"forced to commit adultery"


Do the analysis of formal versus material cooperation yourself then?
I gave you the link.
You are strangely shy on doing so.

The husband is materially contracepting - no doubt about that at all.
And very likely proximately so.
It is even bordering on formal contracepting.

But it is contracepting.
No moral theologian priest will advise you otherwise.

So if the husband is forced to materially contracept due to circumstances outside of his control why do you maintain the same cannot happen in some cases of 2nd marriages re material adultery?


The link to the National Catholic Register?
Sorry, it didn’t work…

You are imposing your theory of one situation (husband with contracepting wife) which the Church, in the Vademecum you offered, seems to decide differently, onto a different situation (irregular/invalid marriages). The two cannot be likened like you wish.

Here is why. Both spouses equally entered into that invalid union. But both spouses are not willfully choosing contraception, in our example.

The life giving quality of sex should not be removed from sex, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only quality of sex. And since the husband did everything in his power to keep it in, he doesn’t have to lose the other qualities. The other qualities are not only carnal or sinful. They can be an expression of love still.


Invincible ignorance at its finest.
Good luck and God bless.


Condescendence rears it’s ugly head.

In this article, Vademecum for Confessors is referenced as support for possible cases where an innocent spouse of contraception can engage in marital relations.


Just frustration sorry.
There is nothing more I can do to assist you RC.


Or the priest who wrote that article? Is he ignorant also?


Why does St. Paul tell a Christian, he should remain with his unbelieving wife? Did he mean they should not have sex? Is unbelief less wrong than choosing contraception? Or is contraception a form of unbelief?

1 Corinthians 7
To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has call us to peace. Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?


Complicit in the act.

Maran atha!



Perhaps the Church should engage in a drive-through–after you take your spouse for a trial ride, just drop by the drive through and get an annulment!

Maran atha!



…wait, so if I know that someone is asking me for a ride to a drug den where she usually gets and uses drugs, I’m not complicit in her addiction because I only, lovingly, gave her a ride to the source but I did not actively engage in procuring or physically inserting the drug into her?

Maran atha!



Wait, but aren’t you mixing in values?

When people converted to the Way they were already living in the condition which Jesus’ Preaching found them.

A person who was convicted by the Holy Spirit to Believe and Fellowship with Christ had the obligation to remain married to the unbeliever; this would give both the non-believing spouse and the children exposure to Christian Values and Love. The Holy Spirit could well use their marriage bond to convict the unbelieving spouse and to Bless the children.

However, which is were many go wrong, St. Paul Taught not to be yoke with unbelievers (which also would apply, in the post Luther revolt, to non-Catholic Believers).

A “Catholic” spouse that is determined to contracept is not living in ignorance of the Faith; he/she, in effect, is challenging the Faith. His/her spouse, knowing about this challenge, is complicit in his/her choice to rob God of His Will.

Maran atha!



I’m sure more know this than are willing to admit. But they want to have their cake and eat it too.


HI, Lily!

…it’s the meshing of the “selective” and “feel good” theologies… 'do what I please, feign ignorance, hold on to “excuse” clauses, and run to the pearly gates with the devil-may-care whim.

Maran atha!



So if a person marries a physical abuser and divorces but the abuser blocks an annulment then the innocent party is to live the next 60 years without the hope of remarriage? I truly understand where some Church members are advocating for Pastor’s to have the discretion to give members in a situation such as this the Blessed Sacramento.


As much as I have sympathy for someone in that situation (an abusive or cheating spouse) we do marry for better, for worse - don’t we?


Tribunal guidelines well witness to the fact that there are limits on the meaning of that phrase. It is not an absolute.


Abuse or adultery are valid reasons to separate but by themselves can they invalidate a marriage?


Yes, this is often evidence of underlying immaturities in the partner that nobody has to accept as part of the deal they signed up for.
It may also indicate deceit when making marriage vows.
That is not part of the better or worse. Its outside of the box altogether.

Sure, a saint should stay if they have the strength to, but its a counsel not a command under the above scenario.


I think we agree. The correct thing to do is apply for an annulment. If and only if one is granted is someone free to seek a new relationship.


The correct thing to do is what one believes to be right and true after much prayer and wise counsel. What that results in may well vary for different people in the same circumstances.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.