"forced to commit adultery"


You are rejecting something which Valemecum acknowledges (the possibility for a spouse to have relations with a contraception spouse) and accepting something it rejects (couples are allowed to contracept and receive absolution).

You need to talk to a good priest


I am not currently taking any position RC.
I am simply observing the seeming contradictions in your own contributions here.

Are you able to answer the question…why isnt the husbands action called contracepting in your understanding?

Saying it cannot be because the Valemecum allows it simply begs the very issue/question at stake here.

I have been doing just that throughout this thread RC. He is here now.
You are the one who rejects the advice of the only priest you have spoken to on this matter according to your past posts on CAF.
So now you reject the close advice of two priests.

But fair enough, this is just an anonymous forum and how are you to know for sure he is a priest or even “good”.


And what does the priest, with you, say?

That the Church teaches him to tell certain contraception couples that it’s OK to continue using them, while they are able to receive Communion with a clear conscience???

What did I reject from a priest on CAF???

My priest friend, whom we are on good terms with, actually apologized to me, for advising me to use condoms!

So what do you know about my situation? And why does it matter?

Under NO circumstances at all is a priest permitted to advise couples to contracept. If the priest with you disagrees, I strongly encourage him to speak with his Bishop about that.

As for the other issue, which is NOT apples to apples (one spouse, under certain conditions, being allowed to have sex with his wife who is contracepting) I do find the “certain conditions” hard to reconcile. But I also see that sex with his wife is his conjugal right. And he may need to enjoy that in order to avoid temptation to sin. And if he has done everything he can to compel her not to contracept, the act of making love to her is still a sign of his love for her.

The poor comparison of a mother driving her daughter to receive an abortion thinking it will help her mental condition is not appropriate.


You havent anwered the question RC.

Are you able to answer the question…why isnt the husbands action called contracepting in your understanding?

Personally I find such an attitude seriously misguided
Temptation to sin and failing would seem far less sinful then choosing to engage in this sort of “marital” sex which already has the love taken out of it by the contracepting of the wife.

Would you not think the renegade attitude of the wife is likely linked to the chauvenist “rights” attitude of the husband and she is being forced into things in at least two levels. But of course the husband thinks he is not the one contracepting so all is good with God on his side.

I dont think so. This situation needs serious rethinking surely.
Abstention seems the only way to regain the wife’s respect and heal the marriage.

You are a proponent of abstention in AL cases arent you if the remarriage must be maintained for the kids sake?
What if the husband cannot abstain?
Should they split rather than pretend its a marriage.

Should the above contracepting couple split if the husband cannot abstain and the wife consequently keeps contracepting?

I think both the Valemecum and AL offer the same solution to both the physical “contracepting” and the physical “adultery” taking place.

It is a recognition of temporary lack of freedom to do otherwise.
Grave personal sin is not involved in the remarried wife cooperating with her first time married Protestant husband who cannot abstain. Communion is possible according to AL Argentina.
Likwise for the contracepting wife who resents her past unfaithful husbands advances…and the husband who cannot abstain but pretends his acts arent contracepting when he fails. Perhaps he would gain his wifes respect if he agreed to use a condom given he is contracepting anyways. It would me a monitored interim situation tolerated by the priest of course.

The priest with me would have no issue with absolving such a man in such difficult and unfree circumstances. Though the priest would never advise you to do that, but he would be able to respect and absolve a Catholic man who did so choose as a last resort to save his marriage and who believed before God that he was not presently otherwise free to do anything better to save the marriage.


And yes, you have claimed a position, which started my debating you. In post #46, you claim there are exception to couples using contraception. In post #55, you explained that you actually meant there can be a period when confessors “allow” penitent to continue contracepting, until they accept Catholic Teaching.

You used the Confessors Vademecum to support this position. I showed you section 3 paragraph 5 which contradicts your claim. And you only told me I don’t understand it.

Well, I am fine with your accusation. I have said my peace about this issue. I don’t always clash with you. I’ve appreciated some of your posts. But I believe you have an underlying misconception of moral laws which carries through many matters. I also believe you have a strong tendency to think that only formally trained people have correct understanding.

I have spoken with all pastors of my two sister churches. I am not oppositional, but I don’t accept each of their advice and interpretations as infallible. I think you would not want me to. But I appreciate them, for their service and devotion to Jesus. We are brothers, and they are even more pure than myself. But I should show no partiality, but study God’s Word and His Churches Teachings. I don’t believe we should trust clergy as Jesus, but respect them and submit to them like Jesus. We are to serve under them for the sake of Jesus.


This is a better job at conveying your position.

It happens to get too deep for me to reply to everything. Especially because I only have a smart phone… :frowning:

I will say, that my personal story is very close to these issues, and you are probably aware.

One thing I will say, is that I am not judging or rejecting my wife, though I have hurt her with my faults. But it isn’t fair to say only my faults have contributed to an unreconciled state. But my lack of Holy love and sinful nature has allowed harm into our Marriage.

I am not the cause of her faults and she is not the cause of my faults. Our faults are from within us. But we have a privilege to love each other and build each other up. And that happens by relying on Jesus. I need Jesus and she needs Jesus.

I have done things she would never do, and she has done things I would never do. And they both contribute to our faults manifesting into disappointment and distrust.

I know I can never give my body for another person, and if I do, I need to Reconcile by the power of Jesus, with remorse and repentance. And even if I do, there are consequences because my wife does not follow Jesus to the point of loving me. And that is not my fault. But I haven’t taken her sins with forgiveness either.

So I will continue to fight the good fight, and hopefully not lose battles. But my Spirit if willing to follow the Teachings of our Lord. And His laws cannot be compromised, only forgiven if trespassed.


It was a simple question I asked, all priests and disputed Vademecums aside:

Are you able to answer the question…why isnt the husbands action called contracepting in your understanding?

I am not accusing you of anything. I simply bring you to the real world where many pastorally experienced priests do absolve in situations you personally could not accept for yourself before God.

For you to universalise your understanding of these situations to the extent of saying your personal interpretation of the Valemecum or clerical pastoral application is the correct one and priests who do not agree with you are not experienced or good or correct is an absurd self aggrandisement to make on CAF if that is what you are seriously trying to do.

Just say you personally disagree, why must you universalise your views into exceptionless rules that the Church has allegedly always taught?
Thats just flat-earthing the debate and is patently absurd when many priests clearly dont do what you say in actual confessional practise.


Ah, the old urban legend of the Congo nuns. . .that incredible story that never really happened. . .


The husband isn’t contracepting for very obvious reasons.

He does not desire to.
He is not buying contraceptives.
He is trying to participate in contraceptive free sex.
He is not aiding her actions to apply contraceptive products.

When he has relations with her, he is not contracepting or contributing to her will and action to contracept.


Most of the document is not about nor leading up to the subject paragraph. I was thinking you may have had a different document to hand.


What about when it’s the wife who “cannot” abstain and does not want to?


With the conclusion of he and the priest giving his guidance, I think there are reasons to wonder if we are looking at a different document.

For me, the heart of my position rests within section 3 paragraph 5.

…here, we see the Church instructing priests to admonish grave sins (contraception) and NOT to offer Absolution unless repentance or the resolve to not fall back into sin (contraception) is expressed.

This has been compromised by many, who think that contraception can be looked over for a period of time. This would be fine, so long as Absolution is not offered to someone practicing an intrinsically evil act, while refusing to repent with the act of contrition.

These priests are playing Jesus, instead of representing Him.


By all means call me mistaken for observing this complex issue can be well summarized in one or two sentences.


Was the mother not assisting her daughter in a procured abortion also?
She does not desire to.
She is not paying for the abortion.
She is trying to take her for an abortion free family trip.
She is not prepping her for the procedure.

How is making love to ones wife whom one knows intends to contracept the very act you share not a mutual act of contraception?

Is it even sex then? Perhaps its just a sophisticated form of masturbation?
Come on, lets get real.


Obviously, she is assisting her to get to the doctor who will perform the procedure, so she doesn’t “have a mental breakdown”?

Why do you ask how she is cooperating, when you created the way that she cooperates in the first place?

The husband (in YOUR scenario) wants to have intercourse with his wife… JUST LIKE HE WOULD WITHOUT CONTRACEPTION!

Why does he have to cooperate with the act of contraception???


Why do you ask how she is cooperating, when you created the way that she cooperates in the first place?


Obviously, she is assisting her to get to the doctor who will perform the procedure, so she doesn’t “have a mental breakdown”?

Not sure what question this is answering?

The husband (in YOUR scenario) wants to have intercourse with his wife… JUST LIKE HE WOULD WITHOUT CONTRACEPTION!

But that is the very point - you are universalising and objectifying your own blinkered view. They are completely different intentions.
In the first the husband is choosing to engage in fully marital and loving act with no shadow of contraceptive intent or ordering within the act.
In the second there is a clear shadow. The husband is choosing to engage in a significantly non-loving act primarily to relieve himself and he doesn’t care or pretends that the act he is co-responsible for making is not rendered infertile by his need to initiate and then co-create it. Its a rather large irresponsibility from what I can see.

Personally I would not disrespect the act, or God, or my wife by forcing her to pay the marital debt under such non-loving, half hearted, resentful contracepted “giving” on her part. It is solipsistic, almost animalistic on the husband’s part and so degrading of the wife and the relationship. It cannot possibly lead to growth of the marriage but very likely the reverse in my view. Abstention on the other hand is the noble course. Even if the husband risks falling into failings of masturbation such sinning seems significantly outweighed by the respect for the wife that is maintained and will more likely lead to a growth in marital intimacy and a healthy sexual relationship.




Why does he have to cooperate with the act of contraception???

I wish I knew what this means in English.

  1. Perhaps because he cannot control himself? He could abstain if he really wanted to surely?
  2. Perhaps he wants to get back at his wife by forcing her to do what she clearly prefers not to do for reasons unstated that he disagrees.
  3. Cooperation is not simply a matter of consciously choosing or not choosing a certain (contraceptive) “intent” RC. Surely you don’t believe it is? Surely you accept that simply by
    choosing to engage in certain behaviours with an inherent meaning (which may not be put there by you) you can by that fact alone be held responsible for the same sin.

In short, there really is no question that such a husband is intimately involved in an act of contraception. The only question for a Confessor is whether his cooperation in contraception is material or formal. If it is formal then it is objectively sinful and may not be chosen. If it is not formal but material it can still be objectively sinful but there may be reasons why it is a tolerable involvement in contracepting.

This quick summary is readable and accurate I believe:

Obviously ignorance comes into play whether material or formal. If it is formally sinful but the husband cannot see this then invincible ignorance is in play and the husband is not culpable. The VadeMecum says its OK for a Confessor not to force the issue with such a sincere formally contracepting penitent even though he is objectively wrong.

Unfortunately even if the husband is not culpable for the sinful formal cooperation…karma still operates. Surely contracepted sex and similarly impaired loving is against the nature of a healthy marital relationship and it will likely continue to erode the relationship in the middle to long term. Abstention in the longer term is really the better path despite the risks I offer.

But enough from me, we are now going around in circles.
God bless.


“Pay the marital debt”???

Is that what you call it?

Here is what St Paul said about it.

1 Corinthians 7
The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

Paul speaks much differently than you. He acknowledges that giving of oneself to each other keeps us safe from temptation. To be denied that, as well as contracepted against, adds to the injustice.

Just because a wife (or husband) uses contraception against her husband’s will and cooperation, doesn’t mean he has to give up his right to sexual priviledge altogether. This can keep him from the temptation of the devil. If he fell into the hands of the devil, his wife who rejected him is partly responsible for his state. Of course that culpability varies by case.

The point is that a husband still has his right, even if his wife is abusing her marriage. His right should not be viewed as “debt”. It is a gift.

Or consider when Jesus’ body and blood are received by someone abusing the Sacrament Is He guilty too?


It is a gift his wife must give him? In the best fundamentalist Protestant Minister tradition.
Have you seen the latest season of Poldark by any chance.

It is such a free gift his wife needs to contracept his seed?
Please come back to the real world RC.

Shared actions have an inherent meaning above and beyond what we want them to have.
In choosing those acts with that inherent meaning we become responsible for that meaning even if we didn’t put it there. That is the heart of a Catholic morality.
Not even the “right” to the marital debt can make some things right.

Abstention is the more noble course for the example in question.
Personally I see use of condoms as a significantly lesser form of contraceptiing than the one this husband is already engaging in.


It is a gift he has the privilege to partake (especially if she is offering), despite her contraception.

I agree that abstaining is the higher road. That doesn’t mean having sex with her is cooperating with contraception.

Condoms are probably safer than the Pil. But if he uses, he cooperates.

It is an unfortunate situation. But it is due to the wife’s hard heart.

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.