"forced to commit adultery"


The question isn’t whether they’re in a sacramental marriage, but whether they’re in a valid marriage. As long as it’s valid (and yes, a Catholic marriage with a dispensation from disparity of cult can be valid), then there’s no ‘adultery’ or ‘fornication’.



Not trained at all; basically, the pedestrian of pedestrians… but I know that, as the president, claiming “fake news” and “manipulation” is not enough to make it so.

Since you have proposed that you are being hit with a bunch of fake news and manipulated data, could you put forth the “real news” and unmanipulated data, thank you.

Maran atha!



Are you referring to a couple who previously entered Holy Matrimony, divorced and got civil married to someone else?


No. If they had attempted to enter a subsequent marriage after a civil divorce, then they could not receive a dispensation for disparity of cult; the Church would have said, “you’re already married, so no new marriage for you!”. :wink:

@BlackFriar is pointing out the difference between “sacramental” and “natural” marriages, in response to @JoeVig’s confusion in using ‘sacramental’ when he was really talking about ‘valid’ marriages… :man_shrugging:


Ok… sounds good.


Indeed, when a link is provided to the actual survey allegedly used with actual % figures presented and the survey conditions supplied.
Which is all I asked to begin with.


I simply talk from direct clerical and pastoral experience. You from a nominally trained layman with an important title who has never met you nor really understood the context of your issue by all accounts.
Nothing more to say if you reject my testimony. God bless.


I dont think i am the one you need to explain that too!
I am hoping that is what the author meant.


Well there is no point closing the door when the horse has bolted.
Nor do US Catholics have an acceptance of sin by contraction anymore.

Which in the end is likely why excommunications of rhe remarried was dropped also. The sheer numbers of remarried Catholics and their children lost to the Church has grown so great that attempts to surgically isolate the contagion by amputation is no longer feasible.


Your pastor has no grounds for allowing you, or anyone, to use contraception… Period. There are no special circumstances that make a difference. Unless you are using birth control products for medical reasons.

I have no doubt a pastor gave you this impression. However, they do not have that authority.


Indeed, such an exception which you here accept exemplifies my original point.


Yet, it is you who has determined that the information is fake news and manipulated info… since it is you who seems to be the law of the land, then you must provide the “correct” “real news” and “unmanipulated” sources.

Maran atha!



So you aren’t talking about a means to contracept, but using a birth control product for a purpose other than contraception?

If so, we agree.


Whence your expertise to opine this so dogmatically?
A one sentence response from a less than well trained layman representing the diocese from a brief question you wrote in on a very subtle matter.

For some reason assumed my experience was on the lay side of the equation.
You do not have the training, pastoral experience or clerical status to speak as dogmaticly as you do on this issue.

But as I say, there is nothing further to say.
God bless.


Ah, if you carefully reread Rau’s question you will find you misunderstood the scenario he put to you.
Would you like to have another go at responding then?


The very document which you based your assumption on, contradicts your conclusion.

I asked my diocese if there were ANY reasons which a priest is able to advise using condoms for the purpose of contracepting. The answer was a definite “No”.

Again, I think your choice of word (allow) is vague. Still, a confessor is bound to admonish a sinful act, such as the use of contraception, and absolution is not to be administered without repentance or resolve to not continue.

That is very clear and straight forward. I challenge you to provide any Catholic source which support the notion you are proposing. Namely, that priests can allow (whatever that means) couples to continue contracepting, and yet receive absolution and rightly receive Holy Communion.

I am quite confident you will not be able to.


I have not pretended to be able to give an authoritative answer to that question. I admit it is complicated, and for reasons I stated. The PIL is wrong on more than one level. So knowing that it may cause an initial stage abortion, would possibly mean it’s wrong to have intercourse with the spouse, in this case.

But I realize I don’t know the Church position on that situation.


I dont understand😗did i miss something can someone please redigest for me?


Reread the scenario…you have not grasped the real issue Rau presented you.


The husband would possibly be able to receive Communion, since he is not contracepting, while the wife IS contracepting, and therefore would not be able to receive Communion.

I just don’t know if knowledge of some PIL products possibly causing abortions would change things.

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.