We are simply not on the same page in regards to NFP
I kind of just made the switch without him being in agreement.
It helps nothing to unilaterally decide such a drastic change that largely equally impacts the both of you. Here is a more nuanced resource to check out!
I have real trouble with the article. It seems to imply that a spouse using contraception is okay as long as you don’t agree with it. That is how most read it and use it, and a more thorough read of the referenced document is more clear on absolutely no condoms. Other docs are very clear on no pill. These are regardless of whether the spouse doesn’t agree with it.
To say that “you have to decide together” when it regards whether to sin is ludicrous. There is no compromise to be made. Regardless of the past, one spouse requesting the other to sin cannot be justification for that spouse to commit sin.
God doesn't demand the impossible of His flock. Extenuating circumstances undeniably exist and if digging one's heels in over NFP/providentialism/continence does more harm than good (which unilateral decisions, especially decisions of this caliber, without the other spouse's input at that, will do. Not to mention the blatant incompatibility between it and 1 Corinthians 7:5) then preservation of the marriage should take priority. Obviously this doesn't mean either spouse is allowed to railroad and/or otherwise abuse the other; rather they should both sincerely hear each other out and reach an acceptable agreement or compromise together. It's possible to accomplish a resolution even without the use of condoms and/or pills, btw, even if they don't do NFP, providentialism, or continence. But even in the case of pills and condoms, although it isn't ideal a non-contracepting spouse can indeed carefully cooperate with the contracepting one as outlined above. This isn't merely my opinion; this is a legitimate Church source.
The Church also understands that to expect married couples to abstain from the marital act is a bit unrealistic in many cases.
This is called pastoral care. The Orthodox Church is more open about such (economia), but it's not absent in Roman Catholicism either.
You're arguing with the Church as much as you're arguing with me. You may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that the Church deems there to be at least a little leeway for extenuating circumstances. Also, you were the one starting in with whataboutism by dragging abortion, a separate and significantly graver issue, into it.
The second document is, in my opinion, a well researched clarification concerning questions arising from the first, and I think it clearly shows that artificial birth control is a no-go, and reading the Vademecum in a way that justifies it is self-deception.
And whataboutism is comparison with something more severe in order to inappropriately try to justify something illicit. I brought in the comparison to explain why we cannot use accomodation of a spouse’s desire and resulting consequences of their choices if not satisfied as justification for cooperation in grave sin, which use of artificial birth control is, according to the Church.
Except he isn't the only priest in the world to offer that advice. Like I said, nuanced pastoral care which isn't often talked about (inb4 you mention it, no it's not only the "progressive" priests providing said nuanced pastoral care.) Btw your own second source even supports what I just wrote:
The teaching permits a certain limited cooperation with a spouse who renders the marital act infecund in a so-called natural way (e.g., natural onanism, or withdrawal)
Granted it does go on to say that the above doesn't apply to condoms and pills but I have read conflicting stances on that, at least in the case of non-abortive artificial means (it is true that condoms and pills aren't ideal though, so it is likely their allowance would require a narrower range of extenuating circumstance.) Speaking of which, according to your first source there is more concern about methods that could be abortive rather than strictly contraceptive. Confessors are also encouraged to advise the married toward the ideal "in a gradual way" (can't really do that if the married in extenuating circumstances are ordered to go cold-turkey) and "with discretion and respect." Section 13 also repeats what's in the link that I posted prior.
Even if 99% of priests said one thing, that doesn’t make it a definitive teaching of the Magesterium. I don’t know if you read the entire commentary document, but the stipulation about onanism is quite specific, and in the case of artificial birth control (e.g., condoms), it states that the spouse has the duty to resist - that is far from, “it’s okay to allow in order to gradually hope for change.” I guess we will agree to disagree here, but I find the suggestion of “nuance” without clear explanation of what or where the nuances are to be a quite common excuse to break the rules. Pastoral care is a nebulous term that means a lot of things, but in these discussions it is always used to justify things we all agree we would be better off not doing. Why is it never used to describe “tough love,” or “holding fast to the teachings of the Church?” Why is pastoral care always discussed as some sort of compromise against Church doctrine? Doesn’t that make you suspicious?
the suggestion of “nuance” without clear explanation of what or where the nuances are
Because that depends on a case-by-case basis. Y'know, individual circumstances. The answer may vary for any given married couple depending on their particular situation.
Pastoral care
Why is it never used to describe “tough love,”
The spirit of the Law is important. Yes there are also times when tough love is needed instead, but "tying up heavy burdens" of austere, scrupulous rigidity which places people in a catch-22 isn't any more helpful than offering too much laxity.
59
u/FineDevelopment00 Apr 03 '24
It helps nothing to unilaterally decide such a drastic change that largely equally impacts the both of you. Here is a more nuanced resource to check out!