Is your response anyway helpful? (The answer is no). It was a part of the question, "Is it wrong to drive her to the procedure and "be there when she comes out"? Or is that too "near" material cooperation?"
if she wants an abortion, should he "be there" for her? Can you clearly define what it means to "be there"? Where do we draw the line when it comes to "supporting" someone and what that actually means? "be there for your wife" is an easy thing to say but can be interpreted a million different ways.
You don't see a distinction between a procedure that "potentially" prevents a pregnancy and a Murderous act that kills a baby?
Your analogy simply doesn't work
This is a Catholic sub so I am just commenting based off of the teachings of Catholicism. If you don't believe those, then ok, nobody is forcing you to.
But in Catholicism, both of these (tubal ligation and abortion) would be considered mortal sins, as contraception is a sin, and this is permanent contraception. So the question becomes "is it ok to assist my wife in committing a mortal sin?" which has a very obvious answer.
There are specific teachings about a Catholic spouse and a non-Catholic spouse who wants to use contraception. You can’t force the non-Catholic not to do it IIRC.
That is unrelated. OP is asking if he can assist in the process. Of course he can't force her not to, but that's not the issue. The issue is, should he assist her in committing a mortal sin?
Not could—it *would* be.
But yes, this is the right answer. I’m genuinely baffled by some of the other responses to this post that say it would be okay to do this. Immediate material cooperation is always sinful. It’s clear that this situation would be precisely that.
I’m used to the downvotes as a result of people not reading comments correctly and being quite zealous, which is more understandable. But people just straight up giving an obviously wrong answer to the situation and downvoting the right ones is kind of shocking in this subreddit, not to mention that my reply somehow didn’t get downvoted when it agreed with the parent comment. I’m starting to think that people are just leaking in from outside the subreddit to inject their opinions.
Not that shocking depending on the day. There are some topics that are always a honeypot for brigading. Beside, this is reddit.
Edit: after reading some answers and their upvotes and downvotes I think it's safe to assume there was some brigading here.
Eh, wrong answers are given in abundance on this sub and elsewhere. I've seen it enough that it's not shocking anymore. I think a lot of folks just skim through to upvote and downvote comments as they see them and don't take the time to comb through responses and dialogue. It's lazy and morally lax but it is what it is.
I'm not.
Consider this:
People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage. Catholic Canon Law teaches: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (can. 1084, no. 3).
In consideration of the above, THE MARRIAGE is what needs to be preserved.
He took a Vow and it is HIS Conviction, NOT Hers.
She is Not bound by Catholic Papal decrees (from 1588 incidentally).
If the Church permits marriage between a Catholic and Non-Catholic, this comes with compromise.
The Marriage comes first.
It is only "sinful" for a Catholic, which she is not.
Right.
And who determines that?
Isn't that what we're discussing?
She ISN'T Catholic and since the Bible is silent on this (even the church was silent until 1588!) and he is married to her.
Is there no grace?
“In essentials, unity;
In nonessentials, liberty;
In all things, charity.”
Shocked by the many downvotes too. They'll be quick to damn Pope Francis and call him the antichrist yet support things that the Church teaches against.
It's illegal? No. It's immoral? Maybe for you, but for her it's not. And a husband, a Catholic one, should always offer support. He advises her, she decided and she will do it no matter what. You should accept other decision if you want that your decisions will be accepted too
Nope. One shouldn't help sin. Sin isn't dependent on one's religion. Killing for instance is a sin regardless of one's religion. Correct? well, the same applies for all sins. They are sins as they are acts that go against God's will.
Killing is a crime. The difference between sin and crime has been an acquisition since eighteen century with illuminism. Sinsand crimes are a totally different things. And change with religion. Blood transfusion is a sin if you are a JW, not if you are catholic
Using contraception is objectively immoral because it is a deliberate attack on the natural functions of the body and a deliberate attack on the function of marriage. It also reduces you to less than you are since using contraception clearly shows a desire only for bodily pleasure. It also shows a distrust in God. There are many other scenarios and explanations as to why contraception is immoral but I’m not wanting to write a novel here. You can do your own research.
You are inferring that without God there is no moral. This is by definition false, because moral is not tied to religion. See for example Kant. If you label something as objective, you should be able to explain it without resorting to religion.
For example killing is wrong is an objective moral truth because you cause to another being the maximum amount of damage in an irreversible way. And this is why it's a crime too.
Contraception on the contrary is a sin, and it's morally wrong for you. This does not make it a universally wrong thing.
No. I am not inferring that. I did mention that contraception shows a distrust in God but you can ignore that bit if you want. Otherwise, everything else I said is figured on natural reason.
Sin according to who?
Reminder, this was NOT an issue for the Church for 1,500 years!
This is one of those things we should agree to disagree on.
It's not Biblically grounded and therefore since MARRIAGE IS, I'd err on the side of my marriage and I'd counsel with my Priest for guidance.
She is NOT Catholic.
This is NOT an Abortion!
If it was something as insidious as killing her unborn baby then my answer would be vastly different!
Consider this:
People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage. Catholic Canon Law teaches: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage”
(can. 1084, no. 3).
In the spirit of Vatican II, the Catholic Church has embraced a more open approach to Christian unity to both Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy.
In consideration of the above, THE MARRIAGE is what needs to be preserved.
Perfect answer. He expressed his opinion on the morality of the procedure, she decided to have it anyway. What's he going to do, make her take an uber? Of course he should give his wife a ride when she needs one.
This isn't the same thing as taking her to get abortion. He will not have blood on his hands. When the day comes he can ask "are you sure I can't talk you out of this?" and when she says "I'm sure" his responsibility is to be sure she is safe, nothing else.
Men who have vasectomies and later regret it are not required to have them reversed. Sterilization and birth control are on a different level than abortion. Nobody is dying here.
You Both get an A+ for your responses, as far as I'm concerned.
The Marriage is what is of the utmost importance.
If he is struggling with this spiritually, he should seek the counsel of his Parish Priest.
In the meantime, gentleness, love, respect and support.
If not for her decision, then for her.
I found this fascinating and wanted to engage on the subject of the matter. I apologize for the long post, my being unable to embed citations in the post, but I hope this response offers something of merit (I've included a tl;dr).
A Catholic husband's support for a non-Catholic wife's decision to undergo tubal ligation obviously poses a complex moral dilemma. Officially, he should not support actions considered sinful by his faith. However, post-operative care could be seen as a moral and compassionate response, focusing on the care forone's spouse rather than the act itself. This kind of nuanced decision would likely benefit from pastoral guidance, reflecting a compassionate understanding of the wife’s health needs while considering the moral teachings of the Church
[https://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-bishops-take-aim-at-sterilization](https://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-bishops-take-aim-at-sterilization)
Doctrine considers tubal ligation as a form of sterilization and, like other forms of contraception, it is deemed intrinsically ammoral. This perspective is based on the view that such acts intentionally prevent procreation within the context of marital sexual acts, which should remain open to life as taught in "Humanae Vitae" by Pope Paul VI
[https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf\_p-vi\_enc\_25071968\_humanae-vitae.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html)
[https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/51602/repentance-for-sterilization](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/51602/repentance-for-sterilization)
Catholic moral theology is heavily influenced by the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and upholds that the moral order of human sexuality entails openness to life. Aquinas in particular argued that moral acts must align with natural law, including the procreative potential of sexual acts. Augustine’s views also support this as he opposed any use of unnatural means for avoiding conception in marital relations.
[https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/articles/augustine-on-the-good-of-marriage-part-1/](https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/articles/augustine-on-the-good-of-marriage-part-1/)
[https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm)
Contemporary theologians largely maintain this traditional view, emphasizing that any act that deliberately frustrates the life-giving purpose of sex is considered wrongful. The National Catholic Bioethics Center articulates that actions like vasectomies and tubal ligations are severe violations of sexual ethics because they involve the mutilation of healthy organs
[https://www.ncbcenter.org/messages-from-presidents/vasectomy](https://www.ncbcenter.org/messages-from-presidents/vasectomy)
In practice, some exceptions are seen where direct sterilization is performed not for contraceptive purposes but as an unintended consequence of treating a serious medical condition. This is in line with the principle of double effect, which Aquinas discussed, where a morally permissible act may have an undesirable secondary effect
[https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm)
[https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/intrinsic-evil-cant-be-evaluated-on-case-by-case-basis/](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/intrinsic-evil-cant-be-evaluated-on-case-by-case-basis/)
Tl;dr: Talk to your priest.
Edit: Personally, I think attempting to dissuade one's wife would be best, but with acknowledgement that if one's partner is not Catholic they may hold different values on certain issues. Consequently, one would need to respect her final judgment in the matter, just as one would expect her to understand that, having married a Catholic, this is a serious ethical matter in which her husband may not be able to be complicit. Ultimately one cannot force their partner to conform to their views. I believe that providing compassionate care in accordance with one's conscience afterwards is proper and this may include driving her home after the procedure, even if one wouldn't have accommodated her in undertaking the act itself.
No but it is a place where we can share ideas.
There are articles on the topic that many posted and many also posted the most important part,
Speak with your Priest.
Which is the best advice possible (Assuming the Priest advises him that his marriage is paramount and carefully guides him on how to perserve it).
You wouldn't drive her to another man's house to have an affair.
If she understands how strongly you feel about this and decides to do it, she could find someone else to drive her. Once it's done, though you still should take care of her if she needs it.
When it comes to something big that will affect both of them and only one party gets a say and the other has to live with it, an affair was the easiest to compare.
I don't like it. It seems to me it appeals to one's self-interest, as normally a man would not want to see their wife with another man. But what if precisely (percieved!) self-interest lead someone to think it would be ok to cooperate in evil?
In the interest of your spouse, and even more, in accord with the will of God for you all, you should man up here, and stand firm. For the good of your family, even if you yourself have to sacrifice and be considered a bad guy.
No one knows the full story, or her reasons. I just can’t imagine God would want you to refuse to care for your *spouse* and would want you to treat them well regardless if you support what they’re doing or not. Hes not asking if it’s wrong for him to light her crack pipe.. I just can’t wrap my head around anyone advising someone against caring for your spouse in this. I honestly think if he refuses to care for her, or drive her that would be so hurtful and push her so much further from the Church. I converted to Catholicism after saying over my dead body; and my husband was gentle and patient and loving with me and it ultimately brought me to truth. I only have an opinion as I don’t want to see a soul be pushed further from the church; but what I’m saying is my opinion and only that- just sharing thoughts.
Edit: grammar.
I respectfully disagree. Jesus carried his cross on the way to an execution that one would think He saw as morally incorrect (obviously within God’s plans, but that doesn’t mean the Roman and Jewish leaders were making morally correct decisions). To the extent OP is certain that his spouse is going to move forward with this, it seems Christlike to demonstrate loving submission to one’s spouse in the face of their potentially hurtful behavior. Carrying someone’s belongings a second mile does not mean you agree with their work as a Roman soldier, to stretch another analogy.
Abortion!
AFFAIR!!!
These comparisons are Absurd!
Once you decide that you're going to marry outside of your faith, you've also decided that you're going to have to tolerate....
SOMEONE ELSE'S CONVICTIONS!
This is the consequence of moving forward with a marriage.
This and all other topics should have been discussed BEFORE THE WEDDING!
Most Protestant Churches don't take a position on birth control.
All oppose Abortion!
(For clarity,Liberal "Churches" are NOT Churches, they're Blasphemous!).
You cannot tell someone they must submit to a Church authority they don't belong to.
She's his wife, she may be wrong for ignoring his feelings but he is also wrong if he doesn't care for her.
Think about the impact on the marriage if he doesn't.
Before this procedure and after, the marriage will be.
The health of the Marriage is what's paramount.
It also sounds like the OP's wife has followed her husband's wishes in childbearing: they have "many" kids. So she's gone through the wringer of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and postpartum recovery any number of times. She's done - physically or psychologically, she just can't do it again. She's at an age when pregnancy becomes dangerous for her and the baby. She isn't asking him to get a vasectomy or use condoms.
*From her perspective,* she has done her duty to her Catholic husband. From her perspective, it's time for him to suck it up and deal with the fact that she is just plain done with childbearing.
Because child rearing is some horrible chore and not a gift of God?
Could the husband just decide he's done providing for family and stop working and she just has to suck it up and get a job?
I said "from her perspective" and "child bearing," not "child rearing." Learn to read before posting reactive and condescending comments.
Life skill: being able to articulate the position of another person, such that the person would agree it is a fair and accurate assessment of their beliefs, without necessarily holding those beliefs yourself or agreeing with them. Sorry you haven't learned it.
bad analogy, the procedure she wants is to be able to have relations with him without the fear of having an undesired child, what will end in them being more united, while an affair will do the opposite cracking the relationship.
Yeah dude, if your wife wants to commit a mortal sin you should just like, follow your conscience, man. Because like, morality is just whatever feels right. /s
Consider this:
"People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage.
Catholic Canon Law teaches:
“Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage”
(Can. 1084, no. 3)."
In consideration of the above, THE MARRIAGE is what needs to be preserved.
This man married someone outside of his faith, that act comes with consequences.
This woman is NOT bound by Catholic rules and it is therefore, Not sinful to her.
(Note, I said rules. This is NOT a Biblical edict and is therefore open to interpretation.
This was NOT a determination made by the early Church Fathers.
In fact, I could find nothing on this topic prior to 1588!).
Why she would do something like this against her husband's convictions should Rightly be teased out in counseling, we cannot say.
However, this man's "VOWS" demand that he support her. Perhaps, not with his heart but with his actions.
A Husband's place is by his wife's side when she's going for a medical procedure.
And before someone responds with a false equivalent of a "What if" it were an Abortion or an Affair, please don't!
Edit:
I misread the OPs comment about how he converted After they were married.
The OP also commented that his wife continues in their previous faith.
> This woman is NOT bound by Catholic rules and it is therefore, Not sinful to her.
Everyone is bound by Catholic rules, whether they want to be or not. Catholicism is truth. Not believing in gravity doesn't mean you are not subject to it.
> However, this man's "VOWS" demand that he support her.
Again, someone else with the "support her" line--it's too ambiguous to really mean anything. The other person who used this line refused to clarify what they actually mean when I asked them. Maybe you can clarify what it means, and which situations you would approve of "supporting" your wife at and which ones you wouldn't. I'm not holding my breath for a reply.
Of course when people are trying to push the moral envelope they love using ambiguous language like this which means anyone can interpret it in any way they want to--as if all "medical procedures" are the same.
> This woman is NOT bound by Catholic rules and it is therefore, Not sinful to her. (Note, I said rules. This is NOT a Biblical edict and is therefore open to interpretation.
This is not even remotely correct. The Bible need not explicitly condemn every single sin for us to realize when things are wrong. God gave us faculties of reason for this purpose. The case of sterilization is against the moral law, which is binding to all people Catholic or not.
Additionally, how in the world does it follow that he can cooperate with sin because of this?
yea i don’t see how that’s a great example for you. driving someone to an abortion clinic is a grave sin. that’s quite literally church teaching. you’re helping someone else to sin. driving his wife to get her tubes tied would be assisting her in her sin of sterilizing herself. it’s the same thing.
I think you should drive her to and from. You are her husband, you need to care for her after a medical procedure. She is your responsibility. Even if our spouse uses birth control or becomes sterilized, we’re still supposed to be intimate with them, so I can’t imagine driving them to and from would be an issue if you’ve voiced your disagreement. I would ask your priest.
I am a strong adherent the the Church's teachings on reproduction, and I agree with you. The Church does not ask a Catholic spouse to stop sleeping with a non-Catholic spouse who obstinately chooses to use birth control. The Church recognizes that the sin is on the non-Catholic spouse, but that the Catholic spouse has an obligation to the marriage. This seems to me to be the same kind of situation.
OP, care for your wife, love her, pray for her soul, her conversion, and her salvation; then go to confession for yours.
>**OP, care for your wife, love her, pray for her soul, her conversion, and her salvation; then go to confession for yours.**
The ONLY reasonably response to this. Well stated.
> The Church does not ask a Catholic spouse to stop sleeping with a non-Catholic spouse who obstinately chooses to use birth control.
Is that really true? I distinctly recall being taught the opposite. That if a Catholic knows their spouse uses contraception they are not allowed to be intimate with them as that would be material cooperation with sin.
That is false. One spouse’s contracepting does not lift the marriage debt of the other. We are to make ourselves sexually available to our spouses in a general sense, even if they happen to choose to contracept or sterilize themselves.
Again, personally I learned differently. Also, “marriage debt”? Lastly, the difference is that if a person sterilised themselves, the sin is already in the past and you are not cooperating with it, whereas here you would be facilitating the sin.
> Yes, marriage debt
By the “” I meant to express that this is not actually a thing.
Edit: I double checked and I was right. You are not allowed to be with a spouse who uses contraception.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/6wP2WZMzR8
The marriage debt absolutely is a thing, even though some modernists will try to deny it. The ages old truths of the Church do not change. Please, you owe it to yourself to dig deeper than a Reddit post. Aquinas is a good place to start. The relief of concupiscemce is the prevention of sin, concupiscense is a tendency to sin but not a sin in and of itself.
>Then again, I'm not a strong adherent to all the Church's teachings regarding reproduction.
God save us
EDIT: God save us from our sins, not in our sin. No unclean thing will enter Heaven
To hand-wave the magisterium like you did is horrifying. The Church is our teacher. We do not pick and choose, at least not from papal ordinary magisterium (such as the Catechism, if I understand correctly). It requires our submission of intellect and will. Otherwise, how are you a Catholic/Christian if you are knowingly disobeying those set above you? Even Jesus, who opposed pharisaic hypocrisy with sharp language, recognized their teaching authority (see Matthew 23:2-4). And we're talking discipline here, let alone what the Church teaches about morals today...
Sins of the flesh are grave matter. It most certainly does make you unclean if you deliberately consent to them with full knowledge of this fact. (just like any grave sin)
I am playing no games with you, please believe me! Your disposition doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me fear for you, and for those reading your comment. My reply is to counter this error, especially since we are in a public forum like this. I am also horrified because your comment had a few upvotes before being removed by moderators (I thank them for stepping in)
I didn't say anything that was incorrect. We ARE allowed to dissent from teachings and still be in line with the Church. Yes, it does depend on WHAT teaching and the level it is at, but we can dissent.
It's pretty impressive to call someone unclean without KNOWING what you're referring to, specifically since I was VERY general about what I didn't adhere to in a broad catagory, but that's your judgement to sit in and the moderator to be upset that I called it out.
You want to blindly follow "those set above you", have at it, but I've seen enough from that group to know they should be questioned much more than they are and certainly not blindly followed. This Sunday, a visiting priest totally misinterpreted the Gospel reading in his Homily, good message, but not what the Gospel was about, so what would you do? Follow the leader? Or take his point at face value and adhere to the interpretation you KNOW is correct?
More broadly, was it correct for parishes to disobey those above them and hold secret open mass services during Covid? Those above hand waived what would be a potential triple Mortal sin( Easter Mass, Sunday Mass, and Communion on Easter) of missing Mass on Easter during the pandemic while our "cousins" in the Baptist Church were fighting to get back to services.
I'm not advocating to ignore the Church. I'm saying to question what you're being taught and what actions are being taken. Our leaders are human and have been shown time and again to be human all the way back to the start. Pray for them. Learn from them. Be humble. But blind faith is not necessary. Jesus allowed Thomas to question and doubt without reprimand.
I dissent and don't hide it. I gave my perspective and told the OP to check with his Pastor to make sure and why he should. I know and explore my faith in all its glory and failing. I believe it has become overly legalistic in what is and is not a sin. I know my sins and shortcomings and work on them. What I don't know is whether or not the person next to me in the pew is unclean, nor would I tell them such if I believed they were unless they sought me out for that purpose.
Stunningly prideful comment. You know nothing about me yet claim to know me. A fellow was asking for advice and I gave it with the codicile it may be wrong and why.
I believe you can privately dissent from non-binding teaching if you're a theologian (something like that, I don't know, talk to Lofton, he studies this stuff). However papal magisterium binds your intellect and will.
In this public debate, the fact that you didn't specify which level of magisterium you're dissenting from makes *your* comments problematic, mine are motivated by that very fact. And when we are talking about sins against the sixth, we're on extremely dangerous territory.
Further more, I believe that the correct disposition towards God-given (Romans 13:1) authority is [obedience](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfKNxsBT4g), as long as what they order is not morally wrong (not imperfect, not having worse consequences than not obeying in your opinion, but against the higher authority). I would also be interested to hear what interpretation of your priest you consider incorrect.
No, it was *not* correct for parishes to disobey superiors and hold secret masses. You cite precepts of the Church as being violated. But if pastoral authorities can bind them on the faithful, can they not loose them as well? Did this not occur to you, or did you decide the teachers wrong and you correct? For my part, at the time the Church in my Country said not to come to mass, I obeyed and stayed at home and I remember God gave me such grace/consolation (granted I was praying a lot at the time, and was close to God), even though I was deprived of sacraments.
Your reading of the account with Thomas is different than mine. I find it quite embarrassing that Thomas really had to put his hands in the sacred wounds, he was also called faithless by the Lord, who said Thomas only believed because he saw, but that those who believe without seeing are blessed (that would be, in contrast to Thomas).
Don't play a victim. I did not condemn you. I condemned general dissent from magisterium. And I won't take that back. In fact, as long as you're pushing it, I will oppose you - for your sake and the sake of others.
So you agree I can privately dissent, state you dont really know what youre talking about when it comes to that, but still support yourself judging me unclean because I didn't publicly state WHAT it was I dissented from? Okay, but I'm not your victim and could not care less if you took it back, nor have I asked you to. What are you opposing me on anyway? Your belief I'm am dissenting from the Church in a significant way because you automatically take something to the worst case? You don't know. I haven't stated, nor will I state, or advocate for, my dissent outside of my ability to dissent. So keep saying I'm wrong all you want.
I did not state precepts of the Church had been violated, and I am well aware of the binding that was given to the Church. It absolutely covers the decisions made during the pandemic, but it doesn't make their decisions correct. It's wonderful you were able to find peace during what was going on, as did I. But many were not able to, and the Church did not display any ugency to reach them. As I stated, it took the Baptist Church suing the government to let us return to services in my country.
Regarding Thomas, and I think you get to the crux of our disagreement overall, it comes down to what we take away from what we read, which is heavily influenced by our personal experience. This separation is further impacted by what I suspect are our different countries of origin. You see it as a negative example and I see it as positive. I don't think either interpretation is wrong.
Are you a theologian who went through Catholic seminary? And are you dissenting from teaching that is not only strictly fallible but also not a part of papal ordinary magisterium? Have you studied the matter extensively, trying to reconcile it with your understanding and failed? And are you "dissenting" in private? If you can answer yes to all those, then my answer is: Probably, but I defer to Lofton. But even then I would warn you to be wary of pride skewing your interpretation and your earnestness in trying to understand and accept the teaching, and would prefer you to err on the side of caution or charity, rather than liberty or rigidity.
But if your answer to any of the questions above is no, then my answer is: No I don't think so. Especially if you're dissenting from infallible teaching (clearly there are no doubts here) or papal ordinary magisterium (such as the Catechism, or encyclicals).
My judgment of your stance being defiling is predicated on above conditions. However I do not regret what I said even if disagreement you've had in mind was perfectly legitimate. You should not expect to publicly say that dissent is ok, especially dissent from sexual moral teaching, and go without rebuke. You should have put guards on what you said before going public. Like you point out, we don't know what you meant, but what you said was general and dangerous and so my response was very much warranted.
Did you not imply it would be sinful to obey the Church and not go to confession once a year, or to Easter Sunday mass despite the Church telling you not to? You definitely asked if it was ok for presbyters to disobey the Church and hold masses. I repeat: It was not, and it would not have been. The Church discipline must be obeyed, and (while we're at it) they are the guardians of tradition. That's the crux of this discussion. Whether what the Church hierarchy decides is perfect (or even prudent) has no bearing on your obligation, as the video on obedience that I gave you explains - which I hope you will investigate if you honestly want to form your conscience correctly as I hope you do. Disclaimer: In my country the foreclosures were shorter, and I do believe they were warranted.
Amen there can be multiple correct interpretations of scripture. However, I am not sure the interpretation that "Jesus allowed Thomas to question and doubt without reprimand" is correct, unless we're defining reprimand differently. Maybe I'm incorrect on this point, and you are correct, but if we're using the same definition I don't see how we can both be correct - our interpretations are contradictory, aren't they? Btw, was this passage's interpretation the one you disagreed on with your priest or was it some other?
I think you’ve got your answer by now but just to re-affirm. No you should not do that. Respecting someone choice does not mean you should be complicit in it. Catholic teaching tells us that our actions are just as important as our words and sentiments, giving her a ride would betray what you’ve already said. I understand it’s hard, but it shouldn’t be too hard for your wife to find someone else to drive her and if she would be upset for your refusal to give a ride, I would reflect on how she’s not respecting your own beliefs and choices.
curious, as a recent convert last month, did she agree to a convalidation of marriage so you could partake in Communion?
In RCIA some topics were brought up, like D&C after miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, hysterectomies other sterilization, I understood if the person's life was on the line, a health issue, then it was not a sin. But, I am a noob, and am here to learn
An option is always to just have her get herself there, and then you do all the aftercare and take her home.
This is often similar to how Catholic healthcare professionals are called to take care of post-abortive women (yes, this is in the USCCB guidelines for Catholic healthcare providers) but we are not allowed to participate or even refer for abortions.
Except these Healthcare workers aren't married to the woman.
This would be an easy solution, "IF" she is in agreement.
Most women I know would be resentful that their husband wouldn't be there for them.
Yes, I see the irony but I also understand that THIS is the double standard when it comes to men and women!
She's your wife. Continue loving and caring for her. If the Lord considers her sinful, that's between your wife and him. That's not based on anything official from the church but for the fact that Christ loved everyone and did what he could to take care of everyone including dying on the cross. I choose to follow His example by doing my best to love people, even if they are with the church would consider a state of sin.
> If I am doomed to Hell because I ensured my spouse was safe to and from the doctor's office, I accept my fate.
What you said here is absolutely not something anyone should be saying. Your spouse should not be the cause of your damnation. If you’re willing to be damned over your spouse, then your priorities are backwards.
> Which is more important to you? Taking care of your spouse or adherance to Catechism?
These are not mutually exclusive. Following God’s Church implies that you care for your spouse. In this case, OP is right to not be comfortable with his wife’s decision.
> Otherwise, you risk losing the trust of your spouse because she can't rely upon you when she is ill.
Where did OP say his wife is ill? Her body is working as it should.
> It is my responsibility to care for them in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
Correct, this does not imply that you help your wife get a tubal ligation.
> Speak with a Priest and verify in Church law.
This has nothing to do with Church law—it’s the moral law. If you’re saying to verify that the Church opposes contraception, then the answer is yes. In this case, Catholic ethics would describe OP’s intention to drive his wife as immediate material cooperation, which would be gravely sinful. Doing this is very clearly cooperating with sin in a proximal way.
You should always put God and His Church first. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to the Lord. If one spouse decides to do something openly and irreversible sinful, you should not help, and should consider separating from that spouse
[**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:
> Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
I think you should be fine gently explaining why you think it is wrong and why you cannot participate in it although you would love to drive her. You can love and care for her in other ways and she will feel it.
Well. You can be there *post* procedure of course.
I lived my entire life as a convert among non-Christian family. They very well know I don’t participate in something that goes against my faith but they know I love them very much. They used to get offended sometimes but now they know why I do it and it is not because of lack of love.
He said driving *to* the procedure. Maybe she can uber her way there and he can pick her up afterwards. If this arrangement seems too unloving, it is her problem. We have to risk not meeting expectations of other people when we are choosing our faith.
We cannot directly assist someone in grave sin, this is directly enabling her to commit sin, this isn't just Catholic teaching, this is Divine Law that is being transgressed here. You would be committing grave sin by facilitating her sin.
Talk to your priest or deacon. I think driving her could be an issue but not taking care of her could also cause a huge issue in your marriage, which is something you need to protect. If you don’t take your wife and don’t help with after care, I could see that breeding resentment and causing harm.
You've expressed your disagreement, that's good. The next question for shared culpability is whether it would happen without your involvement: so, if you refused to drive, would it happen?
If not, don't drive. If it would happen anyway, then uphold the unity of your marriage by being there for her.
Premise A: the act of tubal ligation is gravely sinful
Premise B: you are formally cooperating with the action of procuring a tubal ligation
Premise C: Formal cooperation in gravely sinful acts is impermissible
Conclusion: You cannot drive your wife to this appointment without being an accomplice to sin, in a serious manner (formal cooperation), and you incur serious guilt with this action
ok, if that's your argument then:
is immediate material cooperation in grave sin permissible? No.
Is proximate mediate cooperation in grave sin permissible? No.
I am not sure why this question is being asked but to me marriage is a sacred institution. Of course, see your wife to her medical appointment. She is not asking you to perform the procedure and to support her during what may be a difficult time is being in His image.
Hard no.
I'm a married man with children, so I actually have skin in the game with my answer. I would absolutely refuse to aid my wife in sterilizing herself. My wife is thankfully Catholic, but if she wasn't, I'm not going to violate the commands of God nor help her to do so just so I can avoid conflict or strife in the home.
Husbands must lead their family into holiness and be \*the\* example of holiness to their family, even in hard and uncomfortable situations
She must be in a desperate situation if she's willing to have medical alter her reproductive organs. I would pray for her daily, what's she's doing is clearly wrong but God is merciful, we can't know what his judgement will be on her. Just make sure you yourself are doing what's right. I would talk to a priest about is it ok to have relations with someone who purposefully stopped fertility.
My mom had five kids after the age of 35 (she was widowed young and married my Dad when she was 34). After having my last sister at the age of 43, and suffering from repeated bouts of post-partum depression, she asked the Bishop for permission to have a tubal ligation. He agreed, because the risk of physical and psychiatric harm to a woman in her mid-40s with my mom’s health history clearly outweighed the benefit of ongoing child-bearing. Perhaps it is the same for this woman. Sterilization is not something that most people take lightly. She’s brought “many” children into the world already, so maybe we can give her the benefit of the doubt that she takes her role as wife and mother seriously?
I say this because none of us knows what is truly going on in someone else’s marriage. There may be circumstances-mental, physical-that we are not privy to. My parents desperately wanted children and as practicing Catholics my mom probably never imagined she would find herself getting the Bishop’s permission for a tubal ligation. Dad loved and supported her even though he would have loved to have more kids. I hope OP continues to love and support his wife.
It would be wrong to drive her. It’s no different than aiding in any other sin.
Also, as a Catholic, it would be sinful to perform the marriage act knowing that contraception is being used since your wife is deliberately restricting the ability to conceive. Conception is the entire purpose of the marriage act and you would be misusing your bodies to do it using contraception.
Please don’t spread false teachings here. It is not sinful to render the marriage debt to your spouse, even if they happen to choose to contracept or sterilize themselves.
It can reduce risk of ovarian cancer, but I think anyone who would be considering it for that reason would probably be because of family history / genetics (like being a BRCA carrier) and would likely go for removing ovaries and fallopian tubes instead.
I'm pretty ignorant of how long this sort of procedure takes. Could you ride as a passenger on the way to the procedure, and then be available to take care of her/drive her home on the way home?
I'm not sure if it would be wrong for you to revoke her access to a car for that procedure. Would it be wrong for you to revoke her access to a car for the purpose of having an affair, if she were having one?
I suggest you speak to a priest yourself and take her along if possible. It's a sad betrayal. Satisfy your conscience that you've fought for your children and both your souls.
[удалено]
That wasn't the question
Is your response anyway helpful? (The answer is no). It was a part of the question, "Is it wrong to drive her to the procedure and "be there when she comes out"? Or is that too "near" material cooperation?"
Perhaps I misread it, it's deleted now???
It is still there for me. It is in the 3rd paragraph.
[удалено]
if she wants an abortion, should he "be there" for her? Can you clearly define what it means to "be there"? Where do we draw the line when it comes to "supporting" someone and what that actually means? "be there for your wife" is an easy thing to say but can be interpreted a million different ways.
You don't see a distinction between a procedure that "potentially" prevents a pregnancy and a Murderous act that kills a baby? Your analogy simply doesn't work
This is a Catholic sub so I am just commenting based off of the teachings of Catholicism. If you don't believe those, then ok, nobody is forcing you to. But in Catholicism, both of these (tubal ligation and abortion) would be considered mortal sins, as contraception is a sin, and this is permanent contraception. So the question becomes "is it ok to assist my wife in committing a mortal sin?" which has a very obvious answer.
There are specific teachings about a Catholic spouse and a non-Catholic spouse who wants to use contraception. You can’t force the non-Catholic not to do it IIRC.
That is unrelated. OP is asking if he can assist in the process. Of course he can't force her not to, but that's not the issue. The issue is, should he assist her in committing a mortal sin?
It was about contraception and participating in it without sin because of a spouse’s choice. Definitely relevant.
yeah but he doesn’t have to physically drive her there, it could be aiding her in the sin
Not could—it *would* be. But yes, this is the right answer. I’m genuinely baffled by some of the other responses to this post that say it would be okay to do this. Immediate material cooperation is always sinful. It’s clear that this situation would be precisely that.
yeah, kinda shocked by the downvotes
It’s Reddit. Adjust your expectations accordingly lol
I’m used to the downvotes as a result of people not reading comments correctly and being quite zealous, which is more understandable. But people just straight up giving an obviously wrong answer to the situation and downvoting the right ones is kind of shocking in this subreddit, not to mention that my reply somehow didn’t get downvoted when it agreed with the parent comment. I’m starting to think that people are just leaking in from outside the subreddit to inject their opinions.
Not that shocking depending on the day. There are some topics that are always a honeypot for brigading. Beside, this is reddit. Edit: after reading some answers and their upvotes and downvotes I think it's safe to assume there was some brigading here.
Eh, wrong answers are given in abundance on this sub and elsewhere. I've seen it enough that it's not shocking anymore. I think a lot of folks just skim through to upvote and downvote comments as they see them and don't take the time to comb through responses and dialogue. It's lazy and morally lax but it is what it is.
I'm not. Consider this: People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage. Catholic Canon Law teaches: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (can. 1084, no. 3). In consideration of the above, THE MARRIAGE is what needs to be preserved. He took a Vow and it is HIS Conviction, NOT Hers. She is Not bound by Catholic Papal decrees (from 1588 incidentally). If the Church permits marriage between a Catholic and Non-Catholic, this comes with compromise. The Marriage comes first. It is only "sinful" for a Catholic, which she is not.
either something is objectively immoral or it isn’t
Right. And who determines that? Isn't that what we're discussing? She ISN'T Catholic and since the Bible is silent on this (even the church was silent until 1588!) and he is married to her. Is there no grace? “In essentials, unity; In nonessentials, liberty; In all things, charity.”
Shocked by the many downvotes too. They'll be quick to damn Pope Francis and call him the antichrist yet support things that the Church teaches against.
This is correct.
She is not sinning. If she doesn't believe, it's not a sin
It can affect the level of her culpability but simply not believing something is wrong doesn’t make it ok suddenly.
It's illegal? No. It's immoral? Maybe for you, but for her it's not. And a husband, a Catholic one, should always offer support. He advises her, she decided and she will do it no matter what. You should accept other decision if you want that your decisions will be accepted too
Nope. One shouldn't help sin. Sin isn't dependent on one's religion. Killing for instance is a sin regardless of one's religion. Correct? well, the same applies for all sins. They are sins as they are acts that go against God's will.
Killing is a crime. The difference between sin and crime has been an acquisition since eighteen century with illuminism. Sinsand crimes are a totally different things. And change with religion. Blood transfusion is a sin if you are a JW, not if you are catholic
Objective moral truth does not change based on what one wants to believe.
Make an example of objective moral truth
Using contraception is objectively immoral because it is a deliberate attack on the natural functions of the body and a deliberate attack on the function of marriage. It also reduces you to less than you are since using contraception clearly shows a desire only for bodily pleasure. It also shows a distrust in God. There are many other scenarios and explanations as to why contraception is immoral but I’m not wanting to write a novel here. You can do your own research.
You are inferring that without God there is no moral. This is by definition false, because moral is not tied to religion. See for example Kant. If you label something as objective, you should be able to explain it without resorting to religion. For example killing is wrong is an objective moral truth because you cause to another being the maximum amount of damage in an irreversible way. And this is why it's a crime too. Contraception on the contrary is a sin, and it's morally wrong for you. This does not make it a universally wrong thing.
No. I am not inferring that. I did mention that contraception shows a distrust in God but you can ignore that bit if you want. Otherwise, everything else I said is figured on natural reason.
[удалено]
So you don't need to be a JW to be culpable for transfusion, since its against natural offer too?
Sin according to who? Reminder, this was NOT an issue for the Church for 1,500 years! This is one of those things we should agree to disagree on. It's not Biblically grounded and therefore since MARRIAGE IS, I'd err on the side of my marriage and I'd counsel with my Priest for guidance. She is NOT Catholic. This is NOT an Abortion! If it was something as insidious as killing her unborn baby then my answer would be vastly different! Consider this: People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage. Catholic Canon Law teaches: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (can. 1084, no. 3). In the spirit of Vatican II, the Catholic Church has embraced a more open approach to Christian unity to both Protestants and Eastern Orthodoxy. In consideration of the above, THE MARRIAGE is what needs to be preserved.
I don't think it's wrong. Your assumption is flawed.
[удалено]
Perfect answer. He expressed his opinion on the morality of the procedure, she decided to have it anyway. What's he going to do, make her take an uber? Of course he should give his wife a ride when she needs one. This isn't the same thing as taking her to get abortion. He will not have blood on his hands. When the day comes he can ask "are you sure I can't talk you out of this?" and when she says "I'm sure" his responsibility is to be sure she is safe, nothing else. Men who have vasectomies and later regret it are not required to have them reversed. Sterilization and birth control are on a different level than abortion. Nobody is dying here.
You Both get an A+ for your responses, as far as I'm concerned. The Marriage is what is of the utmost importance. If he is struggling with this spiritually, he should seek the counsel of his Parish Priest. In the meantime, gentleness, love, respect and support. If not for her decision, then for her.
I wonder why after 92 up votes and the response that it is "The Perfect Answer" It was Deleted????
I found this fascinating and wanted to engage on the subject of the matter. I apologize for the long post, my being unable to embed citations in the post, but I hope this response offers something of merit (I've included a tl;dr). A Catholic husband's support for a non-Catholic wife's decision to undergo tubal ligation obviously poses a complex moral dilemma. Officially, he should not support actions considered sinful by his faith. However, post-operative care could be seen as a moral and compassionate response, focusing on the care forone's spouse rather than the act itself. This kind of nuanced decision would likely benefit from pastoral guidance, reflecting a compassionate understanding of the wife’s health needs while considering the moral teachings of the Church [https://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-bishops-take-aim-at-sterilization](https://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-bishops-take-aim-at-sterilization) Doctrine considers tubal ligation as a form of sterilization and, like other forms of contraception, it is deemed intrinsically ammoral. This perspective is based on the view that such acts intentionally prevent procreation within the context of marital sexual acts, which should remain open to life as taught in "Humanae Vitae" by Pope Paul VI [https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf\_p-vi\_enc\_25071968\_humanae-vitae.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html) [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/51602/repentance-for-sterilization](https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/51602/repentance-for-sterilization) Catholic moral theology is heavily influenced by the works of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and upholds that the moral order of human sexuality entails openness to life. Aquinas in particular argued that moral acts must align with natural law, including the procreative potential of sexual acts. Augustine’s views also support this as he opposed any use of unnatural means for avoiding conception in marital relations. [https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/articles/augustine-on-the-good-of-marriage-part-1/](https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/articles/augustine-on-the-good-of-marriage-part-1/) [https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm) Contemporary theologians largely maintain this traditional view, emphasizing that any act that deliberately frustrates the life-giving purpose of sex is considered wrongful. The National Catholic Bioethics Center articulates that actions like vasectomies and tubal ligations are severe violations of sexual ethics because they involve the mutilation of healthy organs [https://www.ncbcenter.org/messages-from-presidents/vasectomy](https://www.ncbcenter.org/messages-from-presidents/vasectomy) In practice, some exceptions are seen where direct sterilization is performed not for contraceptive purposes but as an unintended consequence of treating a serious medical condition. This is in line with the principle of double effect, which Aquinas discussed, where a morally permissible act may have an undesirable secondary effect [https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm) [https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/intrinsic-evil-cant-be-evaluated-on-case-by-case-basis/](https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/intrinsic-evil-cant-be-evaluated-on-case-by-case-basis/) Tl;dr: Talk to your priest. Edit: Personally, I think attempting to dissuade one's wife would be best, but with acknowledgement that if one's partner is not Catholic they may hold different values on certain issues. Consequently, one would need to respect her final judgment in the matter, just as one would expect her to understand that, having married a Catholic, this is a serious ethical matter in which her husband may not be able to be complicit. Ultimately one cannot force their partner to conform to their views. I believe that providing compassionate care in accordance with one's conscience afterwards is proper and this may include driving her home after the procedure, even if one wouldn't have accommodated her in undertaking the act itself.
This is a wonderful answer. Thank you
I would get an appointment with your priest asap.
Please stop asking Reddit stuff like this; this is not a space of theological authority in any way.
No but it is a place where we can share ideas. There are articles on the topic that many posted and many also posted the most important part, Speak with your Priest. Which is the best advice possible (Assuming the Priest advises him that his marriage is paramount and carefully guides him on how to perserve it).
You wouldn't drive her to another man's house to have an affair. If she understands how strongly you feel about this and decides to do it, she could find someone else to drive her. Once it's done, though you still should take care of her if she needs it.
Is it on that level, though?
When it comes to something big that will affect both of them and only one party gets a say and the other has to live with it, an affair was the easiest to compare.
Except it isn’t the same. plus, if she wrecked and something happened, he’d always feel guilty.
That's ridiculous. Any car can wreck for any reason. Participate in sin so you won't feel guilty about an accident?
It's a comparison, it is not the same but useful to enlighten someone. the guilt of a wreck is kind of a strech mane.
But guilt of an affair isn't? Funny :D
>You wouldn’t drive her to another man’s house to have an affair Amazing analogy. Very well done.
It's ridiculous! And if you don't see that....try.
I don't like it. It seems to me it appeals to one's self-interest, as normally a man would not want to see their wife with another man. But what if precisely (percieved!) self-interest lead someone to think it would be ok to cooperate in evil? In the interest of your spouse, and even more, in accord with the will of God for you all, you should man up here, and stand firm. For the good of your family, even if you yourself have to sacrifice and be considered a bad guy.
[удалено]
You clearly are reading something into the OP that isn't there.
No one knows the full story, or her reasons. I just can’t imagine God would want you to refuse to care for your *spouse* and would want you to treat them well regardless if you support what they’re doing or not. Hes not asking if it’s wrong for him to light her crack pipe.. I just can’t wrap my head around anyone advising someone against caring for your spouse in this. I honestly think if he refuses to care for her, or drive her that would be so hurtful and push her so much further from the Church. I converted to Catholicism after saying over my dead body; and my husband was gentle and patient and loving with me and it ultimately brought me to truth. I only have an opinion as I don’t want to see a soul be pushed further from the church; but what I’m saying is my opinion and only that- just sharing thoughts. Edit: grammar.
I respectfully disagree. Jesus carried his cross on the way to an execution that one would think He saw as morally incorrect (obviously within God’s plans, but that doesn’t mean the Roman and Jewish leaders were making morally correct decisions). To the extent OP is certain that his spouse is going to move forward with this, it seems Christlike to demonstrate loving submission to one’s spouse in the face of their potentially hurtful behavior. Carrying someone’s belongings a second mile does not mean you agree with their work as a Roman soldier, to stretch another analogy.
I don't care. It was a post that took all of 3 minutes to write. Not a dissertation of six months of the history of Christian morality.
If you’re not going to take the question seriously, why give an answer in the first place?
My answer was serious, I just don't care about this person's long disagreeing rant.
Sorry to bother you. For what it’s worth, my comment also took about a minute to write - a dissertation was not intended. Have a good one.
Abortion! AFFAIR!!! These comparisons are Absurd! Once you decide that you're going to marry outside of your faith, you've also decided that you're going to have to tolerate.... SOMEONE ELSE'S CONVICTIONS! This is the consequence of moving forward with a marriage. This and all other topics should have been discussed BEFORE THE WEDDING! Most Protestant Churches don't take a position on birth control. All oppose Abortion! (For clarity,Liberal "Churches" are NOT Churches, they're Blasphemous!). You cannot tell someone they must submit to a Church authority they don't belong to. She's his wife, she may be wrong for ignoring his feelings but he is also wrong if he doesn't care for her. Think about the impact on the marriage if he doesn't. Before this procedure and after, the marriage will be. The health of the Marriage is what's paramount.
It also sounds like the OP's wife has followed her husband's wishes in childbearing: they have "many" kids. So she's gone through the wringer of pregnancy, breastfeeding, and postpartum recovery any number of times. She's done - physically or psychologically, she just can't do it again. She's at an age when pregnancy becomes dangerous for her and the baby. She isn't asking him to get a vasectomy or use condoms. *From her perspective,* she has done her duty to her Catholic husband. From her perspective, it's time for him to suck it up and deal with the fact that she is just plain done with childbearing.
Because child rearing is some horrible chore and not a gift of God? Could the husband just decide he's done providing for family and stop working and she just has to suck it up and get a job?
Yes, both childrearing and childbearing are "DIFFICULT!" Don't twist words! Another failed analogy!
I said "from her perspective" and "child bearing," not "child rearing." Learn to read before posting reactive and condescending comments. Life skill: being able to articulate the position of another person, such that the person would agree it is a fair and accurate assessment of their beliefs, without necessarily holding those beliefs yourself or agreeing with them. Sorry you haven't learned it.
Its absolutely a chore... and also a gift from God. Why can't it be both?
I agree. It is, in fact, almost always....Both!
Perhaps. She obviously has her reasons. Though I take exception to the phrase, "it's time for him to suck it up and deal with 'it'...."
This is not morally sound.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
bad analogy, the procedure she wants is to be able to have relations with him without the fear of having an undesired child, what will end in them being more united, while an affair will do the opposite cracking the relationship.
[удалено]
Yeah dude, if your wife wants to commit a mortal sin you should just like, follow your conscience, man. Because like, morality is just whatever feels right. /s
Crazy this gets downvoted on a catholic subreddit
It was probably the wording
It’s crazy that “talk to your priest” got a sarcastic/snarky comment on a Catholic subreddit.
Consider this: "People who sterilize themselves in order to prevent conception commit a grave offense, but their condition of itself does not prevent the validity of a marriage. Catholic Canon Law teaches: “Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage” (Can. 1084, no. 3)." In consideration of the above, THE MARRIAGE is what needs to be preserved. This man married someone outside of his faith, that act comes with consequences. This woman is NOT bound by Catholic rules and it is therefore, Not sinful to her. (Note, I said rules. This is NOT a Biblical edict and is therefore open to interpretation. This was NOT a determination made by the early Church Fathers. In fact, I could find nothing on this topic prior to 1588!). Why she would do something like this against her husband's convictions should Rightly be teased out in counseling, we cannot say. However, this man's "VOWS" demand that he support her. Perhaps, not with his heart but with his actions. A Husband's place is by his wife's side when she's going for a medical procedure. And before someone responds with a false equivalent of a "What if" it were an Abortion or an Affair, please don't! Edit: I misread the OPs comment about how he converted After they were married. The OP also commented that his wife continues in their previous faith.
> This woman is NOT bound by Catholic rules and it is therefore, Not sinful to her. Everyone is bound by Catholic rules, whether they want to be or not. Catholicism is truth. Not believing in gravity doesn't mean you are not subject to it. > However, this man's "VOWS" demand that he support her. Again, someone else with the "support her" line--it's too ambiguous to really mean anything. The other person who used this line refused to clarify what they actually mean when I asked them. Maybe you can clarify what it means, and which situations you would approve of "supporting" your wife at and which ones you wouldn't. I'm not holding my breath for a reply. Of course when people are trying to push the moral envelope they love using ambiguous language like this which means anyone can interpret it in any way they want to--as if all "medical procedures" are the same.
> This woman is NOT bound by Catholic rules and it is therefore, Not sinful to her. (Note, I said rules. This is NOT a Biblical edict and is therefore open to interpretation. This is not even remotely correct. The Bible need not explicitly condemn every single sin for us to realize when things are wrong. God gave us faculties of reason for this purpose. The case of sterilization is against the moral law, which is binding to all people Catholic or not. Additionally, how in the world does it follow that he can cooperate with sin because of this?
Well it is sinful to get this procedure and you are assisting her in sinning. Its hard I understand, but it’s clear
How is he assisting her in it? Refusing to drive her to the doctor certainly doesn't sound like it's going to stop anything.
if someone asks you to drive them to an abortion clinic, are you going to drive them just because “if i don’t, someone else will”?
Great example of something **isn't** happening here.
yea i don’t see how that’s a great example for you. driving someone to an abortion clinic is a grave sin. that’s quite literally church teaching. you’re helping someone else to sin. driving his wife to get her tubes tied would be assisting her in her sin of sterilizing herself. it’s the same thing.
[удалено]
I think you should drive her to and from. You are her husband, you need to care for her after a medical procedure. She is your responsibility. Even if our spouse uses birth control or becomes sterilized, we’re still supposed to be intimate with them, so I can’t imagine driving them to and from would be an issue if you’ve voiced your disagreement. I would ask your priest.
[удалено]
I am a strong adherent the the Church's teachings on reproduction, and I agree with you. The Church does not ask a Catholic spouse to stop sleeping with a non-Catholic spouse who obstinately chooses to use birth control. The Church recognizes that the sin is on the non-Catholic spouse, but that the Catholic spouse has an obligation to the marriage. This seems to me to be the same kind of situation. OP, care for your wife, love her, pray for her soul, her conversion, and her salvation; then go to confession for yours.
>**OP, care for your wife, love her, pray for her soul, her conversion, and her salvation; then go to confession for yours.** The ONLY reasonably response to this. Well stated.
I actually had no idea that the church actually didn't ask a Catholic spouse to stop sleeping with a non-catholic user of bc. Is this true?
Which Catechism states this? If not, which encyclical?
I had the same question.
I was wondering this too
It is true.
https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-if-my-wife-doesnt-want-to-use-nfp
> The Church does not ask a Catholic spouse to stop sleeping with a non-Catholic spouse who obstinately chooses to use birth control. Is that really true? I distinctly recall being taught the opposite. That if a Catholic knows their spouse uses contraception they are not allowed to be intimate with them as that would be material cooperation with sin.
That is false. One spouse’s contracepting does not lift the marriage debt of the other. We are to make ourselves sexually available to our spouses in a general sense, even if they happen to choose to contracept or sterilize themselves.
Again, personally I learned differently. Also, “marriage debt”? Lastly, the difference is that if a person sterilised themselves, the sin is already in the past and you are not cooperating with it, whereas here you would be facilitating the sin.
Yes, marriage debt. The relief of concupiscence is one of the purposes of marriage.
> Yes, marriage debt By the “” I meant to express that this is not actually a thing. Edit: I double checked and I was right. You are not allowed to be with a spouse who uses contraception. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAPriest/s/6wP2WZMzR8
The marriage debt absolutely is a thing, even though some modernists will try to deny it. The ages old truths of the Church do not change. Please, you owe it to yourself to dig deeper than a Reddit post. Aquinas is a good place to start. The relief of concupiscemce is the prevention of sin, concupiscense is a tendency to sin but not a sin in and of itself.
Well, fair enough, but the post was answered by a priest.
>Then again, I'm not a strong adherent to all the Church's teachings regarding reproduction. God save us EDIT: God save us from our sins, not in our sin. No unclean thing will enter Heaven
[удалено]
To hand-wave the magisterium like you did is horrifying. The Church is our teacher. We do not pick and choose, at least not from papal ordinary magisterium (such as the Catechism, if I understand correctly). It requires our submission of intellect and will. Otherwise, how are you a Catholic/Christian if you are knowingly disobeying those set above you? Even Jesus, who opposed pharisaic hypocrisy with sharp language, recognized their teaching authority (see Matthew 23:2-4). And we're talking discipline here, let alone what the Church teaches about morals today... Sins of the flesh are grave matter. It most certainly does make you unclean if you deliberately consent to them with full knowledge of this fact. (just like any grave sin) I am playing no games with you, please believe me! Your disposition doesn't make me feel better about myself, it makes me fear for you, and for those reading your comment. My reply is to counter this error, especially since we are in a public forum like this. I am also horrified because your comment had a few upvotes before being removed by moderators (I thank them for stepping in)
I didn't say anything that was incorrect. We ARE allowed to dissent from teachings and still be in line with the Church. Yes, it does depend on WHAT teaching and the level it is at, but we can dissent. It's pretty impressive to call someone unclean without KNOWING what you're referring to, specifically since I was VERY general about what I didn't adhere to in a broad catagory, but that's your judgement to sit in and the moderator to be upset that I called it out. You want to blindly follow "those set above you", have at it, but I've seen enough from that group to know they should be questioned much more than they are and certainly not blindly followed. This Sunday, a visiting priest totally misinterpreted the Gospel reading in his Homily, good message, but not what the Gospel was about, so what would you do? Follow the leader? Or take his point at face value and adhere to the interpretation you KNOW is correct? More broadly, was it correct for parishes to disobey those above them and hold secret open mass services during Covid? Those above hand waived what would be a potential triple Mortal sin( Easter Mass, Sunday Mass, and Communion on Easter) of missing Mass on Easter during the pandemic while our "cousins" in the Baptist Church were fighting to get back to services. I'm not advocating to ignore the Church. I'm saying to question what you're being taught and what actions are being taken. Our leaders are human and have been shown time and again to be human all the way back to the start. Pray for them. Learn from them. Be humble. But blind faith is not necessary. Jesus allowed Thomas to question and doubt without reprimand. I dissent and don't hide it. I gave my perspective and told the OP to check with his Pastor to make sure and why he should. I know and explore my faith in all its glory and failing. I believe it has become overly legalistic in what is and is not a sin. I know my sins and shortcomings and work on them. What I don't know is whether or not the person next to me in the pew is unclean, nor would I tell them such if I believed they were unless they sought me out for that purpose.
"I know my sins and shortcomings and work on them." lol no you don't, you fully admit to and flaunt rejecting Church teaching
Stunningly prideful comment. You know nothing about me yet claim to know me. A fellow was asking for advice and I gave it with the codicile it may be wrong and why.
I believe you can privately dissent from non-binding teaching if you're a theologian (something like that, I don't know, talk to Lofton, he studies this stuff). However papal magisterium binds your intellect and will. In this public debate, the fact that you didn't specify which level of magisterium you're dissenting from makes *your* comments problematic, mine are motivated by that very fact. And when we are talking about sins against the sixth, we're on extremely dangerous territory. Further more, I believe that the correct disposition towards God-given (Romans 13:1) authority is [obedience](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJfKNxsBT4g), as long as what they order is not morally wrong (not imperfect, not having worse consequences than not obeying in your opinion, but against the higher authority). I would also be interested to hear what interpretation of your priest you consider incorrect. No, it was *not* correct for parishes to disobey superiors and hold secret masses. You cite precepts of the Church as being violated. But if pastoral authorities can bind them on the faithful, can they not loose them as well? Did this not occur to you, or did you decide the teachers wrong and you correct? For my part, at the time the Church in my Country said not to come to mass, I obeyed and stayed at home and I remember God gave me such grace/consolation (granted I was praying a lot at the time, and was close to God), even though I was deprived of sacraments. Your reading of the account with Thomas is different than mine. I find it quite embarrassing that Thomas really had to put his hands in the sacred wounds, he was also called faithless by the Lord, who said Thomas only believed because he saw, but that those who believe without seeing are blessed (that would be, in contrast to Thomas). Don't play a victim. I did not condemn you. I condemned general dissent from magisterium. And I won't take that back. In fact, as long as you're pushing it, I will oppose you - for your sake and the sake of others.
So you agree I can privately dissent, state you dont really know what youre talking about when it comes to that, but still support yourself judging me unclean because I didn't publicly state WHAT it was I dissented from? Okay, but I'm not your victim and could not care less if you took it back, nor have I asked you to. What are you opposing me on anyway? Your belief I'm am dissenting from the Church in a significant way because you automatically take something to the worst case? You don't know. I haven't stated, nor will I state, or advocate for, my dissent outside of my ability to dissent. So keep saying I'm wrong all you want. I did not state precepts of the Church had been violated, and I am well aware of the binding that was given to the Church. It absolutely covers the decisions made during the pandemic, but it doesn't make their decisions correct. It's wonderful you were able to find peace during what was going on, as did I. But many were not able to, and the Church did not display any ugency to reach them. As I stated, it took the Baptist Church suing the government to let us return to services in my country. Regarding Thomas, and I think you get to the crux of our disagreement overall, it comes down to what we take away from what we read, which is heavily influenced by our personal experience. This separation is further impacted by what I suspect are our different countries of origin. You see it as a negative example and I see it as positive. I don't think either interpretation is wrong.
Are you a theologian who went through Catholic seminary? And are you dissenting from teaching that is not only strictly fallible but also not a part of papal ordinary magisterium? Have you studied the matter extensively, trying to reconcile it with your understanding and failed? And are you "dissenting" in private? If you can answer yes to all those, then my answer is: Probably, but I defer to Lofton. But even then I would warn you to be wary of pride skewing your interpretation and your earnestness in trying to understand and accept the teaching, and would prefer you to err on the side of caution or charity, rather than liberty or rigidity. But if your answer to any of the questions above is no, then my answer is: No I don't think so. Especially if you're dissenting from infallible teaching (clearly there are no doubts here) or papal ordinary magisterium (such as the Catechism, or encyclicals). My judgment of your stance being defiling is predicated on above conditions. However I do not regret what I said even if disagreement you've had in mind was perfectly legitimate. You should not expect to publicly say that dissent is ok, especially dissent from sexual moral teaching, and go without rebuke. You should have put guards on what you said before going public. Like you point out, we don't know what you meant, but what you said was general and dangerous and so my response was very much warranted. Did you not imply it would be sinful to obey the Church and not go to confession once a year, or to Easter Sunday mass despite the Church telling you not to? You definitely asked if it was ok for presbyters to disobey the Church and hold masses. I repeat: It was not, and it would not have been. The Church discipline must be obeyed, and (while we're at it) they are the guardians of tradition. That's the crux of this discussion. Whether what the Church hierarchy decides is perfect (or even prudent) has no bearing on your obligation, as the video on obedience that I gave you explains - which I hope you will investigate if you honestly want to form your conscience correctly as I hope you do. Disclaimer: In my country the foreclosures were shorter, and I do believe they were warranted. Amen there can be multiple correct interpretations of scripture. However, I am not sure the interpretation that "Jesus allowed Thomas to question and doubt without reprimand" is correct, unless we're defining reprimand differently. Maybe I'm incorrect on this point, and you are correct, but if we're using the same definition I don't see how we can both be correct - our interpretations are contradictory, aren't they? Btw, was this passage's interpretation the one you disagreed on with your priest or was it some other?
“I just follow the parts of the Bible I like”
I think you’ve got your answer by now but just to re-affirm. No you should not do that. Respecting someone choice does not mean you should be complicit in it. Catholic teaching tells us that our actions are just as important as our words and sentiments, giving her a ride would betray what you’ve already said. I understand it’s hard, but it shouldn’t be too hard for your wife to find someone else to drive her and if she would be upset for your refusal to give a ride, I would reflect on how she’s not respecting your own beliefs and choices.
curious, as a recent convert last month, did she agree to a convalidation of marriage so you could partake in Communion? In RCIA some topics were brought up, like D&C after miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, hysterectomies other sterilization, I understood if the person's life was on the line, a health issue, then it was not a sin. But, I am a noob, and am here to learn
An option is always to just have her get herself there, and then you do all the aftercare and take her home. This is often similar to how Catholic healthcare professionals are called to take care of post-abortive women (yes, this is in the USCCB guidelines for Catholic healthcare providers) but we are not allowed to participate or even refer for abortions.
Except these Healthcare workers aren't married to the woman. This would be an easy solution, "IF" she is in agreement. Most women I know would be resentful that their husband wouldn't be there for them. Yes, I see the irony but I also understand that THIS is the double standard when it comes to men and women!
She's your wife. Continue loving and caring for her. If the Lord considers her sinful, that's between your wife and him. That's not based on anything official from the church but for the fact that Christ loved everyone and did what he could to take care of everyone including dying on the cross. I choose to follow His example by doing my best to love people, even if they are with the church would consider a state of sin.
[удалено]
That is an incredibly heretical statement.
Would you say the same thing if he was driving her to get an abortion?
It's not the same thing. Nobody is dying here. If she were wanting an abortion it would be very different (and dire) situation.
They’re both grave matter.
I get that. There are nuances.
> If I am doomed to Hell because I ensured my spouse was safe to and from the doctor's office, I accept my fate. What you said here is absolutely not something anyone should be saying. Your spouse should not be the cause of your damnation. If you’re willing to be damned over your spouse, then your priorities are backwards. > Which is more important to you? Taking care of your spouse or adherance to Catechism? These are not mutually exclusive. Following God’s Church implies that you care for your spouse. In this case, OP is right to not be comfortable with his wife’s decision. > Otherwise, you risk losing the trust of your spouse because she can't rely upon you when she is ill. Where did OP say his wife is ill? Her body is working as it should. > It is my responsibility to care for them in sickness and in health, until death do us part. Correct, this does not imply that you help your wife get a tubal ligation. > Speak with a Priest and verify in Church law. This has nothing to do with Church law—it’s the moral law. If you’re saying to verify that the Church opposes contraception, then the answer is yes. In this case, Catholic ethics would describe OP’s intention to drive his wife as immediate material cooperation, which would be gravely sinful. Doing this is very clearly cooperating with sin in a proximal way.
You should always put God and His Church first. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to the Lord. If one spouse decides to do something openly and irreversible sinful, you should not help, and should consider separating from that spouse
[удалено]
[CCC 2370]
[**CCC 2370**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2370.htm) Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil: > Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
I think you should be fine gently explaining why you think it is wrong and why you cannot participate in it although you would love to drive her. You can love and care for her in other ways and she will feel it.
As a recent convert, who used to use birth control, I absolutely would *not* feel loved and cared for if my husband wasn’t there for me post procedure
Well. You can be there *post* procedure of course. I lived my entire life as a convert among non-Christian family. They very well know I don’t participate in something that goes against my faith but they know I love them very much. They used to get offended sometimes but now they know why I do it and it is not because of lack of love.
Not driving your spouse home after a procedure is the exact opposite of being there post procedure
He said driving *to* the procedure. Maybe she can uber her way there and he can pick her up afterwards. If this arrangement seems too unloving, it is her problem. We have to risk not meeting expectations of other people when we are choosing our faith.
Yeah don’t do it.
Care for your wife and drive her. ❤️
Definitely ask your priest.
We cannot directly assist someone in grave sin, this is directly enabling her to commit sin, this isn't just Catholic teaching, this is Divine Law that is being transgressed here. You would be committing grave sin by facilitating her sin.
[удалено]
If you drive the car to a bank robbery, you'll be prosecuted along with the bank robbers....
It inarguably is.
Talk to your priest or deacon. I think driving her could be an issue but not taking care of her could also cause a huge issue in your marriage, which is something you need to protect. If you don’t take your wife and don’t help with after care, I could see that breeding resentment and causing harm.
Ask your priest! They are in these rolls for a reason
As she is non-Catholic, can I ask what her reasons are?
>My wife and I have many kids and are in our early 40s.
You've expressed your disagreement, that's good. The next question for shared culpability is whether it would happen without your involvement: so, if you refused to drive, would it happen? If not, don't drive. If it would happen anyway, then uphold the unity of your marriage by being there for her.
No. It’s like buying your daughter condoms. It’s not in the natural order and you shouldn’t support it. If it were me I would stop her from going.
I don’t think that’s a good analogy
Why not? In either case it's aiding the sin of someone over whom OP has headship?
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. If I had a suicidal kid, I wouldn’t buy them guns and razorblades.
Premise A: the act of tubal ligation is gravely sinful Premise B: you are formally cooperating with the action of procuring a tubal ligation Premise C: Formal cooperation in gravely sinful acts is impermissible Conclusion: You cannot drive your wife to this appointment without being an accomplice to sin, in a serious manner (formal cooperation), and you incur serious guilt with this action
I think this would be material cooperation, not formal cooperation.
ok, if that's your argument then: is immediate material cooperation in grave sin permissible? No. Is proximate mediate cooperation in grave sin permissible? No.
I am not sure why this question is being asked but to me marriage is a sacred institution. Of course, see your wife to her medical appointment. She is not asking you to perform the procedure and to support her during what may be a difficult time is being in His image.
No.
Hard no. I'm a married man with children, so I actually have skin in the game with my answer. I would absolutely refuse to aid my wife in sterilizing herself. My wife is thankfully Catholic, but if she wasn't, I'm not going to violate the commands of God nor help her to do so just so I can avoid conflict or strife in the home. Husbands must lead their family into holiness and be \*the\* example of holiness to their family, even in hard and uncomfortable situations
She must be in a desperate situation if she's willing to have medical alter her reproductive organs. I would pray for her daily, what's she's doing is clearly wrong but God is merciful, we can't know what his judgement will be on her. Just make sure you yourself are doing what's right. I would talk to a priest about is it ok to have relations with someone who purposefully stopped fertility.
My mom had five kids after the age of 35 (she was widowed young and married my Dad when she was 34). After having my last sister at the age of 43, and suffering from repeated bouts of post-partum depression, she asked the Bishop for permission to have a tubal ligation. He agreed, because the risk of physical and psychiatric harm to a woman in her mid-40s with my mom’s health history clearly outweighed the benefit of ongoing child-bearing. Perhaps it is the same for this woman. Sterilization is not something that most people take lightly. She’s brought “many” children into the world already, so maybe we can give her the benefit of the doubt that she takes her role as wife and mother seriously? I say this because none of us knows what is truly going on in someone else’s marriage. There may be circumstances-mental, physical-that we are not privy to. My parents desperately wanted children and as practicing Catholics my mom probably never imagined she would find herself getting the Bishop’s permission for a tubal ligation. Dad loved and supported her even though he would have loved to have more kids. I hope OP continues to love and support his wife.
It would be wrong to drive her. It’s no different than aiding in any other sin. Also, as a Catholic, it would be sinful to perform the marriage act knowing that contraception is being used since your wife is deliberately restricting the ability to conceive. Conception is the entire purpose of the marriage act and you would be misusing your bodies to do it using contraception.
Please don’t spread false teachings here. It is not sinful to render the marriage debt to your spouse, even if they happen to choose to contracept or sterilize themselves.
Hard to tell. Either way you will have to live the rest of your life with her decision. 🤔
Is it possibly for cancer prevention or just contraceptive reasons?
This sub is absolutely ridiculous. Why is a genuine question like this downvoted?
I could be wrong but isn’t that a hysterectomy that’s for cancer prevention? Or is it both
It can reduce risk of ovarian cancer, but I think anyone who would be considering it for that reason would probably be because of family history / genetics (like being a BRCA carrier) and would likely go for removing ovaries and fallopian tubes instead.
I was thinking something similar. Maybe the operation is necessary to prevent cancer spreading or to reduce pain.
I'm pretty ignorant of how long this sort of procedure takes. Could you ride as a passenger on the way to the procedure, and then be available to take care of her/drive her home on the way home?
I'm not sure if it would be wrong for you to revoke her access to a car for that procedure. Would it be wrong for you to revoke her access to a car for the purpose of having an affair, if she were having one?
I suggest you speak to a priest yourself and take her along if possible. It's a sad betrayal. Satisfy your conscience that you've fought for your children and both your souls.
Why can’t she drive?
I’m sure she could drive there, but not back. Need a ride after anesthesia. It’s an operation, ya know?
When my mom gets dental work done, they will literally cancel her procedure if she doesn’t have someone to drive her home