"forced to commit adultery"


Furthermore, your suggestion that we “can’t say the couple sinned” cannot imply that neither sinned. It might be understood that their may be an innocent spouse, regarding the contraception. That much I have not argued with, at all.

I am only arguing that those couples who do contracept are not allowed to do so by Church Teaching. Save for medical or health reasons unrelated to the intention not to conceive.

There are no exceptions to the moral law of the prohibition of contracepting pregnancy.


Couples don’t present at confession. Individuals do. You will continue in confusion if you use imprecise language. Any disagreement you are having here is with BF.


If you were as consistent on this question re “no exceptions” to engaging in contraception as you seem to be re remarriage and abstention then you have no choice but to accept that abstention is the only option for a contracepting partner if one is to worthily receive Communion.

But you don’t.
Therefore you seem to agree to my original point that there are exceptions both to Communion and engaging in contraception and Communion AL a la Argentina.

Nothing unfair here at all - unless you call hard truths unfair.


Seems a silly question. Your choice to remarry or not.


Well there are good arguments that do just that but RCWitness, from previous discussions, seems to reject them on the basis that they would legitimate AL a la Argentina as well. Which I agree would happen.

Unfortunately RCWitness cannot have it both ways.

However it does seem somewhat ludicrous to assert, as RCW seems to, that being intimately inside one’s spouse, whom he knows to be contracepting, doesn’t mean anything.


Canon law does not state “mortal sin”, it says “grave sin”.
I would think that choosing to have sex with one’s known contracepting wife is a joint act of contraception in your book? Therefore its grave matter for both husband and wife.
Therefore, according to your principles, one should choose to abstain.
If one fails in this then it is understandable and likely venial, yet still confessional matter as the sin is one of grave matter.


But you’ve never actually asked a senior priest experienced in applying the Vademecum it seems.

And from what I read on CAF the only priest who actually offered you advice on this matter (agreeing with my observations re the Vademecum) you rejected as renegade.


Its not about the Vademecum.

Its whether there are exceptions to your alleged universal rules that all contracepting couples (or a;; remarried non abstaining couples) can never be allowed Communion.

You just provided an example of a husband who cooperates with his wife’s contracepting (instead of abstaining) who you believe is allowed to receive Communion.

So then its not hard to join the dots re AL couples…


My position is that the comparison of a contrcepting couple and a couple who, at least one are not free to marry, and are sleeping together, is not practical.

The sin of a couple, who are not free to marry, engaging in sex is actually the sex. The sin of a married couple, engaging in sex while contracepting, is NOT the sex but that one or both is willingly contracepting.

I still state that there are no exception of “allowance” (whatever that means to you, im not sure) for a couple to contracept and receive absolution and therefore Communion.


No, I didn’t write a book about it. I leave it to the Church to decide. It may have decided, I don’t know. I actually can see both arguements, but tend to believe one spouse (unwilling to contracept) can be free of the sin. Whether sex, in itself, is necessarily an act of cooperation is something I have not taken a position on.


No, I don’t even know a senior priest (whoever that might be).

I have asked the diocese whether a priest can, under any circumstances, advise using contraception (for the purpose of contracepting) and the answer was “No”.

I believe the person responding g to me was a Master of Theology, but it doesn’t matter if the diocese chose the janitor to answer the question. They have placed him in that position to represent their answers. And for all I know, he may have consulted a Bishop about it. I’m sure it’s not the first time he’s considered the question and done research and investigation.

By the way, that priest on CAF did NOT answer that question at all. I have only once heard a priest tell me there are times which the Church allows for couples to contracept. And the diocese told me he did not have that right.


Your constant references to “couples” contracepting (despite sin being personal) suggests you mean both wish their sexual act to be contracepted. Is that what you mean?


Again the sin which prevents Communion, in good conscience (unless Confessed and Absolved) regarding contraception, is NOT having sex, but contracepting the process of getting pregnant as a result.

There is an arguement, which I leave to the Church to decide, whether there can be intercourse without cooperation in contraception.

This still does not mean the Church would be “allowing” a couple to contracept.


To me, it doesn’t change the point I’ve been making. The Church does not permit (even for a short period) anyone to contracept (unless a birth control product is used for a purpose other than contraception) and then receive Communion.

The debate of whether one spouse can be innocent of that sin by having sex only distinguishes whether it’s possible for the sin to rest only on the one who desires and uses a contraceptive.

It’s very different, in nature, than a couple who are having unlawful sex together. The sex itself is prohibited for couples who are not free to marry.


What makes u think it is not already decided? Did the clause I pointed you too seem unclear on that question?


You are right. The clause does seem to convey that one spouse can be innocent of contraception.

The Church still does not allow couples to contracept. It’s acknowledging that one person may be free of the sin, while the sin rests on the other.



Say I stole a car; brought it to you and you bought it from me at an absurd price cut; I then employ a third party to produce “papers” to legitimize the transaction. You clear police and motor vehicles… no crime, no sin, right?

Maran atha!



so now humanity has " free will " until one reaches marriage and divorce and we are to believe that one can " force another to commit adultery " / utter nonsense and stupid.

that saying of one is forced to commit adultery , is totally defeating free will, and punishing someone and putting a state of sin on someone through no fault of their own which is the exact opposite of everything that makes any sense of rationality or common sense.

Mine as well say someone can force someone else to rob a bank through threat of killing their entire family and then say that the person who was threatened and went through the act is not only in a state of sin for stealing, but is going to go to prison for said crime.

The entire theory of this topic is a total contradiction of everything Jesus taught.

But rest easy, as long as one is willing to jump through a ton of hoops, suffer a migraine and pull a few teeth, and has the money, one can get an annulment and or a divorce through the Church.


O come on…lets be real.
You are the one keen to know the truth that you wrote the diocese which lay rep apparantly told you your PP was mistaken. Isnt it time to write again.

Reminds me of Mt 21:27 :

So they answered Jesus, “We do not know."

But as I say, if you do not know…then you must concede there is every possibility that one may choose to coopetate in sex with ones contracepting wife without objectively sinning.
I call that an exception even if you for unexplained reasons are unable to see this.

The Vademecum provides a set of explicit criteria for deciding those particular cases that are tolerated by Confessors. Why would it do so if none practically existed? Your authoritarian, unmonitored diocesan lay rep attempting to summarise your no doubt confused questions can do in one sentence what the Vademecum takes 5 pages of nuanced theology to do…?
Come on, this isnt real my friend.

You are starting to sound like a flat-earther on this point. They simply, even before being presented with the facts, are unable to accept even the theoretic possibility of being mistaken. So we know that even the strongest case is not immune to their imaginitive counter “arguments”.


Sex outside of a valid marriage is adultery. Natural (non-Sacramental) marriages are valid as long as both parties were free to marry.

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.