -2 I will understand.  Maybe WRC will give me a plus due to fishie inflation.

I am happy to give you a plus, ma'am.
Thanks Mith.  My self esteem is back to normal!
(11-16-2011, 06:59 PM)Gris Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Mith.  My self esteem is back to normal!

:LOL:  another +1 for you
(11-16-2011, 06:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:30 PM)Jenn Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 05:05 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]And I'd love to know the argument.  The only argument that I can see so far is one that denies one or more of the following:

That contraception is a sin
That sexual intimacy makes two into one flesh
That the marriage debt is owed at all costs
That there is no such thing as being an accessory to sin

That "clergy and moral theologians" disagree with anything is hardly a statement that holds much water these days.  I don't mean to be contrarian SCG- but I feel very strongly about this as you can tell and I am really having a hard time reconciling what these "clergy and moral theologians" are saying with Catholic teaching.  Maybe you can help me by providing some specifics?

A friend of mine was in the situation a few years ago. I was told by my priest (in making enquiries on her behalf) that as long as she registered her objections clearly, she was not required to abstain. I was referred to Casti Connubii, in particular, this passage:

Quote: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. Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.

Wow.  So even Pius XI thinks it's alright to have sex with someone who is contracepting as long as you let them know that you don't think you should be having sex like that (right before you have sex like that).

I absolutely disagree with this.  Aside from the issue of being accessory to sin by both consent and partaking (other ones could be argued as well) it is clear that the non-contracepting spouse is, in effect, not open to life.  They are practically using contraception as well by engaging in sexual acts that frustrate the primary end.

I'm dismayed that a pope would write something like this.  But thank you, Jenn, for offering specifics.

Perhaps you should ponder what Pius XI said a bit more.  It's not being an accessory to sin if you are not encouraging it (telling her it's okay, paying for it, going to the pharmacy or the surgeon, would all be accessory).  I gave a silly gluttony example, but we could see other examples.  If my son is a bully at school and is sinning by threatening others, I can still bring him to school and try to work on this with talking to him, setting limits, working with a guidance counselor ... I'm not automatically an accessory and I'm not required to stop taking him to school.

Am I misunderstanding the idea of accessory to sin?  I'm open to correction on this.

Then the question of partaking ... well I think it's not partaking if one has the same attitude as a man whose wife, for natural reasons, cannot conceive.  Trust in God, openness to life, not to relish the idea that the can now have "sex without consequences" but to seek both the unitive and procreative goods of sex even while knowing the other person has done something to try to frustrate the procreative good.

That's why what Pius XI wrote, in perhaps his most important encyclical, makes sense to me.
(11-16-2011, 06:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Wow.  So even Pius XI thinks it's alright to have sex with someone who is contracepting as long as you let them know that you don't think you should be having sex like that (right before you have sex like that).

I absolutely disagree with this.  Aside from the issue of being accessory to sin by both consent and partaking (other ones could be argued as well) it is clear that the non-contracepting spouse is, in effect, not open to life.  They are practically using contraception as well by engaging in sexual acts that frustrate the primary end.

I'm dismayed that a pope would write something like this.  But thank you, Jenn, for offering specifics.

A spouse who has relations with a contracepting spouse (the principal agent), who does not share that the intention to contracept, and who has vocally given their objection to the principal's sin, is not complicit in the principal's evil. They are not culpable. They may abstain, and be justified in that, but they may also partake of the act from some other good (marital love, the slim chance of procreation, obedience, peace of the family, etc.). In such cases it is a matter of prudence on the part of the innocent spouse. The only way the non-contraceptor could be culpable is if they 1) share the contracepting intention; or 2) their act in itself is morally evil; or 3) there is no sufficient or weighty reason to abstain. If the contraceptor's decision was based on the level of cooperation of the spouse, and that was stated, then that person would need to abstain. But as is, we assume they don't share the intention, are not doing an evil act (martial sex is not evil), and it is assumed they have sufficient reasons to engage (given above). The fact that they are "practically using contraception" has no bearing on the moral decision since they are completely removed from the contracepting act. The contracepting act was decided independent of them. See? In addition, a spouse is not culpable for their spouse's inability to conceive (whether natural or unnatural). People who can't have children may still engage in sexual relations. In this case, the accomplice is acting in complete good faith, and they are not culpable at all, given the circumstances cited. The sin is only on the principal, and a great sin at that, because they not only frustrate God's will, they also place their spouse in a grave moral dilemma. If the conditions changed, then the moral estimation would change.
(11-18-2011, 04:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 06:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Wow.  So even Pius XI thinks it's alright to have sex with someone who is contracepting as long as you let them know that you don't think you should be having sex like that (right before you have sex like that).

I absolutely disagree with this.  Aside from the issue of being accessory to sin by both consent and partaking (other ones could be argued as well) it is clear that the non-contracepting spouse is, in effect, not open to life.  They are practically using contraception as well by engaging in sexual acts that frustrate the primary end.

I'm dismayed that a pope would write something like this.  But thank you, Jenn, for offering specifics.

A spouse who has relations with a contracepting spouse (the principal agent), who does not share that the intention to contracept, and who has vocally given their objection to the principal's sin, is not complicit in the principal's evil. They are not culpable. They may abstain, and be justified in that, but they may also partake of the act from some other good (marital love, the slim chance of procreation, obedience, peace of the family, etc.). In such cases it is a matter of prudence on the part of the innocent spouse. The only way the non-contraceptor could be culpable is if they 1) share the contracepting intention; or 2) their act in itself is morally evil; or 3) there is no sufficient or weighty reason to abstain. If the contraceptor's decision was based on the level of cooperation of the spouse, and that was stated, then that person would need to abstain. But as is, we assume they don't share the intention, are not doing an evil act (martial sex is not evil), and it is assumed they have sufficient reasons to engage (given above). The fact that they are "practically using contraception" has no bearing on the moral decision since they are completely removed from the contracepting act. The contracepting act was decided independent of them. See? In addition, a spouse is not culpable for their spouse's inability to conceive (whether natural or unnatural). People who can't have children may still engage in sexual relations. In this case, the accomplice is acting in complete good faith, and they are not culpable at all, given the circumstances cited. The sin is only on the principal, and a great sin at that, because they not only frustrate God's will, they also place their spouse in a grave moral dilemma. If the conditions changed, then the moral estimation would change.

Thank you!  This is what I was trying to explain but I couldn't do it so clearly.
(11-18-2011, 04:39 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-16-2011, 06:02 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Wow.  So even Pius XI thinks it's alright to have sex with someone who is contracepting as long as you let them know that you don't think you should be having sex like that (right before you have sex like that).

I absolutely disagree with this.  Aside from the issue of being accessory to sin by both consent and partaking (other ones could be argued as well) it is clear that the non-contracepting spouse is, in effect, not open to life.  They are practically using contraception as well by engaging in sexual acts that frustrate the primary end.

I'm dismayed that a pope would write something like this.  But thank you, Jenn, for offering specifics.

A spouse who has relations with a contracepting spouse (the principal agent), who does not share that the intention to contracept, and who has vocally given their objection to the principal's sin, is not complicit in the principal's evil. They are not culpable. They may abstain, and be justified in that, but they may also partake of the act from some other good (marital love, the slim chance of procreation, obedience, peace of the family, etc.). In such cases it is a matter of prudence on the part of the innocent spouse. The only way the non-contraceptor could be culpable is if they 1) share the contracepting intention; or 2) their act in itself is morally evil; or 3) there is no sufficient or weighty reason to abstain. If the contraceptor's decision was based on the level of cooperation of the spouse, and that was stated, then that person would need to abstain. But as is, we assume they don't share the intention, are not doing an evil act (martial sex is not evil), and it is assumed they have sufficient reasons to engage (given above). The fact that they are "practically using contraception" has no bearing on the moral decision since they are completely removed from the contracepting act. The contracepting act was decided independent of them. See? In addition, a spouse is not culpable for their spouse's inability to conceive (whether natural or unnatural). People who can't have children may still engage in sexual relations. In this case, the accomplice is acting in complete good faith, and they are not culpable at all, given the circumstances cited. The sin is only on the principal, and a great sin at that, because they not only frustrate God's will, they also place their spouse in a grave moral dilemma. If the conditions changed, then the moral estimation would change.

This is the issue I have, is that I am having a very difficult time reconciling one spouse having intercourse with a non conrtacepting spouse- and somehow not having that intention.  For one, the non-contracepting spouse is in effect contracepting through the act.  It doesn't take one to contracept.  The openess to life is an absolute pre-requisite to licit sex.  Secondly, having intercourse knowingly with someone who is contracepting is absolutely enabling them.  Without you having sex with them, they're not sinning per se.  If we want to get real technical, taking birth control without having sex isn't sinful- it could be done for the sake of regulating a cycle, or just for the hell of it- as long as the person taking it is abstaining, it's fine.  The only sin by taking birth control (while abstaining) would be an obstinate closeed-ness to life. 
(11-19-2011, 07:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't take one to contracept. 

Depends.
(11-19-2011, 07:56 PM)Servire Deo Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2011, 07:44 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't take one to contracept. 

Depends.

Not if we're talking about consensual (and presumably within marriage) sexual relations, which we are.

What exceptions can you think of?
Mithrandylan,

This is the issue I have, is that I am having a very difficult time reconciling one spouse having intercourse with a non conrtacepting spouse- and somehow not having that intention.

Sometimes spouses suffer things they don't want. I know someone that got fixed even though the wife was flat against, and stated that quite clearly. I know a lady that was divorced. She lives celibately to this day. She did not will her husband to leave her.

For one, the non-contracepting spouse is in effect contracepting through the act.

The act of making love between spouses, if not coitus interruptus, is exactly the same in both circumstances. So the innocent spouse has done nothing different. It is the other spouse that has gone astray. I assume the "fixing" is internal, not external. A condom would be a game changer I think.

On another note, if he commits coitus interruptus, and the wife did not want that, then she is not at fault. Obviously these are not very harmonious marital circumstances we are talking about. This is marriage crisis zone.

It doesn't take one to contracept.

Yes it does!

The openess to life is an absolute pre-requisite to licit sex.

Yes, and the innocent spouse is open to life. Like I said before, a spouse may feel another good justifies them having marital relations in these circumstances. It may even be to gve them affection to persuade them to make peace and stop their sin. We are talking about obligations, not what is most advantageous or heroically virtuous.

Secondly, having intercourse knowingly with someone who is contracepting is absolutely enabling them.

It could, but I don't think that is logically necessary. There are too many unwanted corollaries to that kind of logic.

Without you having sex with them, they're not sinning per se.

No! No! They sin in the contraceptive act before sex occurs. The sex is fine. The contraceptive intention and procurement is the sin (surgery, implant, whatever).

If we want to get real technical, taking birth control without having sex isn't sinful.

They would have to abstain, but the teaching of NFP comes into play here.

See the situation isn't the same. In NFP the spouse has to abstain because of a grave situation of health, finances, etc.. In the situation we have at hand, the spouse does not harm the contracepting spouse through their act. The contracepting spouse is the one harming. If anything, the contraceptor is the one who should abstain until they correct the situation.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7