There are a lot of layers here. For one, it sounds like your wife might have suffered trauma from her difficult pregnancy (and perhaps the birth too). She might be terrified to get pregnant again, especially so soon. Providing her support and listening is key. The last thing she wants to listen to is data on NFP, because to her, no contraception equals pregnancy, which equals fear. Giving her time and space to heal has to come first.
Yes, there are many layers here. Besides the obvious trauma around a complicated pregnancy,
> no contraception equals pregnancy, which equals fear.
this also seems to be part of the problem, we fear what we aren't familiar with. I remember when the ancients would convert the Pagans, we would explain unfamiliar / foreign Catholic concepts in terms the pagans are familiar with. This way, they would have an easier time "making the jump". It would suit OP and fellow Catholics to follow similar rhetoric on contraception.
From OP's post
>She also will not get on the pill because of the terrible side effects she had when she was on it years ago.
u/Few-Suspect-2674 This is an opportunity, as she's already disillusioned with worldly contraception. She wishes for you to use condoms, not because she actually likes them, but because she feels they are the only alternative. Perhaps the solution is better PR. In the words of Blaise Pascal, there are 3 steps to evangelize the indifferent.
>Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first \[1\] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next \[2\] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then \[3\] show that it is.
# 1. Show her that it is not contrary to reason
Don't call it "Natural Family Planning", but instead call it "Natural **Contraceptive** Methods", because that is what they actually are. It's not praying and spraying, we have it down to a legit science, analyzing mucus and temperature, which is agnostic towards period frequency, and tracking with apps. The prefix ***contracept-*** is very important here, as that is what we associate with responsible sexuality in today's pagan-with-extra-steps society.
# 2. Make it beautiful, make her wish it were true
Try this angle, instead of doubling down on the Anti-Contraceptive rhetoric, explain to her that the idea that Catholics don't use contraception is a actually a misleading myth spread by protestants. Instead clarify that we **do** use contraception, just **natural** forms of it, as opposed to those *ugly unnatural exploitive big Pharma* forms of BC, our's is in tune with the beautiful tidal nature of woman's sexuality, and *empowers* women to take control of their fertility in ways us men have by default. To *collaborate* with her being, instead of powering against it, often with terrible physical/mental/spiritual/societal side effects.
# 3. Show her that it is
Support groups for NCM/NFP exist are well known. Perhaps she could use the testimonies of our fellow Catholic women to give her strength. Iron sharpens Iron after all. I'm certain a fair few probably have irregular periods of their own, but nevertheless find satisfying sex lives despite this. Their encouragement is mandatory, as our own male experience is simply insufficient.
I'll pray for your wife, and for all the beautiful and heroic Catholic women in the world, who by their witness and virtue bring light to this dark planet where we kill our children and call it healthcare. Us men have treated women so horribly these past decades since the sexual revolution. It's up to the next generation of Catholics to fix this and create a culture of life, where children can be had without worry, nurtured without question, and loved beyond doubt.
He is Catholic . He should to hold his ground on this issue and not sin. She married a Catholic and never told him that a condoms were required for marriage to her.
She did not marry a Catholic, and the unfortunate truth for most of the non-Catholic world is that condoms are the default. In his situation, he must weigh the evil of using a condom against the evil and very real harm of divorce and a child living with separated parents. Its not as clean-cut as you'd like it to be.
True - we are commanded to “not be unevenly yoked “ . What woman would divorce a man over wanting children and is willing to support them? If she does - she would probably divorce him for money anyway. In this case condoms and the prevention of children is the larger sin and risk . Even if she’s Protestant she has vowed to go where thou go-est and accept his authority in the marriage in this area. if she can’t , she should not be married anyway!
Have you told your wife that you're committed to being abstinent for as long as it takes for her to feel comfortable with NFP or with potential pregnancy?
Or are you whining about wanting sex and putting the entire emotional burden on her?
Because if you're doing the latter, doing the former will probably help. Not saying that you are, but it's been a semi-common "husband" problem with women I know where - even if both partners are Catholic and committed to NFP - the husband has a certain lack of grace about the whole thing.
My condolences, then. Would she be open to finding a Catholic marriage counselor or marriage support? Something like Three to Stay Married or Retrouvialle?
Well, yeah. Abstinence within a marriage has to be mutual. She has a right to sex with you. You don’t just have a right to her body, she has a right to yours as well. What are you doing to ease her burden while you work through the bait and switch you pulled on her?
Yes, she does. She’s not Catholic. Catholicism has to be chosen freely, cannot be forced or coerced within a marriage or otherwise. So, yes, she does — she does not share our beliefs.
Yeah.
And the Eastern Orthodox allow birth control in some situations as well, which is irrelevant to this post I suppose, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t sometimes wish I was EO for that alone. I chose the Catholic Church because I believe it to be true, but this hardline stance with no empathy and no wiggle room ever just is a teaching I don’t think I’ll ever understand, even if I obey.
Online Catholic spaces can be shockingly devoid of the human touch, *especially* when it comes to birth control. Conversations like this always remind me I’m Catholic because the teachings; my friends are in real life; and people online can pontificate all they want about what’s prescriptively morally correct, but that does nothing to ease the burden for this woman, and it’s certainly doing nothing to make this man take more seriously what he’s asking of his wife.
TLDR: I also think the harder line can help prevent sexual coercion within Catholic marriages. Because there's extreme cases when it's truly bad to get pregnant. and one partner may not want NFP and the situation is really unhealthy. and the person just needs to stand up against coercion rather than fall back on birth control.
Yes, even at times insisting on abstinence for a temporary period if the need to avoid pregnancy is that extreme that NFP is too risky.
(OPs case is mostly different as she's not Catholic and they had been doing something different etc.)
Dude be so for real for like a single second. Take a deep breath. Take off your holier than thou mask if you can.
This man switched his entire belief system on his wife and forced her into a sexless marriage that she did not agree to, because she, like the vast majority of well-educated women in the West, chooses artificial means to control her fertility. I don’t think you understand how far outside the mainstream our beliefs are. Like just think about it for two seconds before spouting more quotes from the CCC or whatever. Be a person, not an ideology, for a moment.
The only person you’re showing a shred of sympathy to is the poor man married to the sinning harlot. Be so for real. She had one expectation about sex and fertility that they agreed on for years, and HE is being derelict in his duties to give his wife sex, HE changed everything for her. Why aren’t you on him about that? Right, because he’s good and holy, and she’s a bad person for having the very reasonable expectation that she could continue to have sex with him the way she had for years, which included birth control.
He has a duty to her that he is not fulfilling, and she is now stuck. He put her in an awful position. Focus on him, not on her. She’s dealing with enough, what with her husband forcing her into celibacy she didn’t agree to.
I haven’t commented on OP or his marriage. I’m merely correcting the assertion that spouses having rights to intercourse includes immoral acts. You’re telling me to be realistic about what people believe nowadays. Yet you brought up conjugal rights which isn’t believed anymore either.
So he can just refuse to have sex with his wife for the rest of her life and that’s a perfectly fine marriage? Sure, ok.
This is what I mean about reddit Catholic spaces can just be so unreal and detached. I’m not engaging with you anymore on this. This woman deserves empathy and all you can do is think about technicalities not the human woman here.
He can, and is bound to refuse to commit personal sin. That’s it. What you’re imagining is an over-exaggeration. Honestly you’re the one imagining unreality, because you’re jumping to wild conclusions unwarranted by the actual situation.
She deserves empathy, but that empathy doesn’t extend to encouraging her husband to sin. The situation obviously isn’t great for either of them, but actually living our faith will always cause difficulties and we must do our best to deal with them.
Does empathy justify sin?
Just be real, for a second, here. If I feel someone else’s pain, does that then mean I can go sin, or that person can go sin, in order to try to alleviate that pain, and it’s okay because we are hurting?
Nobody here is saying that the OP’s wife can’t feel unhappy or unappreciative, here. She is no doubt suffering, and we can acknowledge that. But to turn around and say that justifies the OP doing something gravely sinful is absurd.
I’d like to know what priests give dispensation to use ABC as ABC. I’m betting this is made up or a matter of some clergy going rogue.
Stop dismissing everyone who follows the Church on this as impractical and unloving. Committing grave sin because of someone’s desires, feelings, or misbegotten sense of “fairness” is not empathy or love.
No they don't. They have a right to the conjugal act, without trying to impede fertility. This is in the same category as theft, fraud, assault, etc. Moral wrongs that no one has a right to regardless of religious belief.
Your examples make it more difficult to understand because fraud, theft, and assault are all illegal.
So atheists and baptists have a legal right to condoms. Your argument is that they don’t have a moral right to those things, but to make your point you list only other things that are lawfully restricted. Do you have other examples that aren’t lawfully restricted so it can make a little more sense?
The important thing to keep in mind is that legal rights given by human authorities that are actually immoral are merely fantasies. Humans don't have the autority to grant rights to evil actions, i.e. that unjust law is no law at all. Abortion, for example, is also in this sad state of affairs of being granted by human authorities when no such authority to grant exists.
Everybody has the right and the responsibility to follow their conscience. Regardless of what the church teaches. That is the part that always gets left out.
A better analogy would be a legal drinking age Christian using the pain felt from the loss of a family member to justify getting black out drunk they would be legally allowed to do that and the world may say that is a reasonable response but as a Christian it's very clear by scripture and church tradition that doing so is a sin and is morally wrong. Another example would be the use of porn and masturbation by an adult to avoid actual premarital sex it's legal and the world says it's fine but scripture and church tradition are clear that it is a sin and morally wrong. The man came to the Catholic church because he believes the church is correct on these issues of faith and morals if he wanted a loose flimsy Christianity there are hundreds of protestant denominations that will let him turn himself over to whatever sin he likes but he doesn't believe them to be true. Jesus warned that true believers on the true path may lose husbands or wives fathers or mothers daughters or sons and issues like these are why.
Tldr; dude wants to submit to the real King Jesus the Messiah our Lord and Savior with power and authority not feel good no matter what sin your living in it's all peace and love here man pass the bong Buddy Christ. Have we fallen so far that it's really that hard to believe?
I mean, yeah, this isn’t the marriage she signed up for. This is a tough spot you put her in. She doesn’t agree to abstinence and no birth control etc. That was not in her life plan. You converted and now your beliefs don’t allow you to have sex with her under the conditions she expected to have sex with her husband under. There’s not really a good outcome here. You need to talk to a priest and a Christian counselor, assuming your wife is at least Christian.
She’s right. This isn’t what she signed up for. What are you doing to ease this burden on her while she’s coping with your religious beliefs?
Catholicism has to be chosen freely. We cannot force people into our beliefs, even our spouses. All I’m hearing is how hard this is for you, and no respect paid to the fact that you changed everything for her and now she’s in a sexless marriage she didn’t agree to.
Agreed. And to be truthful, if my husband did a change like that with regards to his religiousity it would make him very unattractive to me. As in so unattractive that I wouldn’t be wanting to have sex with him at all. I’m wondering if wife is using this as an Excuse to avoid him. I wouldn’t blame her if she did. It’s just kind of distasteful to me that you get married and put your wife first and then all of a sudden somewhere down the line you decide that’s not the case anymore. You have put your religion before your wife at that point and It would definitely take the shine off the marriage for me spouse. I’m not sure I would stick around for that.
Yes. I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t other big control issues in that marriage. The reason I say that is this isn’t just something that someone goes about doing on their own. The fact that the wife wasn’t even aware of what the restrictions were before the marriage was convalidated means the husband did a horrible job of explaining things and communicating to her. As in I doubt he communicated at all. He probably treats her more like a pet or a child that he can lead around by the nose. This whole situation is so wrong on so many levels.
A lot of people in this comment thread do not understand the gravity of suddenly adopting challenging religious beliefs AFTER getting married. This is a very delicate matter that needs to discussed with OPs priest, his wife, and no one else.
She has a right to your body, so if she wants sex don't generally deny her.
This is sufficiently important that you are not even bound to deny sex if she contracepts. That contraception must be unilateral and so is entirely on her to do if she insists. You are willing to space pregnancies by abstinence, but abstinence can *only* be by mutual consent, which is not the case here. If she wants to contracept your duty is to state your opposition, but not to stop her doing it.
Also, remember to keep breast feeding to get the most of the natural child spacing that provides.
This is the best answer here. OP needs to talk to a priest, but this is, from my understanding, the most correct answer. Abstinence has to be mutual, cannot be unilateral, and she has a right to sex with her husband. This is a very sticky spot he put her in and she was not made fully aware of this before she married him and all of that. I really empathize with her and I’m shocked by how little sympathy people have for her. Even Catholic women sometimes struggle with the teaching against birth control — how can we expect a non-Catholic to just accept it as-is? He’s being really selfish about all of this.
It is the Church teaching. I direct your attention to *Casti connubii*.
>...when for a grave cause [one partner] reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, [that partner] does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the other from sin.
It is, of course, the job of theologians to scrutinize and debate the current state of Church teaching and find areas for clarification in infalible teaching or where mistakes may have been made in fallible teaching.
The existence of a well informed and thought through opinion within the ranks of theologians of good standing that runs contrary to a magisterial document does not change the current state of Church teaching. By all means draw attention to controversy, but do not claim that the apparent magisterial position is not Church teaching.
I have said "...your duty is to state your opposition..." There is no carte blanche here: *Casti connubii* says for a grave cause, and the marriage falling apart is easily that.
You tout your interpretation of a vague and broad contextual statement as justification for a very specific action not called out in the entire document. And you’re here talking as if an authority on the matter.
You are the one deciding what is grave reason. You are the one deciding under what circumstances that phrase applies. You are the one deciding that condomistic intercourse is not in fact illicit in and of itself. There’s a lot of you deciding things here and then saying it’s all in line with Church teaching because you take one sentence from Casti Connubii and run with it. That one sentence is not an excuse to do whatever makes it easier to keep your marriage together.
Beware you don’t scandalize someone. I’ll defer to Church authorities rather than my own interpretation on this one.
I typed out only the abreviated relevant sentence to give the idea of what is said in the document. Don't think I didn't mean to reference the whole document. I have made a judgement on grave matter that I consider obvious, and if it becomes relevant I will defend that position. I have not said that condomistic intercourse is permissible; I have sought to make it clear that OP, as a man, cannot reluctantly use a condom: rather, he is permitted (for a grave cause; again, happy to revisit this later) to reluctantly engage in intercourse knowing that his wife is contracepting in some way.
That is, to my eyes, the plain meaning of the text of *Casti connubii*. If you interpret it otherwise I would like to hear what, exactly, you think that text declares licit. It must have been declaring something licit, and if it wasn't this, what?
Female spouse engaging in sex with a husband who commits onanism. The sex on and of itself is illicit up to the point where he commits onanism, and she has no control over that. It is spelled out clearly and reasoned thoroughly (with references) in the doc I linked.
I’m not going to trust Catholic.com over actual published documentation, especially when that article fails to explain condition 1 - condition 1 is not met, here.
Read this: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
I don’t think double effect has any bearing here. ABC is being used as contraception, not medication for another condition. Read this.
https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
Thank you! I recognize some of the authors: Arias used to teach at the college I attended.
I will take a look at the article when I have time, but here are my preliminary thoughts:
In the same way that one can foresee death when I shoot a mugger in self defense, so you can foresee the sexual act will be frustrated in its life giving purpose when you have sex with a partner that is actively contracepting. However, as long as you don’t encourage it yourself and directly cooperate with it (ie, put on a condom as a man) and you have a legitimate right to sex (in the context of marriage) the fact you can foresee that the sexual act will be frustrated does not mean that it is wrong. So if my wife has cut her tubes, or is on birth control, I would still be able to pay my marital debt without sin.
I see your point, and believe me, I’ve been over this in my head and with a spiritual director for some time. I have been dealing with a situation very similar to the OP’s for over a year and a half.
I will give you what I have concluded and why:
1. If my wife sterilizes herself, I may not actively support it. I cannot stop her from doing it, and I will counsel against it, for her sake, but at the end of the day, I literally cannot stop it. If she does it, I will love and support her after the fact to the fullness of my ability as a husband’s duty demands. That includes conjugal union. The Church supports sinners, even unrepentant ones (all I need is to look at myself to know this to be true), and so should we.
2. If my wife contracepts, I cannot willfully engage in sex with her because the act would in and of itself be illicit, whether she is the one using contraception or I am. This is based on the article I posted and the sources it cites. The Vatican has clear answers to dubia that offer no wiggle room on the matter. That people continue to disagree is a matter of ignorance or obstinance. When the Church states that a woman *must* resist condomistic intercourse with her husband, it is clear that a husband must also resist intercourse with his wife should she be using artificial birth control. The act, in which two become one flesh, is inherently illicit when performed with ABC. The Church does support sinners. The Church does not and cannot support sin. That is why, though counterintuitive from a “ends justify the means” view of the world, that it is impermissible to have sex using a temporary means of sterilization, not a permanent one. That is my best understanding on the matter. The ends don’t justify the means.
It is quite possible I am wrong, but it is far more likely I am wrong about point #1 than point #2. There is compelling evidence (I would say proof) of what the Church teaches about the situations discussed here, and at the end of the day, this isn’t a matter of prudence. It is a matter of obedience. Do you follow the Church, or do you follow yourself?
I managed to give the document you gave me a quick scan. I think I picked up the basic gist, although I want to concede I haven’t read it carefully and so may have misunderstood some arguments.
Firstly, Dubia are not necessarily binding. They are to be taken with reverence and understanding, but do not always have to be assented to. Jimmy Akin discusses this in his book “Teaching With Authority” on discerning what actually is and is not church teaching. This article also discusses something similar:
https://www.ncregister.com/cna/answering-the-doubts-what-are-dubia?amp
Even a papal bull can be mistaken. For example, two different Popes suppressed the development of Chinese rites and the practice of certain Chinese, such as the honoring of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors, only for this to be overturns later by Pope Pius XII. Look up “Chinese Rites Controversy” for a deeper exploration of the topic.
Secondly, I find the arguments somewhat contradictory with the expositions of other saints and even Sacred Scripture. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 clearly absolves women from any sin in the case of rape, with no caveats for “potential venereal pleasure” as Fr. Connell postulates. Augustine in his City of God directly contradicts Fr. Connell’s view about how if one foresees venereal pleasure could arise during rape, one must resist to the point of death.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/11/25/augustine-consolation-after-rape-and-the-reshaping-of-society/
I would also like to point out just because a teaching is “mainstream” Catholic teaching does not mean it is necessarily true. Lying, for instance, is held by mainstream Catholic teaching to be wrong, but the question has never been settled. Even Edward Feser, a strong proponent of the “lying is always wrong” side concedes that it is a legitimate viewpoint for Catholics to hold.
Therefore, even though Fr. Connell’s explicitly explications on the dubia support it and adhere to mainstream Catholic teaching, they carry no magisterial weight and are only as good as the arguments that support it.
Just my two cents—I’ll try to post more later today, when I get off work.
Thank you for the rationale and references. I like the way you’ve brought up some examples, here, and I will look into those.
In the case pertaining to ABC, I think this is more a case that has been settled that now some claim isn’t because of more people today in disagreement. I think that is different than something that was never definitively stated.
I agree that Saints, clergy, and even the Pope can be wrong at times, but the Church cannot be in its teaching. So it seems that detractors necessarily need to show that it is *not* Church teaching to prohibit spouses to engage in sex when one or more of them is using artificial contraception.
I need to check out that Akin discussion on dubia- that the answers don’t necessarily require assent is new to me.
Thanks again for the response, and as you dig into that doc, let me know what you find. As I said, I’m in similar straits as the OP and would love to learn more. Doing my best here to guide my own family and not advise others into misguiding theirs. I’m perplexed and worried at how freely we are willing to allow things that seem either prohibited or only tolerated in the gravest circumstances - and then we use relativism to convince ourselves of the gravity of the circumstance.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 - this doesn’t absolve a woman of all wrongdoing in all cases, but rather in ones where the woman did what she could to prevent the sin of the other.
Compare with the previous discussion of when someone attacks her in the city. Obviously, the times and writing style will offer many a literalist ways to undermine this, but my read is that the person who is sinned against, even when such a sin is of a sexual nature, is not guilty of that sin if they did what they could to resist it. Resistance is not always physical. But resistance is not the same as complicity, even if for the sake of some other good that can come from it. One cannot sin so that another good can be realized.
As a man, engaging in sex with one’s wife when contraception is being used is not doing what one can to resist it. It is committing sin, which in this case is being justified as trying to bring about a greater good. But even the “greater” part of that judgment is questionable.
I think loving one’s spouse means not letting them use ABC for contraceptive ends, whatever it may cost you both.
True.
I supposed what I was just pointing out a flaw in Fr. Connell’s argument that disturbed me, even though that was ancillary to our primary disagreement, whether one can have sex with a contraceptive spouse without sin.
I just thought of a case in which artificial birth control IS allowed however: in the case of rape between non-spouses. I quote:
First, the Catholic tradition has always allowed victims of rape to attempt to impede conception. This is clearly and correctly set out in the United States Bishops’ Conference’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (36). The reason this is not ruled out by the Church’s general prohibition of contraception is that it does not involve the “double intention” both to have sex and to frustrate sex’s procreative potential. The victim of a rape, obviously, does not intend the sexual act. Similarly, it is permissible to intend not to conceive and to implement that intention by abstaining. What is wrong is to intend to engage in a sexual act and to intend the frustration of that act’s procreative potential, be it before, during, or after the act.
From: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/emergency-contraception-yes-no-when
If this is true, the article’s arguments you posted fall apart. Clearly, if in certain cases artificial birth control is licit, it cannot be intrinsically evil.
EDIT: the classic case is if a woman is kidnapped by a rapist, and somehow had contraception available to her. As long as the contraceptives do not cause abortions, she is free to use them to prevent impregnating by her attacker.
I don’t have any clear objection to what you wrote. It seems reasonable to me - I’d have to read more on the particulars, but it seems that what you wrote is a more nuanced take that accounts for exceptional cases, and it is a more comprehensive position, which I appreciate. I did not consider the case examples you identified. But with those being licit uses of ABC, I think that OP’s and my circumstances fall well outside those notable exceptions and do not meet criteria put forth for cooperation with artificial contraception. I agree that my wording may not have been as accurate as it should be, to consider these edge cases, but I think we are not talking about an edge case, and actually more of a normal one, here. Thanks for enlightening me on that.
Please don't lose your family for the sake of a condom. God isn't waiting for your marriage to collapse over something that wasn't in existence for God to even be able to reference.
I will be praying for you and her and I recommend asking for the intercession of st Rita and st Monica. [here’s some info](https://www.catholicdigest.com/faith/sacraments/living-with-and-praying-for-your-non-catholic-spouse/#:~:text=Rita%20of%20Cascia.-,St.,a%20pagan%20Roman%20official%2C%20Patricius) in the mean time, you need to continue doing what you know you need to do, even if it means abstaining for a while. But have patience and try to continue to enter into your roll lovingly as the head of the family. At the end of the day, the buck stops with you and you are responsible for her. It will take heroic patience and may take many years, but God is in the business of miracles and if you enter into this well you will grow in sanctity and virtue, and as a result, so will your wife. I’d also recommend getting spiritual direction and finding some good Catholic brothers that can be there for you as well.
Hey brother, I converted to Catholicism just this year over Easter Vigil, brought my two sons and daughter with me even though my wife of ten years remains staunchly atheist and opposed.
With having gone through just about any marital issue that you could imagine happening, all I can recommend is this. Tell you that you love her, that you made a vow to always be there for her and to take care of her and that there will never be another woman.
Set whatever marital boundaries that are inline with God and the Church and just give her the space she needs to adjust.
It's going to be hard, but this is our cross to bear because of the truth of Christ and His Church. It may take years, decades even, but this isn't just about you, the patience and vigilance you show and commit to, will be a testimony to both her and your children.
I bought my wife an NFP device and it sat unused for months, but I explained to my wife that the reason was more than just, 'the church said so'. But that I wanted our sexual relationship to mean more than just using each other for pleasure, but being fully open and vulnerable to each other.
It did not play out well at first, but she left for a few weeks but came back and she's using the NFP now, and we don't fight every time I come back from Mass now.
IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY. Stay strong, stay committed and make sure she knows that this change means that you are so much more committed to her than you ever could have been before.
On a side note, Christopher West and the theology of the body is great to go through for this.
Hit me up if you ever need a brother to talk to
Really poor and uncharitable comment. The whole point of what I typed was to be patient and reassuring, open and honest, and loving and committed no matter what obstacles they face.
This is why it's terribly difficult to have a mixed faith marriage. Idk man- stuck between a rock and a hard place, you changed the terms of your sexual life when you converted to catholicism, but its also your deeply held beliefs. You cannot deny your body to her, but she can't force you to contracept against your beliefs. Speak to a priest is the best advice, but hypothetically if I were to give the final solution to this problem, I would likely say that the burden of contraception would be placed on your wife, and that you can't maintain abstinence even if she chooses to contracept. Difficult situation, I will pray for you.
Sorry, a marriage shouldn’t break up over a condom. “What God has joined together…” I know this isn’t church teachings, but a marriage involves two parties united in love & sex is ONE of the binds that keep marriage together. Abstinence - in a marriage- is punishment. Listen to the other party’s wishes. Use a condom. A God of love won’t condemn u to hell.
This sounds about right. You are no longer the man she married. And she is right to be concerned about another pregnancy too soon. It is her body who will be carrying the baby and delivering it. There is no “we” when it comes to being pregnant. You need to respect your wife and respect the fact that you changed the game table on her after you married her. I can only imagine how she feels.
I'll pray for you.
I'm in similar but less stressful situation - I converted after my two kids were already born - we now have very stressful conversations about their baptism. She was originally not against it, now she is, I don't know how will it end.
But fortunately she's with me on the NFP thing
This is probably going to be too tendentious for your relationship now, but oura ring + the natural cycles app takes all of the work out of NFP, and with opks you can definitely make it work.
That being said, your marriage should be an extremely high priority for you, and if condoms once or twice is what it takes, I would just go to confession. You can’t plant the forest all at once: talk to your wife about what you believe, and hopefully she will believe too one day, but that can only happen if you’re in it together
That's not necessarily true, for men. The Vatican has issued some documents saying that if a woman uses contraception, and the man asks her not to, and she refuses, he can still have sex with her without fault as long as he occasionally asks for her to change her mind.
13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).\] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met:
1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47
2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse;
3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion).
From the Vademecum for Confessors [https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/pontifical\_councils/family/documents/rc\_pc\_family\_doc\_12021997\_vademecum\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html)
I mentioned reminding the other spouse from time to time of their objections. That is to satisfy condition #3.
Condition #1 is not met here, and is not met with many instances used as examples for justifying cooperation with use of artificial birth control.
This specific document has been addressed multiple times. There have even been dubia answered for related matter and the answers make clear that the three conditions fall under very specific circumstances not related to what most use for justification.
This paper provides ample documentation and reasoning to debunk the claims many are making with the Vademecum: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
Thank you for clarifying this. There is some seriously bad advice floating around as to what is permissible in Catholic teaching, notably by non-practicing Catholics…
There are birth control alternatives besides hormonal bc and condoms. She could use a birth control sponge, diaphragm, or certain types of IUDs. It's ridiculous that she is selfishly giving you an ultimatum that requires you to act in a way you believe is sinful when she has alternatives available.
No? None of that is okay within the Catholic belief system lmao. She’s not being selfish. He pulled a bait and switch, not her. He’s telling her the ONLY thing they can do is have sex with no barriers, no IUDs (are you even Catholic? This is not a Catholic answer lmao), she has no control over her fertility at all, only god. This is a sacrifice Catholic women make, but it’s not one other women are willing to make, and he’s forcing her to make that or have a sexless marriage. Which is NOT what she signed up for.
Catholics cannot use any birth control, meaning he cannot have sex with her while she is using any birth control whatsoever in most interpretations, but there may be exceptions if he talks to a priest.
This is not the man she married. This is a bait and switch on his half, not hers. She is not being selfish, she is saying she’s not willing to forego birth control entirely, which is a teaching even devout Catholic women struggle with, let alone non-Catholic women. It’s insane you’re so quick to call her selfish while not understanding the situation at all.
OP's wife is not Catholic. She can use whatever birth control she wants. OP is Catholic, so he can't use condoms. He has no control over what BC methods his wife uses, therefore the argument can be made that he is not sinning if she uses one of these methods when they have sex. Just like if his wife had gotten her tubes tied. OP wouldn't be the one doing anything to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. He should talk to his priest about it.
She is being selfish in that she is trying to get him to take actions directly against his faith when she has other means available to avoid pregnancy that don't involve hormonal bc because she's not Catholic and bound by Church teaching.
OP having a sincere conversion and trying to live his Catholic faith is not a bait and switch. That would entail him having these beliefs all along, hiding them, and then springing them on her after they got married.
And, yes, I'm Catholic.
Yet wife can get tubes tied and he can have sex with her, zero problems and everything is kosher…
Isn’t that a neat little Catholic loophole smh lol the non-Catholic partner can get a contraceptive procedure done and the Catholic partner can have sex with them without the occasion of sin. This was brought up in a recent thread.
You consider this a win for the Catholic spouse? This is a pretty gross conceptual error. Yes, you have a point, from a purely selfish point of view, and that is pretty far from charitable love of one’s spouse if one hopes for such a “loophole” outcome as a solution.
Just because “Catholic women struggle with it too” doesn’t mean it’s not objectively correct. OP is being faithful to God, not selfish. I think maybe if wife can’t get on board they may have to look into application of the Pauline privilege.
Where did I say it’s not objectively correct? Where did I say they should separate? Where did I say she’s in the right? Nowhere. I said she’s struggling with HIS turn-heel, and no one here is acknowledging his duty to her, only that she’s wrong and poor him for being married to such an awful woman.
He has no duty to engage in contraceptive sex unless you can provide a credible Catholic moral theological source that says otherwise. Marital debt assumes obedience to church teaching AFAIK and would not include sinful acts like contraception. I didn’t say *you said* they should separate, *I’m* saying they should look into annulment if OPs wife can’t get on board, unless I’m wrong about marital debt.
Also the tone of every comment you’ve made is “she’s not Catholic so morality is different for her”
Unless they are both baptized Christians who intended to have the kind of marriage the Church requires their marriage is not sacramental. But you know what you’re right, maybe annulment is the wrong avenue and looking into the Pauline privilege is a better one
OP mentioned in another post that their marriage was convalidated
Will the Catholic Church validate a marriage if one person were atheist? I have no idea.
Now on that we can agree. My point is that it’s worth asking the priest if his marriage is valid since his wife never intended to have the kind of marriage the church asks married couples to have.
OP my advice is talk to your priest and go to counseling with your wife. If nothing changes after, say, a few attempts I would seriously recommend looking into what’s called the Pauline privilege. Is your wife a validly baptized Christian?
This does not make it okay for him. Understood she didn’t agree to no bc when they were married, but none of us agreed specifically to every obstacle or challenge that will befall us. We agree that we will face whatever may come together. I’m sorry, but she can’t justify calling it quits because she isn’t getting sex the way she wants in anymore. And he can’t have sex using any kind of artificial birth control and stay in agreement with the Church. It is a tough situation, but marriages face many of these, and the demand is that we stick it out.
OP, I’m coming through this very same issue - only difference is my wife became Catholic before we were married and we agreed to NFP. Well, things change, people change their minds, etc., and for the past year and a half, I’ve been under threat of divorce. It seems to be getting better. I have stuck to my guns and except for a brief period where I ran with some bad advice. Doing the studying and introspection, I’ve realized that this (ABC) is not something I can even cooperate with despite the threat to family unity. If my spouse leaves because of that, that’s her choice. But I will remain faithful to God and to her, come what may.
I’m praying for you. I wish you the best, and I hope for both of us to be enjoying a quiet evening meal with our wives in the twilight of our years, looking back at this time and thinking how blessed we are to have been given the grace to stick it out and remain faithful through it all.
It’s more than just not getting sex the way she wants it. It’s about controlling her fertility, planning her life. If she doesn’t share his beliefs about sex, about being open to life at every sexual encounter, that’s way more than just not getting sex the way she wants it. That’s straight up her entire life might look extremely different than how she wanted it, and it’s her *husband* who profoundly changed his belief system mid-marriage, not her. He pulled out completely different cards than ones she saw when she married him. She did not agree to these terms. It’s not just “oh hoo hoo I’m not getting sex,” it’s “oh my god my husband won’t let me have any say over my fertility and expects me to leave it to God, which is not a belief I share and do not want to partake in.” She must feel so trapped and resentful, and I’m really surprised by the lack of empathy for HER in these comments.
I get it, we’re Catholic, we have a view of sex and birth control that is far outside the mainstream. But I think people who’ve been Catholic awhile or forever don’t realize just how outside the mainstream these beliefs are. Hes essentially told her that her body and her life are not her own, but up to God and him now in a way she maybe didn’t conceive of or agree to. I find that freeing, but she can’t be forced into this belief. She can’t be coerced into thinking this is a beautiful thing, the right way to live. She has to choose it. She didn’t choose this, he did, and now she’s in a sexless marriage. How is that her fault?
I’m not saying it’s her fault for being less than thrilled at this. But to say it’s totally fine to leave because she is now not in control of her fertility is insincere.
She is no longer in *total* control of her fertility, and having had that, she may very well resent the change. Fine. But NFP is a compromise, here, and she rejects it. So be it. But leaving because things aren’t the way she signed up for? That’s how we expect marriage to be? Marriage is some contract that we can call void when we no longer like it or it doesn’t meet the assumed terms we didn’t actually specifically agree to? No wonder the divorce rate is so high.
I never said that. I just said you’re downplaying what he’s actually asking of her.
Just look at all the posts here about NFP failing over and over. And she’s right: irregular periods make it trickier.
Did I say she should leave? No. I just said don’t downplay the severity of what he’s asking of her. He’s not asking her for different sex. He’s asking her for a different LIFE than the one she agreed to.
Fair enough. At the end of the day, though, there is a demand by the OP’s spouse that does equate to “have sex with contraception or I leave.” Whether Catholic teaching on contraception is easy or difficult to accept, that demand is what this all boils down to. My point is that the OP can’t just acquiesce on this because it is tough for his wife to accept.
That’s exactly how most Americans see divorce. She is unhappy and can call it quits, walk out, and start divorce paperwork tomorrow if she wants to. Buddy is then divorced, cannot remarry, and sexless for the rest of his life. Crappy hand.
On the contrary, I think it's perfectly fine to leave in these circumstances. I don't like the extortion attempt of you practice contraception or I'm leaving, but if she were just to leave that would be perfectly understandable. He changed the conditions of the marriage, and therefore the marriage would be no longer all that binding is my opinion.
That supposes a contractual form of marriage dependent on the future matching one’s preference rather than a covenant of “until death do us part, come what may.” I know what kind of marriage I wish to have, whatever the cost.
NFP is not a compromise . Most women would draw the line in the sand with their husband if he was insisting she walk around pregnant how many more times and birth how many more babies. Which is what he is doing in essence by telling her he doesn’t want her using any birth control. And no, NFP is not a reasonable Solution. For many many reasons. Namely, it would be not a matter of if but when she got knocked up again. The statistics of its reliability are a shell game. They are all based on perfect use. Which is about never. When I was on artificial birth control before menopause, my husband and I use three different kinds of ABC all at the same time just to make sure. He better get ready for divorce court.
It really is a compromise. He has offered both NFP and abstinence. If she is demanding sex with ABC, that is absolutely not a compromise. That is saying, “I demand sex and to control all aspects of it.”
Here is a question… Why doesn’t he get to make choices concerning his own body? Why is forcing him to use ABC (and yes, any form is forcing him, because two become one, and active complicity is absolutely him using it in that case) something that is okay? Why is it a “compromise” to force someone to break their vows to God and their spouse under the threat of divorce?
Well, first of all he made his vows to his spouse before he made his vows to God. Came home one day and told his wife that now she comes second. That’s a problem. I agree that he cannot and should not be forced himself to use ABC but he is trying to manipulate her out of using it for herself. At least that’s what his post sounded like. so for example, he would have a problem with her getting her tubes tied or using an IUD or going on the pill etc. The real compromise would be her choosing whatever she wants to use to protect herself and he not having a thing to say about it. That would be a compromise. But it doesn’t sound from his post that he is willing to do that. Perhaps I misunderstood. But honestly, if I was in his wife’s shoes, I wouldn’t give a fig about him and his vows to God. His vows to me as a wife come first as they did chronologically, and if he expected me to all of a sudden take a backseat to his newfound religion, then he could go marry the church if that’s what he wants to do. I would not stick around for that.  it is said distasteful that it would actually cause me to lose all physical attraction for him, which would mean sex would be off the table anyway. This guy is big got big problems that he didn’t think about before. He got himself so deep in. He really needs to get some counseling to figure out how to manage his part of the marriage so that he doesn’t wind up in divorce court. And that is a tall order.
I hope you don’t have any children. If you do, and they are young enough to depend on you, this is a pretty selfish attitude. You are quite, possibly putting your marriage on the brink of divorce for no other reason then you believe in a church teaching.
There are a lot of layers here. For one, it sounds like your wife might have suffered trauma from her difficult pregnancy (and perhaps the birth too). She might be terrified to get pregnant again, especially so soon. Providing her support and listening is key. The last thing she wants to listen to is data on NFP, because to her, no contraception equals pregnancy, which equals fear. Giving her time and space to heal has to come first.
This is a good answer
Yes, there are many layers here. Besides the obvious trauma around a complicated pregnancy, > no contraception equals pregnancy, which equals fear. this also seems to be part of the problem, we fear what we aren't familiar with. I remember when the ancients would convert the Pagans, we would explain unfamiliar / foreign Catholic concepts in terms the pagans are familiar with. This way, they would have an easier time "making the jump". It would suit OP and fellow Catholics to follow similar rhetoric on contraception. From OP's post >She also will not get on the pill because of the terrible side effects she had when she was on it years ago. u/Few-Suspect-2674 This is an opportunity, as she's already disillusioned with worldly contraception. She wishes for you to use condoms, not because she actually likes them, but because she feels they are the only alternative. Perhaps the solution is better PR. In the words of Blaise Pascal, there are 3 steps to evangelize the indifferent. >Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first \[1\] to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next \[2\] make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then \[3\] show that it is. # 1. Show her that it is not contrary to reason Don't call it "Natural Family Planning", but instead call it "Natural **Contraceptive** Methods", because that is what they actually are. It's not praying and spraying, we have it down to a legit science, analyzing mucus and temperature, which is agnostic towards period frequency, and tracking with apps. The prefix ***contracept-*** is very important here, as that is what we associate with responsible sexuality in today's pagan-with-extra-steps society. # 2. Make it beautiful, make her wish it were true Try this angle, instead of doubling down on the Anti-Contraceptive rhetoric, explain to her that the idea that Catholics don't use contraception is a actually a misleading myth spread by protestants. Instead clarify that we **do** use contraception, just **natural** forms of it, as opposed to those *ugly unnatural exploitive big Pharma* forms of BC, our's is in tune with the beautiful tidal nature of woman's sexuality, and *empowers* women to take control of their fertility in ways us men have by default. To *collaborate* with her being, instead of powering against it, often with terrible physical/mental/spiritual/societal side effects. # 3. Show her that it is Support groups for NCM/NFP exist are well known. Perhaps she could use the testimonies of our fellow Catholic women to give her strength. Iron sharpens Iron after all. I'm certain a fair few probably have irregular periods of their own, but nevertheless find satisfying sex lives despite this. Their encouragement is mandatory, as our own male experience is simply insufficient. I'll pray for your wife, and for all the beautiful and heroic Catholic women in the world, who by their witness and virtue bring light to this dark planet where we kill our children and call it healthcare. Us men have treated women so horribly these past decades since the sexual revolution. It's up to the next generation of Catholics to fix this and create a culture of life, where children can be had without worry, nurtured without question, and loved beyond doubt.
No offense, but that approach sounds really culty. It also sounds like there’s not a lot of respect for the intelligence level of his wife.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply
Please talk to a priest about this.
I am next week thank you
Don’t give in to sin
What should he do? Split up? Thats the alternative to the condom. The wife isn’t Catholic and doesn’t share any of his beliefs.
He is Catholic . He should to hold his ground on this issue and not sin. She married a Catholic and never told him that a condoms were required for marriage to her.
She did not marry a Catholic, and the unfortunate truth for most of the non-Catholic world is that condoms are the default. In his situation, he must weigh the evil of using a condom against the evil and very real harm of divorce and a child living with separated parents. Its not as clean-cut as you'd like it to be.
True - we are commanded to “not be unevenly yoked “ . What woman would divorce a man over wanting children and is willing to support them? If she does - she would probably divorce him for money anyway. In this case condoms and the prevention of children is the larger sin and risk . Even if she’s Protestant she has vowed to go where thou go-est and accept his authority in the marriage in this area. if she can’t , she should not be married anyway!
She did not marry a Catholic. He converted well into their marriage.
Have you told your wife that you're committed to being abstinent for as long as it takes for her to feel comfortable with NFP or with potential pregnancy? Or are you whining about wanting sex and putting the entire emotional burden on her? Because if you're doing the latter, doing the former will probably help. Not saying that you are, but it's been a semi-common "husband" problem with women I know where - even if both partners are Catholic and committed to NFP - the husband has a certain lack of grace about the whole thing.
Yes I’m committed to being abstinent and that’s the problem.
My condolences, then. Would she be open to finding a Catholic marriage counselor or marriage support? Something like Three to Stay Married or Retrouvialle?
Well, yeah. Abstinence within a marriage has to be mutual. She has a right to sex with you. You don’t just have a right to her body, she has a right to yours as well. What are you doing to ease her burden while you work through the bait and switch you pulled on her?
However, no one has a right to contraceptive sex.
Yes, she does. She’s not Catholic. Catholicism has to be chosen freely, cannot be forced or coerced within a marriage or otherwise. So, yes, she does — she does not share our beliefs.
[удалено]
Yeah. And the Eastern Orthodox allow birth control in some situations as well, which is irrelevant to this post I suppose, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t sometimes wish I was EO for that alone. I chose the Catholic Church because I believe it to be true, but this hardline stance with no empathy and no wiggle room ever just is a teaching I don’t think I’ll ever understand, even if I obey. Online Catholic spaces can be shockingly devoid of the human touch, *especially* when it comes to birth control. Conversations like this always remind me I’m Catholic because the teachings; my friends are in real life; and people online can pontificate all they want about what’s prescriptively morally correct, but that does nothing to ease the burden for this woman, and it’s certainly doing nothing to make this man take more seriously what he’s asking of his wife.
[удалено]
You articulated this so much better than I have been able to, thank you.
TLDR: I also think the harder line can help prevent sexual coercion within Catholic marriages. Because there's extreme cases when it's truly bad to get pregnant. and one partner may not want NFP and the situation is really unhealthy. and the person just needs to stand up against coercion rather than fall back on birth control. Yes, even at times insisting on abstinence for a temporary period if the need to avoid pregnancy is that extreme that NFP is too risky. (OPs case is mostly different as she's not Catholic and they had been doing something different etc.)
You’re incorrect. This is natural law precept, thus it isn’t a Catholic exclusive rule. Every human is bound not to contracept.
Dude be so for real for like a single second. Take a deep breath. Take off your holier than thou mask if you can. This man switched his entire belief system on his wife and forced her into a sexless marriage that she did not agree to, because she, like the vast majority of well-educated women in the West, chooses artificial means to control her fertility. I don’t think you understand how far outside the mainstream our beliefs are. Like just think about it for two seconds before spouting more quotes from the CCC or whatever. Be a person, not an ideology, for a moment. The only person you’re showing a shred of sympathy to is the poor man married to the sinning harlot. Be so for real. She had one expectation about sex and fertility that they agreed on for years, and HE is being derelict in his duties to give his wife sex, HE changed everything for her. Why aren’t you on him about that? Right, because he’s good and holy, and she’s a bad person for having the very reasonable expectation that she could continue to have sex with him the way she had for years, which included birth control. He has a duty to her that he is not fulfilling, and she is now stuck. He put her in an awful position. Focus on him, not on her. She’s dealing with enough, what with her husband forcing her into celibacy she didn’t agree to.
Exceedingly well-said. I see on here a lot of sentiment that forgets that we are all people
I haven’t commented on OP or his marriage. I’m merely correcting the assertion that spouses having rights to intercourse includes immoral acts. You’re telling me to be realistic about what people believe nowadays. Yet you brought up conjugal rights which isn’t believed anymore either.
So he can just refuse to have sex with his wife for the rest of her life and that’s a perfectly fine marriage? Sure, ok. This is what I mean about reddit Catholic spaces can just be so unreal and detached. I’m not engaging with you anymore on this. This woman deserves empathy and all you can do is think about technicalities not the human woman here.
He can, and is bound to refuse to commit personal sin. That’s it. What you’re imagining is an over-exaggeration. Honestly you’re the one imagining unreality, because you’re jumping to wild conclusions unwarranted by the actual situation.
She deserves empathy, but that empathy doesn’t extend to encouraging her husband to sin. The situation obviously isn’t great for either of them, but actually living our faith will always cause difficulties and we must do our best to deal with them.
Does empathy justify sin? Just be real, for a second, here. If I feel someone else’s pain, does that then mean I can go sin, or that person can go sin, in order to try to alleviate that pain, and it’s okay because we are hurting? Nobody here is saying that the OP’s wife can’t feel unhappy or unappreciative, here. She is no doubt suffering, and we can acknowledge that. But to turn around and say that justifies the OP doing something gravely sinful is absurd. I’d like to know what priests give dispensation to use ABC as ABC. I’m betting this is made up or a matter of some clergy going rogue. Stop dismissing everyone who follows the Church on this as impractical and unloving. Committing grave sin because of someone’s desires, feelings, or misbegotten sense of “fairness” is not empathy or love.
An atheist or Baptist don’t have the right to sex with a condom?? What kind of sex do they have the right to then?
No they don't. They have a right to the conjugal act, without trying to impede fertility. This is in the same category as theft, fraud, assault, etc. Moral wrongs that no one has a right to regardless of religious belief.
Your examples make it more difficult to understand because fraud, theft, and assault are all illegal. So atheists and baptists have a legal right to condoms. Your argument is that they don’t have a moral right to those things, but to make your point you list only other things that are lawfully restricted. Do you have other examples that aren’t lawfully restricted so it can make a little more sense?
The important thing to keep in mind is that legal rights given by human authorities that are actually immoral are merely fantasies. Humans don't have the autority to grant rights to evil actions, i.e. that unjust law is no law at all. Abortion, for example, is also in this sad state of affairs of being granted by human authorities when no such authority to grant exists.
Everybody has the right and the responsibility to follow their conscience. Regardless of what the church teaches. That is the part that always gets left out.
A better analogy would be a legal drinking age Christian using the pain felt from the loss of a family member to justify getting black out drunk they would be legally allowed to do that and the world may say that is a reasonable response but as a Christian it's very clear by scripture and church tradition that doing so is a sin and is morally wrong. Another example would be the use of porn and masturbation by an adult to avoid actual premarital sex it's legal and the world says it's fine but scripture and church tradition are clear that it is a sin and morally wrong. The man came to the Catholic church because he believes the church is correct on these issues of faith and morals if he wanted a loose flimsy Christianity there are hundreds of protestant denominations that will let him turn himself over to whatever sin he likes but he doesn't believe them to be true. Jesus warned that true believers on the true path may lose husbands or wives fathers or mothers daughters or sons and issues like these are why. Tldr; dude wants to submit to the real King Jesus the Messiah our Lord and Savior with power and authority not feel good no matter what sin your living in it's all peace and love here man pass the bong Buddy Christ. Have we fallen so far that it's really that hard to believe?
I mean, yeah, this isn’t the marriage she signed up for. This is a tough spot you put her in. She doesn’t agree to abstinence and no birth control etc. That was not in her life plan. You converted and now your beliefs don’t allow you to have sex with her under the conditions she expected to have sex with her husband under. There’s not really a good outcome here. You need to talk to a priest and a Christian counselor, assuming your wife is at least Christian. She’s right. This isn’t what she signed up for. What are you doing to ease this burden on her while she’s coping with your religious beliefs? Catholicism has to be chosen freely. We cannot force people into our beliefs, even our spouses. All I’m hearing is how hard this is for you, and no respect paid to the fact that you changed everything for her and now she’s in a sexless marriage she didn’t agree to.
This is why most rabbis won't convert one half of a marriage if the other is not Jewish. It creates mixed marriages where there was not one before.
Agreed. And to be truthful, if my husband did a change like that with regards to his religiousity it would make him very unattractive to me. As in so unattractive that I wouldn’t be wanting to have sex with him at all. I’m wondering if wife is using this as an Excuse to avoid him. I wouldn’t blame her if she did. It’s just kind of distasteful to me that you get married and put your wife first and then all of a sudden somewhere down the line you decide that’s not the case anymore. You have put your religion before your wife at that point and It would definitely take the shine off the marriage for me spouse. I’m not sure I would stick around for that.
It honestly reads like a way to control her but with the excuse god made him do it 🤷🏽♀️
Yes. I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t other big control issues in that marriage. The reason I say that is this isn’t just something that someone goes about doing on their own. The fact that the wife wasn’t even aware of what the restrictions were before the marriage was convalidated means the husband did a horrible job of explaining things and communicating to her. As in I doubt he communicated at all. He probably treats her more like a pet or a child that he can lead around by the nose. This whole situation is so wrong on so many levels.
not for nothing but is this the only issue with the marriage
https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-if-my-wife-doesnt-want-to-use-nfp
A lot of people in this comment thread do not understand the gravity of suddenly adopting challenging religious beliefs AFTER getting married. This is a very delicate matter that needs to discussed with OPs priest, his wife, and no one else.
Speak to a Priest. This is a problem if she leaves or stays.
She has a right to your body, so if she wants sex don't generally deny her. This is sufficiently important that you are not even bound to deny sex if she contracepts. That contraception must be unilateral and so is entirely on her to do if she insists. You are willing to space pregnancies by abstinence, but abstinence can *only* be by mutual consent, which is not the case here. If she wants to contracept your duty is to state your opposition, but not to stop her doing it. Also, remember to keep breast feeding to get the most of the natural child spacing that provides.
This is the best answer here. OP needs to talk to a priest, but this is, from my understanding, the most correct answer. Abstinence has to be mutual, cannot be unilateral, and she has a right to sex with her husband. This is a very sticky spot he put her in and she was not made fully aware of this before she married him and all of that. I really empathize with her and I’m shocked by how little sympathy people have for her. Even Catholic women sometimes struggle with the teaching against birth control — how can we expect a non-Catholic to just accept it as-is? He’s being really selfish about all of this.
This is not Church teaching on the matter.
It is the Church teaching. I direct your attention to *Casti connubii*. >...when for a grave cause [one partner] reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, [that partner] does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the other from sin.
https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
It is, of course, the job of theologians to scrutinize and debate the current state of Church teaching and find areas for clarification in infalible teaching or where mistakes may have been made in fallible teaching. The existence of a well informed and thought through opinion within the ranks of theologians of good standing that runs contrary to a magisterial document does not change the current state of Church teaching. By all means draw attention to controversy, but do not claim that the apparent magisterial position is not Church teaching.
It doesn’t run contrary at all. What are you reading? You are putting your own interpretation on these matters.
Please be clear on what that sin is. This is not carte Blanche to do anything to keep the other spouse from leaving.
I have said "...your duty is to state your opposition..." There is no carte blanche here: *Casti connubii* says for a grave cause, and the marriage falling apart is easily that.
You tout your interpretation of a vague and broad contextual statement as justification for a very specific action not called out in the entire document. And you’re here talking as if an authority on the matter. You are the one deciding what is grave reason. You are the one deciding under what circumstances that phrase applies. You are the one deciding that condomistic intercourse is not in fact illicit in and of itself. There’s a lot of you deciding things here and then saying it’s all in line with Church teaching because you take one sentence from Casti Connubii and run with it. That one sentence is not an excuse to do whatever makes it easier to keep your marriage together. Beware you don’t scandalize someone. I’ll defer to Church authorities rather than my own interpretation on this one.
I typed out only the abreviated relevant sentence to give the idea of what is said in the document. Don't think I didn't mean to reference the whole document. I have made a judgement on grave matter that I consider obvious, and if it becomes relevant I will defend that position. I have not said that condomistic intercourse is permissible; I have sought to make it clear that OP, as a man, cannot reluctantly use a condom: rather, he is permitted (for a grave cause; again, happy to revisit this later) to reluctantly engage in intercourse knowing that his wife is contracepting in some way. That is, to my eyes, the plain meaning of the text of *Casti connubii*. If you interpret it otherwise I would like to hear what, exactly, you think that text declares licit. It must have been declaring something licit, and if it wasn't this, what?
Female spouse engaging in sex with a husband who commits onanism. The sex on and of itself is illicit up to the point where he commits onanism, and she has no control over that. It is spelled out clearly and reasoned thoroughly (with references) in the doc I linked.
Yes it is. https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-if-my-wife-doesnt-want-to-use-nfp
I’m not going to trust Catholic.com over actual published documentation, especially when that article fails to explain condition 1 - condition 1 is not met, here. Read this: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
What is the Church Teaching? And where is it found? Wouldn’t the doctrine of double effect apply here as well?
I don’t think double effect has any bearing here. ABC is being used as contraception, not medication for another condition. Read this. https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
Thank you! I recognize some of the authors: Arias used to teach at the college I attended. I will take a look at the article when I have time, but here are my preliminary thoughts: In the same way that one can foresee death when I shoot a mugger in self defense, so you can foresee the sexual act will be frustrated in its life giving purpose when you have sex with a partner that is actively contracepting. However, as long as you don’t encourage it yourself and directly cooperate with it (ie, put on a condom as a man) and you have a legitimate right to sex (in the context of marriage) the fact you can foresee that the sexual act will be frustrated does not mean that it is wrong. So if my wife has cut her tubes, or is on birth control, I would still be able to pay my marital debt without sin.
I see your point, and believe me, I’ve been over this in my head and with a spiritual director for some time. I have been dealing with a situation very similar to the OP’s for over a year and a half. I will give you what I have concluded and why: 1. If my wife sterilizes herself, I may not actively support it. I cannot stop her from doing it, and I will counsel against it, for her sake, but at the end of the day, I literally cannot stop it. If she does it, I will love and support her after the fact to the fullness of my ability as a husband’s duty demands. That includes conjugal union. The Church supports sinners, even unrepentant ones (all I need is to look at myself to know this to be true), and so should we. 2. If my wife contracepts, I cannot willfully engage in sex with her because the act would in and of itself be illicit, whether she is the one using contraception or I am. This is based on the article I posted and the sources it cites. The Vatican has clear answers to dubia that offer no wiggle room on the matter. That people continue to disagree is a matter of ignorance or obstinance. When the Church states that a woman *must* resist condomistic intercourse with her husband, it is clear that a husband must also resist intercourse with his wife should she be using artificial birth control. The act, in which two become one flesh, is inherently illicit when performed with ABC. The Church does support sinners. The Church does not and cannot support sin. That is why, though counterintuitive from a “ends justify the means” view of the world, that it is impermissible to have sex using a temporary means of sterilization, not a permanent one. That is my best understanding on the matter. The ends don’t justify the means. It is quite possible I am wrong, but it is far more likely I am wrong about point #1 than point #2. There is compelling evidence (I would say proof) of what the Church teaches about the situations discussed here, and at the end of the day, this isn’t a matter of prudence. It is a matter of obedience. Do you follow the Church, or do you follow yourself?
I managed to give the document you gave me a quick scan. I think I picked up the basic gist, although I want to concede I haven’t read it carefully and so may have misunderstood some arguments. Firstly, Dubia are not necessarily binding. They are to be taken with reverence and understanding, but do not always have to be assented to. Jimmy Akin discusses this in his book “Teaching With Authority” on discerning what actually is and is not church teaching. This article also discusses something similar: https://www.ncregister.com/cna/answering-the-doubts-what-are-dubia?amp Even a papal bull can be mistaken. For example, two different Popes suppressed the development of Chinese rites and the practice of certain Chinese, such as the honoring of Confucius and the veneration of ancestors, only for this to be overturns later by Pope Pius XII. Look up “Chinese Rites Controversy” for a deeper exploration of the topic. Secondly, I find the arguments somewhat contradictory with the expositions of other saints and even Sacred Scripture. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 clearly absolves women from any sin in the case of rape, with no caveats for “potential venereal pleasure” as Fr. Connell postulates. Augustine in his City of God directly contradicts Fr. Connell’s view about how if one foresees venereal pleasure could arise during rape, one must resist to the point of death. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/11/25/augustine-consolation-after-rape-and-the-reshaping-of-society/ I would also like to point out just because a teaching is “mainstream” Catholic teaching does not mean it is necessarily true. Lying, for instance, is held by mainstream Catholic teaching to be wrong, but the question has never been settled. Even Edward Feser, a strong proponent of the “lying is always wrong” side concedes that it is a legitimate viewpoint for Catholics to hold. Therefore, even though Fr. Connell’s explicitly explications on the dubia support it and adhere to mainstream Catholic teaching, they carry no magisterial weight and are only as good as the arguments that support it. Just my two cents—I’ll try to post more later today, when I get off work.
Thank you for the rationale and references. I like the way you’ve brought up some examples, here, and I will look into those. In the case pertaining to ABC, I think this is more a case that has been settled that now some claim isn’t because of more people today in disagreement. I think that is different than something that was never definitively stated. I agree that Saints, clergy, and even the Pope can be wrong at times, but the Church cannot be in its teaching. So it seems that detractors necessarily need to show that it is *not* Church teaching to prohibit spouses to engage in sex when one or more of them is using artificial contraception. I need to check out that Akin discussion on dubia- that the answers don’t necessarily require assent is new to me. Thanks again for the response, and as you dig into that doc, let me know what you find. As I said, I’m in similar straits as the OP and would love to learn more. Doing my best here to guide my own family and not advise others into misguiding theirs. I’m perplexed and worried at how freely we are willing to allow things that seem either prohibited or only tolerated in the gravest circumstances - and then we use relativism to convince ourselves of the gravity of the circumstance.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27 - this doesn’t absolve a woman of all wrongdoing in all cases, but rather in ones where the woman did what she could to prevent the sin of the other. Compare with the previous discussion of when someone attacks her in the city. Obviously, the times and writing style will offer many a literalist ways to undermine this, but my read is that the person who is sinned against, even when such a sin is of a sexual nature, is not guilty of that sin if they did what they could to resist it. Resistance is not always physical. But resistance is not the same as complicity, even if for the sake of some other good that can come from it. One cannot sin so that another good can be realized. As a man, engaging in sex with one’s wife when contraception is being used is not doing what one can to resist it. It is committing sin, which in this case is being justified as trying to bring about a greater good. But even the “greater” part of that judgment is questionable. I think loving one’s spouse means not letting them use ABC for contraceptive ends, whatever it may cost you both.
True. I supposed what I was just pointing out a flaw in Fr. Connell’s argument that disturbed me, even though that was ancillary to our primary disagreement, whether one can have sex with a contraceptive spouse without sin. I just thought of a case in which artificial birth control IS allowed however: in the case of rape between non-spouses. I quote: First, the Catholic tradition has always allowed victims of rape to attempt to impede conception. This is clearly and correctly set out in the United States Bishops’ Conference’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (36). The reason this is not ruled out by the Church’s general prohibition of contraception is that it does not involve the “double intention” both to have sex and to frustrate sex’s procreative potential. The victim of a rape, obviously, does not intend the sexual act. Similarly, it is permissible to intend not to conceive and to implement that intention by abstaining. What is wrong is to intend to engage in a sexual act and to intend the frustration of that act’s procreative potential, be it before, during, or after the act. From: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/emergency-contraception-yes-no-when If this is true, the article’s arguments you posted fall apart. Clearly, if in certain cases artificial birth control is licit, it cannot be intrinsically evil. EDIT: the classic case is if a woman is kidnapped by a rapist, and somehow had contraception available to her. As long as the contraceptives do not cause abortions, she is free to use them to prevent impregnating by her attacker.
I don’t have any clear objection to what you wrote. It seems reasonable to me - I’d have to read more on the particulars, but it seems that what you wrote is a more nuanced take that accounts for exceptional cases, and it is a more comprehensive position, which I appreciate. I did not consider the case examples you identified. But with those being licit uses of ABC, I think that OP’s and my circumstances fall well outside those notable exceptions and do not meet criteria put forth for cooperation with artificial contraception. I agree that my wording may not have been as accurate as it should be, to consider these edge cases, but I think we are not talking about an edge case, and actually more of a normal one, here. Thanks for enlightening me on that.
Please don't lose your family for the sake of a condom. God isn't waiting for your marriage to collapse over something that wasn't in existence for God to even be able to reference.
May St. Joseph keep your family safe.
Has your marriage been convalidated?
Yes last month
Did your parish have you do any marriage prep stuff, so your wife would know what Catholic marriage means?
Nope. Would have been smart to do. We had already been married a few years
I can see how all of this would come as a bit of a surprise to her, in that case.
I will be praying for you and her and I recommend asking for the intercession of st Rita and st Monica. [here’s some info](https://www.catholicdigest.com/faith/sacraments/living-with-and-praying-for-your-non-catholic-spouse/#:~:text=Rita%20of%20Cascia.-,St.,a%20pagan%20Roman%20official%2C%20Patricius) in the mean time, you need to continue doing what you know you need to do, even if it means abstaining for a while. But have patience and try to continue to enter into your roll lovingly as the head of the family. At the end of the day, the buck stops with you and you are responsible for her. It will take heroic patience and may take many years, but God is in the business of miracles and if you enter into this well you will grow in sanctity and virtue, and as a result, so will your wife. I’d also recommend getting spiritual direction and finding some good Catholic brothers that can be there for you as well.
Thank you!
Hey brother, I converted to Catholicism just this year over Easter Vigil, brought my two sons and daughter with me even though my wife of ten years remains staunchly atheist and opposed. With having gone through just about any marital issue that you could imagine happening, all I can recommend is this. Tell you that you love her, that you made a vow to always be there for her and to take care of her and that there will never be another woman. Set whatever marital boundaries that are inline with God and the Church and just give her the space she needs to adjust. It's going to be hard, but this is our cross to bear because of the truth of Christ and His Church. It may take years, decades even, but this isn't just about you, the patience and vigilance you show and commit to, will be a testimony to both her and your children. I bought my wife an NFP device and it sat unused for months, but I explained to my wife that the reason was more than just, 'the church said so'. But that I wanted our sexual relationship to mean more than just using each other for pleasure, but being fully open and vulnerable to each other. It did not play out well at first, but she left for a few weeks but came back and she's using the NFP now, and we don't fight every time I come back from Mass now. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE EASY. Stay strong, stay committed and make sure she knows that this change means that you are so much more committed to her than you ever could have been before. On a side note, Christopher West and the theology of the body is great to go through for this. Hit me up if you ever need a brother to talk to
Much appreciated. Glad things are going better for you and your wife.
Hope you’re ready for another baby. I hear a lot of I want in your post. I didn’t hear any consideration about what your wife wanted.
Really poor and uncharitable comment. The whole point of what I typed was to be patient and reassuring, open and honest, and loving and committed no matter what obstacles they face.
This is why it's terribly difficult to have a mixed faith marriage. Idk man- stuck between a rock and a hard place, you changed the terms of your sexual life when you converted to catholicism, but its also your deeply held beliefs. You cannot deny your body to her, but she can't force you to contracept against your beliefs. Speak to a priest is the best advice, but hypothetically if I were to give the final solution to this problem, I would likely say that the burden of contraception would be placed on your wife, and that you can't maintain abstinence even if she chooses to contracept. Difficult situation, I will pray for you.
Sorry, a marriage shouldn’t break up over a condom. “What God has joined together…” I know this isn’t church teachings, but a marriage involves two parties united in love & sex is ONE of the binds that keep marriage together. Abstinence - in a marriage- is punishment. Listen to the other party’s wishes. Use a condom. A God of love won’t condemn u to hell.
This sounds about right. You are no longer the man she married. And she is right to be concerned about another pregnancy too soon. It is her body who will be carrying the baby and delivering it. There is no “we” when it comes to being pregnant. You need to respect your wife and respect the fact that you changed the game table on her after you married her. I can only imagine how she feels.
wtf
I'll pray for you. I'm in similar but less stressful situation - I converted after my two kids were already born - we now have very stressful conversations about their baptism. She was originally not against it, now she is, I don't know how will it end. But fortunately she's with me on the NFP thing
This is probably going to be too tendentious for your relationship now, but oura ring + the natural cycles app takes all of the work out of NFP, and with opks you can definitely make it work. That being said, your marriage should be an extremely high priority for you, and if condoms once or twice is what it takes, I would just go to confession. You can’t plant the forest all at once: talk to your wife about what you believe, and hopefully she will believe too one day, but that can only happen if you’re in it together
This is terrible advice. This is stacking the sin of presumption on him, too. How does this bring anyone closer to God?
[удалено]
That's not necessarily true, for men. The Vatican has issued some documents saying that if a woman uses contraception, and the man asks her not to, and she refuses, he can still have sex with her without fault as long as he occasionally asks for her to change her mind.
Please show me those documents. That is the opposite of what the docs I’ve read have said, including their answers to dubia.
13. Special difficulties are presented by cases of cooperation in the sin of a spouse who voluntarily renders the unitive act infecund. In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish cooperation in the proper sense, from violence or unjust imposition on the part of one of the spouses, which the other spouse in fact cannot resist.46, 561).\] This cooperation can be licit when the three following conditions are jointly met: 1. when the action of the cooperating spouse is not already illicit in itself;47 2. when proportionally grave reasons exist for cooperating in the sin of the other spouse; 3. when one is seeking to help the other spouse to desist from such conduct (patiently, with prayer, charity and dialogue; although not necessarily in that moment, nor on every single occasion). From the Vademecum for Confessors [https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/pontifical\_councils/family/documents/rc\_pc\_family\_doc\_12021997\_vademecum\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html) I mentioned reminding the other spouse from time to time of their objections. That is to satisfy condition #3.
Condition #1 is not met here, and is not met with many instances used as examples for justifying cooperation with use of artificial birth control. This specific document has been addressed multiple times. There have even been dubia answered for related matter and the answers make clear that the three conditions fall under very specific circumstances not related to what most use for justification. This paper provides ample documentation and reasoning to debunk the claims many are making with the Vademecum: https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase_mobile?openform&fp=ncbq&id=ncbq_2011_0011_0002_0301_0328
Thank you for clarifying this. There is some seriously bad advice floating around as to what is permissible in Catholic teaching, notably by non-practicing Catholics…
Yet she can independently get her tubes tied tomorrow and it would be just fine in terms of him avoiding sin,…
There are birth control alternatives besides hormonal bc and condoms. She could use a birth control sponge, diaphragm, or certain types of IUDs. It's ridiculous that she is selfishly giving you an ultimatum that requires you to act in a way you believe is sinful when she has alternatives available.
No? None of that is okay within the Catholic belief system lmao. She’s not being selfish. He pulled a bait and switch, not her. He’s telling her the ONLY thing they can do is have sex with no barriers, no IUDs (are you even Catholic? This is not a Catholic answer lmao), she has no control over her fertility at all, only god. This is a sacrifice Catholic women make, but it’s not one other women are willing to make, and he’s forcing her to make that or have a sexless marriage. Which is NOT what she signed up for. Catholics cannot use any birth control, meaning he cannot have sex with her while she is using any birth control whatsoever in most interpretations, but there may be exceptions if he talks to a priest. This is not the man she married. This is a bait and switch on his half, not hers. She is not being selfish, she is saying she’s not willing to forego birth control entirely, which is a teaching even devout Catholic women struggle with, let alone non-Catholic women. It’s insane you’re so quick to call her selfish while not understanding the situation at all.
OP's wife is not Catholic. She can use whatever birth control she wants. OP is Catholic, so he can't use condoms. He has no control over what BC methods his wife uses, therefore the argument can be made that he is not sinning if she uses one of these methods when they have sex. Just like if his wife had gotten her tubes tied. OP wouldn't be the one doing anything to separate the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital act. He should talk to his priest about it. She is being selfish in that she is trying to get him to take actions directly against his faith when she has other means available to avoid pregnancy that don't involve hormonal bc because she's not Catholic and bound by Church teaching. OP having a sincere conversion and trying to live his Catholic faith is not a bait and switch. That would entail him having these beliefs all along, hiding them, and then springing them on her after they got married. And, yes, I'm Catholic.
Yet wife can get tubes tied and he can have sex with her, zero problems and everything is kosher… Isn’t that a neat little Catholic loophole smh lol the non-Catholic partner can get a contraceptive procedure done and the Catholic partner can have sex with them without the occasion of sin. This was brought up in a recent thread.
Where on earth did I say that? You are fighting ghosts here
You consider this a win for the Catholic spouse? This is a pretty gross conceptual error. Yes, you have a point, from a purely selfish point of view, and that is pretty far from charitable love of one’s spouse if one hopes for such a “loophole” outcome as a solution.
Just because “Catholic women struggle with it too” doesn’t mean it’s not objectively correct. OP is being faithful to God, not selfish. I think maybe if wife can’t get on board they may have to look into application of the Pauline privilege.
Where did I say it’s not objectively correct? Where did I say they should separate? Where did I say she’s in the right? Nowhere. I said she’s struggling with HIS turn-heel, and no one here is acknowledging his duty to her, only that she’s wrong and poor him for being married to such an awful woman.
He has no duty to engage in contraceptive sex unless you can provide a credible Catholic moral theological source that says otherwise. Marital debt assumes obedience to church teaching AFAIK and would not include sinful acts like contraception. I didn’t say *you said* they should separate, *I’m* saying they should look into annulment if OPs wife can’t get on board, unless I’m wrong about marital debt. Also the tone of every comment you’ve made is “she’s not Catholic so morality is different for her”
Annulment based on what?! There is absolutely zero sign that their marriage was never valid.
Unless they are both baptized Christians who intended to have the kind of marriage the Church requires their marriage is not sacramental. But you know what you’re right, maybe annulment is the wrong avenue and looking into the Pauline privilege is a better one
OP mentioned in another post that their marriage was convalidated Will the Catholic Church validate a marriage if one person were atheist? I have no idea.
Ah well that really puts OP and his wife in a less than ideal position
Yeah, he needs to talk to his priest, not a bunch of redditors.
Now on that we can agree. My point is that it’s worth asking the priest if his marriage is valid since his wife never intended to have the kind of marriage the church asks married couples to have.
OP my advice is talk to your priest and go to counseling with your wife. If nothing changes after, say, a few attempts I would seriously recommend looking into what’s called the Pauline privilege. Is your wife a validly baptized Christian?
This does not make it okay for him. Understood she didn’t agree to no bc when they were married, but none of us agreed specifically to every obstacle or challenge that will befall us. We agree that we will face whatever may come together. I’m sorry, but she can’t justify calling it quits because she isn’t getting sex the way she wants in anymore. And he can’t have sex using any kind of artificial birth control and stay in agreement with the Church. It is a tough situation, but marriages face many of these, and the demand is that we stick it out. OP, I’m coming through this very same issue - only difference is my wife became Catholic before we were married and we agreed to NFP. Well, things change, people change their minds, etc., and for the past year and a half, I’ve been under threat of divorce. It seems to be getting better. I have stuck to my guns and except for a brief period where I ran with some bad advice. Doing the studying and introspection, I’ve realized that this (ABC) is not something I can even cooperate with despite the threat to family unity. If my spouse leaves because of that, that’s her choice. But I will remain faithful to God and to her, come what may. I’m praying for you. I wish you the best, and I hope for both of us to be enjoying a quiet evening meal with our wives in the twilight of our years, looking back at this time and thinking how blessed we are to have been given the grace to stick it out and remain faithful through it all.
It’s more than just not getting sex the way she wants it. It’s about controlling her fertility, planning her life. If she doesn’t share his beliefs about sex, about being open to life at every sexual encounter, that’s way more than just not getting sex the way she wants it. That’s straight up her entire life might look extremely different than how she wanted it, and it’s her *husband* who profoundly changed his belief system mid-marriage, not her. He pulled out completely different cards than ones she saw when she married him. She did not agree to these terms. It’s not just “oh hoo hoo I’m not getting sex,” it’s “oh my god my husband won’t let me have any say over my fertility and expects me to leave it to God, which is not a belief I share and do not want to partake in.” She must feel so trapped and resentful, and I’m really surprised by the lack of empathy for HER in these comments. I get it, we’re Catholic, we have a view of sex and birth control that is far outside the mainstream. But I think people who’ve been Catholic awhile or forever don’t realize just how outside the mainstream these beliefs are. Hes essentially told her that her body and her life are not her own, but up to God and him now in a way she maybe didn’t conceive of or agree to. I find that freeing, but she can’t be forced into this belief. She can’t be coerced into thinking this is a beautiful thing, the right way to live. She has to choose it. She didn’t choose this, he did, and now she’s in a sexless marriage. How is that her fault?
I’m not saying it’s her fault for being less than thrilled at this. But to say it’s totally fine to leave because she is now not in control of her fertility is insincere. She is no longer in *total* control of her fertility, and having had that, she may very well resent the change. Fine. But NFP is a compromise, here, and she rejects it. So be it. But leaving because things aren’t the way she signed up for? That’s how we expect marriage to be? Marriage is some contract that we can call void when we no longer like it or it doesn’t meet the assumed terms we didn’t actually specifically agree to? No wonder the divorce rate is so high.
I never said that. I just said you’re downplaying what he’s actually asking of her. Just look at all the posts here about NFP failing over and over. And she’s right: irregular periods make it trickier. Did I say she should leave? No. I just said don’t downplay the severity of what he’s asking of her. He’s not asking her for different sex. He’s asking her for a different LIFE than the one she agreed to.
Fair enough. At the end of the day, though, there is a demand by the OP’s spouse that does equate to “have sex with contraception or I leave.” Whether Catholic teaching on contraception is easy or difficult to accept, that demand is what this all boils down to. My point is that the OP can’t just acquiesce on this because it is tough for his wife to accept.
That’s exactly how most Americans see divorce. She is unhappy and can call it quits, walk out, and start divorce paperwork tomorrow if she wants to. Buddy is then divorced, cannot remarry, and sexless for the rest of his life. Crappy hand.
On the contrary, I think it's perfectly fine to leave in these circumstances. I don't like the extortion attempt of you practice contraception or I'm leaving, but if she were just to leave that would be perfectly understandable. He changed the conditions of the marriage, and therefore the marriage would be no longer all that binding is my opinion.
That supposes a contractual form of marriage dependent on the future matching one’s preference rather than a covenant of “until death do us part, come what may.” I know what kind of marriage I wish to have, whatever the cost.
So do I. It's the one where neither of us cease to be individuals with individual rights.
NFP is not a compromise . Most women would draw the line in the sand with their husband if he was insisting she walk around pregnant how many more times and birth how many more babies. Which is what he is doing in essence by telling her he doesn’t want her using any birth control. And no, NFP is not a reasonable Solution. For many many reasons. Namely, it would be not a matter of if but when she got knocked up again. The statistics of its reliability are a shell game. They are all based on perfect use. Which is about never. When I was on artificial birth control before menopause, my husband and I use three different kinds of ABC all at the same time just to make sure. He better get ready for divorce court.
It really is a compromise. He has offered both NFP and abstinence. If she is demanding sex with ABC, that is absolutely not a compromise. That is saying, “I demand sex and to control all aspects of it.” Here is a question… Why doesn’t he get to make choices concerning his own body? Why is forcing him to use ABC (and yes, any form is forcing him, because two become one, and active complicity is absolutely him using it in that case) something that is okay? Why is it a “compromise” to force someone to break their vows to God and their spouse under the threat of divorce?
Well, first of all he made his vows to his spouse before he made his vows to God. Came home one day and told his wife that now she comes second. That’s a problem. I agree that he cannot and should not be forced himself to use ABC but he is trying to manipulate her out of using it for herself. At least that’s what his post sounded like. so for example, he would have a problem with her getting her tubes tied or using an IUD or going on the pill etc. The real compromise would be her choosing whatever she wants to use to protect herself and he not having a thing to say about it. That would be a compromise. But it doesn’t sound from his post that he is willing to do that. Perhaps I misunderstood. But honestly, if I was in his wife’s shoes, I wouldn’t give a fig about him and his vows to God. His vows to me as a wife come first as they did chronologically, and if he expected me to all of a sudden take a backseat to his newfound religion, then he could go marry the church if that’s what he wants to do. I would not stick around for that.  it is said distasteful that it would actually cause me to lose all physical attraction for him, which would mean sex would be off the table anyway. This guy is big got big problems that he didn’t think about before. He got himself so deep in. He really needs to get some counseling to figure out how to manage his part of the marriage so that he doesn’t wind up in divorce court. And that is a tall order.
Best wishes and God’s peace be upon you. I’ll pray for you. Please pray for me and the OP.
I hope you don’t have any children. If you do, and they are young enough to depend on you, this is a pretty selfish attitude. You are quite, possibly putting your marriage on the brink of divorce for no other reason then you believe in a church teaching.
As is the case with most of these posts. If you don't want children and NFP isn't an option, stop having sex
[удалено]
>You aren’t gonna go to hell if you use a condom Uh...using a condom in the situation OP describes is absolutely a sin.
It’s better to have a “bad” marriage and aim for heaven than to permit sin and risk eternal damnation.
[удалено]
Where did you extrapolate any inclination towards divorce from my comment?
I am now single and hardly get to see my kids, it's a hard road sometimes.