Casti Connubii (1930) - Thoughts Please

[HisChildForever]

This excerpt can be found under the section "interference with the procreative effect of intercourse is always illicit" (i.e. contraception) with the heading "the innocent partner is excused" in a text I have [[url="http://www.amazon.com/The-Christian-Faith-Doctrinal-Documents/dp/0818908939/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1353106767&sr=8-4&keywords=the+christian+faith"]The Christian Faith[/url]]:

[quote] Holy Church is also well aware that in many cases one of the partners is more sinned against than sinning, reluctantly allowing a violation of the right order for a truly grave reason. Such a partner is not guilty, so long as the law of charity even then is remembered and every effort made to dissuade and prevent the other partner from sinning.[/quote]

So what I get from this is...a non-Catholic spouse or lax Catholic spouse wants to use contraception but the Catholic spouse does not. The ensuing fights and the Catholic spouse's refusal of the marital embrace cause such conflict and danger to the marriage that it is permissible for the Catholic spouse to engage in intercourse with the other spouse who uses birth control (i.e. the wife takes the pill). Since the Catholic spouse has made clear his/her feelings on the matter and continues to explain his/her beliefs, and for his/her part remains open to life, the sin falls on the spouse using the contraception, not both spouses?

I'm more interested in discussing the actual scenario than what led the couple to that point. And there are many, many scenarios I can think of that would lead a couple to this point - both spouses are atheists and one converts a few years into their marriage, a lax Catholic or non-Catholic assures the Catholic spouse he/she is okay with no contraception but then becomes frustrated x months or years into the marriage, a Catholic spouse loses the faith x years into the marriage, etc.

If anyone has been in this situation before and would like to share it would be appreciated (but of course it's very personal so don't feel compelled).

I'm organizing my Catholic books and noticed I had this section bookmarked lol

[Lil Red]

i think i read that one, let me check and get back to you.

[Slappo]

Yes I believe this is correct. To not sin, the Catholic would have to desire that the intercourse be non-contraceptive and, as the document says, attempts to disuade the spouse from using contraception. For instance with the pill... I wouldn't imagine the spouse would have to attempt to disuade every single time they had intercourse, but at reasonable intervals while still maintaining charity.

I would doubt that a male not wanting to contracept could wear a condom due to the wife wanting to contracept.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1353110693' post='2511505']
Yes I believe this is correct. To not sin, the Catholic would have to desire that the intercourse be non-contraceptive and, as the document says, attempts to disuade the spouse from using contraception. For instance with the pill... I wouldn't imagine the spouse would have to attempt to disuade every single time they had intercourse, but at reasonable intervals while still maintaining charity.

[b]I would doubt that a male not wanting to contracept could wear a condom due to the wife wanting to contracept.[/b]
[/quote]

Yeah - I'm thinking the contraception method would have to be entirely on the party who wants to contracept.

This probably holds true for [s]the[/s] a spouse who undergoes a sterilization procedure too - the other spouse is not at fault if he/she strongly discouraged it and took no part in it (i.e. didn't drive the spouse to the hospital).

Edited November 17, 2012 by HisChildForever

[MIKolbe]

I am in this situation. My wife is not catholic. She is on the pill.

Though there were many events which led to this, the main event being the birth of our youngest. It was a c-sect. Her ob performed it and said her uterus was entirely too thin for another pregnancy and flat out said another pregnancy would be life threatening. There are reasons, of which I will not go into here, why believe this to be a non biased opinion.

So I was left struggling with the fact that the conjugal act, since she is contracepting, was in a way inherently sinful, at least for me, as I would be participating in contraception in some way.

Through friends, priests, and praying, I found I had to be honest with myself. I am open to life. utterly and completely.

Though, I feel as if my marital embrace is not fully open to life, and in that respect, is objectively sinful; through my efforts to listen, love, offer alternatives, and explain the procreative and unitive aspects which should be present in all sexual situations, I think my culpability therein is lessened.

More practically, I am not going to 'cut my wife off', in attempts to teach her what I hope she someday embraces. I know my wife, and that would not be an effective way to evangelize.

My thoughts....

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1353118040' post='2511550']
I am in this situation. My wife is not catholic. She is on the pill.

Though there were many events which led to this, the main event being the birth of our youngest. It was a c-sect. Her ob performed it and said her uterus was entirely too thin for another pregnancy and flat out said another pregnancy would be life threatening. There are reasons, of which I will not go into here, why believe this to be a non biased opinion.

So I was left struggling with the fact that the conjugal act, since she is contracepting, was in a way inherently sinful, at least for me, as I would be participating in contraception in some way.

Through friends, priests, and praying, I found I had to be honest with myself. I am open to life. utterly and completely.

Though, I feel as if my marital embrace is not fully open to life, and in that respect, is objectively sinful; through my efforts to listen, love, offer alternatives, and explain the procreative and unitive aspects which should be present in all sexual situations, I think my culpability therein is lessened.

More practically, I am not going to 'cut my wife off', in attempts to teach her what I hope she someday embraces. I know my wife, and that would not be an effective way to evangelize.

My thoughts....
[/quote]

Thank you so much for sharing. I'm actually going to send you a PM

[CatherineM]

The non-concepting spouse is still open to life. Besides, except for abstinence, no birth control is 100%. Well, there was also one case where abstinence wasn't full proof. That's because God is always open to life no matter what we humans try to do.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Of interest, especially pars. 13-14:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html[/url]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='thedude' timestamp='1353121387' post='2511592']
Of interest, especially pars. 13-14:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...demecum_en.html[/url]
[/quote]

[quote]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.[/quote]

If the wife is on the birth control pill to prevent pregnancy, and aside from abstinence which could cause serious strife in the marriage, wouldn't it be permissible for the husband (who is open to life) to use a condom to prevent this effect?

[CatholicCid]

As has been noted, the contraceptive act would fall on the one who is contracepting.

If a husband desired to contracept, but the wife did not, then the wife can engage in intercourse even if the husband uses contraceptive means (e.g. condom). The wife is not allowed, however, to use contraceptive means herself (e.g. the pill) even if her husband would want to use a condom. The wife would have duty, however, to pray for a conversion of her husband's heart.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1353121807' post='2511600']
As has been noted, the contraceptive act would fall on the one who is contracepting.

If a husband desired to contracept, but the wife did not, then the wife can engage in intercourse even if the husband uses contraceptive means (e.g. condom). The wife is not allowed, however, to use contraceptive means herself (e.g. the pill) even if her husband would want to use a condom. The wife would have duty, however, to pray for a conversion of her husband's heart.
[/quote]

Thanks for the response, it seems everyone (so far) is in unanimous agreement.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1353121700' post='2511597']
If the wife is on the birth control pill to prevent pregnancy, and aside from abstinence which could cause serious strife in the marriage, wouldn't it be permissible for the husband (who is open to life) to use a condom to prevent this effect?
[/quote]

The ends cannot justify the means. If the husband were to use a condom, he would then also be acting in a contraceptive manner, just as the wife is in the given scenario.

Also, you're welcome for the response.

Edited November 17, 2012 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1353122013' post='2511604']

The ends cannot justify the means. If the husband were to use a condom, he would then also be acting in a contraceptive manner, just as the wife is in the given scenario.
[/quote]

So what is the husband expected to do?

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1353122170' post='2511608']
So what is the husband expected to do?
[/quote]

I must admit, I'm not quite sure. We can, however, attempt to walk through to a solution.

First, I think it is important to note that Casti Connubii is an encyclical on married life, while the Vademecum is more-so reference material for a confessor. The confessor, the priest, has had several years of studies and instructions to accompany this document so as to appropriately approach the penitent concerning this matter.

Then, we can note the two possible options. If the wife is using birth control, the husband may either:
(1) Abstain from relations with his wife
or
(2) Have relations with his wife under the conditions that he himself in no way contracepts and attempts to dissuade his wife from using contraceptive means in the marital act.*


I believe those would be the only two moral options. #14 from the Vademecum reiterates that careful consideration and prayer must be taken into account when possible abortifacients are being used by the contracepting spouse. I believe the husband, with the consultation of his priest, would have to determine if abstinence is the prudent approach to this situation. I think the question lies in whether or not having relations with his wife, as part of his marital responsibility, would constitute a direct participation in her abortifacient actions. And, this is a question that is better left to the moral theologians than my uneducated guesses.


I hope this helps somewhat. Perhaps we can put it to the "Ask a Theologian" forum to provide a more fuller and authoritative response.

*I think the Vademecum words this magnificently when discussing the three conditions for participating in the marital act under such conditions. The third point: "When one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct ([b]patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue[/b]; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion)."

Edited November 17, 2012 by CatholicCid

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='CatholicCid' timestamp='1353126511' post='2511637']
I must admit, I'm not quite sure. We can, however, attempt to walk through to a solution.

First, I think it is important to note that Casti Connubii is an encyclical on married life, while the Vademecum is more-so reference material for a confessor. The confessor, the priest, has had several years of studies and instructions to accompany this document so as to appropriately approach the penitent concerning this matter.

Then, we can note the two possible options. If the wife is using birth control, the husband may either:
(1) Abstain from relations with his wife
or
(2) Have relations with his wife under the conditions that he himself in no way contracepts and attempts to dissuade his wife from using contraceptive means in the marital act.*


I believe those would be the only two moral options. #14 from the Vademecum reiterates that careful consideration and prayer must be taken into account when possible abortifacients are being used by the contracepting spouse. I believe the husband, with the consultation of his priest, would have to determine if abstinence is the prudent approach to this situation. I think the question lies in whether or not having relations with his wife, as part of his marital responsibility, would constitute a direct participation in her abortifacient actions. And, this is a question that is better left to the moral theologians than my uneducated guesses.


I hope this helps somewhat. Perhaps we can put it to the "Ask a Theologian" forum to provide a more fuller and authoritative response.

*I think the Vademecum words this magnificently when discussing the three conditions for participating in the marital act under such conditions. The third point: "When one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct ([b]patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue[/b]; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion)."
[/quote]

I'm not sure if this would be licit, but if the wife is extremely adamant about using contraception, could the husband ask that if she makes this decision she not use an abortifacient drug (or sterilization for that matter)?

Edited November 17, 2012 by HisChildForever