Spousal Contraception Qs
#41
(11-16-2011, 05:05 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: That the marriage debt is owed at all costs

The marriage debt is not owed at all costs.

We're not beasts.
Reply
#42
(11-16-2011, 05:14 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 05:05 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: That the marriage debt is owed at all costs

The marriage debt is not owed at all costs.

We're not beasts.

Especially if one of the spouses is contracepting.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#43
(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.
Reply
#44
(11-16-2011, 05:20 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 05:14 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(11-16-2011, 05:05 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: That the marriage debt is owed at all costs

The marriage debt is not owed at all costs.

We're not beasts.

Especially if one of the spouses is contracepting.

Not just in that situation, I'd say.

The debt must be understood in the larger context of the marital state. It's proper and fitting that the spouses should share marital intimacy since procreation is the principal aim of marriage but we shouldn't construe it as to mean that the wife must have sex with the husband whenever he feels like it and vice-versa. I think that's a frequent abuse that comes from understanding the word "debt" in a very limited context.
Reply
#45
(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.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#46
(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.

In my friend's case, her husband got himself "snipped" without her permission or prior knowledge because he absolutely refused to have more children. When the deed was done, she had no idea what to do. I will say that I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea, but I will also say that I don't believe that my friend is no longer open to new life. The sin lies with her husband. It is he who is no longer open to new life.
Reply
#47
This is difficult because resentments build either way.  Resume relations under protest or don't and risk infidelity, etc. by the other spouse.  
Reply
#48
(11-16-2011, 06:23 PM)Jenn 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.

In my friend's case, her husband got himself "snipped" without her permission or prior knowledge because he absolutely refused to have more children. When the deed was done, she had no idea what to do. I will say that I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea, but I will also say that I don't believe that my friend is no longer open to new life. The sin lies with her husband. It is he who is no longer open to new life.

Ah.  That, being extremely unfortunate, does make more sense as to why the priest would have said that.  What a shame, though.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#49
(11-16-2011, 06:25 PM)Gris Wrote: This is difficult because resentments build either way.  Resume relations under protest or don't and risk infidelity, etc. by the other spouse.  

This is a very sad hypothetical. 
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#50
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.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)