Marrying A Prochoice

[dairygirl4u2c]

1. can a good faithful catholic male marry a woman, who says ultimately whether she will have X baby of their's is ultimately her choice, referring to abortion as an option to her? in this hypothetical she has the general propensity to have kids as normal people would, she just reserves that option. she's otherwise a decent christian. (id say catholic, but i dont want to get hung up on whether she's 'really' catholic or not, so i just keep it like that, given catholics can marry other christians)

2. what if she wasn't like that at marriage, but then after marriage changed to being like that? must he stop having relations with her, and forego his general duty to her in that regard?

3. in both situations, would that catholic male be an accomplice to the evil, ie at least partially morally culpable, were she ultimately to have an abortion given he knew of that possibility.? would he be an accomplice even if she never had an abortion, given that possibility existed and intentions of the heart are what ultimately matter to God?
if culpable, what degree of culpability is it-- mortal sin, venial sin etc?

Edited September 17, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[MissyP89]

It seems generally unlikely that a couple entering a marriage wuld want to abort children, but I would hope this sort of issue would come up in discussions long before the marriage.

[CatherineM]

I wouldn't have dated a man who was pro-abortion. If I had fallen in love with someone before knowing that he was pro-choice, then I'd have made it clear that we would have to agree to disagree, but there would be no abortions during our marriage. It would be like marrying someone who was against priestly celibacy or for gay marriage. It would be something we would disagree about (and in marriages that happens frequently), but it wouldn't affect our marriage in a material way. Now marrying someone who wanted to practice birth control, totally different subject.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='17 September 2009 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1253206475' post='1968080']
1. can a good faithful catholic male marry a woman, who says ultimately whether she will have X baby of their's is ultimately her choice, referring to abortion as an option to her? in this hypothetical she has the general propensity to have kids as normal people would, she just reserves that option. she's otherwise a decent christian. (id say catholic, but i dont want to get hung up on whether she's 'really' catholic or not, so i just keep it like that, given catholics can marry other christians)[/quote]

That's not being open to life (there's no such thing as being partially open to life: you either are or you are not), so the marriage vows would be invalid.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='17 September 2009 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1253206475' post='1968080']
2. what if she wasn't like that at marriage, but then after marriage changed to being like that? must he stop having relations with her, and forego his general duty to her in that regard? [/quote]

Stickier situation... would leave that up to a good pastoral guidance.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='17 September 2009 - 01:54 PM' timestamp='1253206475' post='1968080']
3. in both situations, would that catholic male be an accomplice to the evil, ie at least partially morally culpable, were she ultimately to have an abortion given he knew of that possibility.? would he be an accomplice even if she never had an abortion, given that possibility existed and intentions of the heart are what ultimately matter to God?
if culpable, what degree of culpability is it-- mortal sin, venial sin etc?
[/quote]

No doubt that he is partially culpable. That's common sense. How much and whether it's mortal/venial sin depend on the specifics of the situation, having full knowledge, full consent, etc. We can't apply objective one-size-fits-all rules to subjective situations.

[rkwright]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' date='17 September 2009 - 01:47 PM' timestamp='1253213232' post='1968137']
No doubt that he is partially culpable. That's common sense. How much and whether it's mortal/venial sin depend on the specifics of the situation, having full knowledge, full consent, etc. We can't apply objective one-size-fits-all rules to subjective situations.
[/quote]

I have to disagree to his culpability. The man's intention is to have a child. I don't see how knowing that someone has a possibility to sin puts culpability on someone else's action. To me there needs to be a tighter nexus for me to say he's culpable. Simply the "circumstances" of sin without more, to me, shouldn't transfer the culpability. Would we say God is culpable for Adam's sin because God knew that putting the tree in front of Adam, Adam might sin? No of course not.

An example - A friend says that they're so mad at Joe they're going to kill him. You hand them a gun. Friend kills Joe. Obviously your intention and action can be closely linked to action itself.

Contrary, you marry a woman who says that she wants kids, but still reserves the option to be pro-choice. You have sex with the intention of having kids. She has the abortion. To me the fault is completely on her. Your actions had little to do with the choice to have the abortion; it only presented the circumstances. Actually, if you refrain from having sex you are yourself not open to life, correct?

Now I do agree with your earlier comment. The marriage was not completely open to life from the beginning, so there are certainly grounds for annulment.

Edited September 17, 2009 by rkwright

[tinytherese]

I'd be concerned that the wife might find out that she has an unwanted pregnancy without telling the husband and then has an abortion behind his back. Also, when and if they really do have kids it would be an issue because one parent would be trying to raise them pro-life and the other pro-choice which would be a conflict both in the marriage and be hard on the kids. Also, if say their daughter got pregnant or son got a girl pregnant in say high school then the one pro-choice parent would probably push them to have an abortion.

[CatherineM]

That's a good point that we often overlook when dating. A couple may agree to disagree on an issue, but then when there are kids involved, all that changes.

[Nihil Obstat]

I guess in theory it could be fine if you agreed at marriage that the Catholic way goes no matter what... but I also suppose that for the sake of this question this isn't an option.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='rkwright' date='17 September 2009 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1253214539' post='1968149']
Contrary, you marry a woman who says that she wants kids, but still reserves the option to be pro-choice. You have sex with the intention of having kids. She has the abortion. To me the fault is completely on her. Your actions had little to do with the choice to have the abortion; it only presented the circumstances. Actually, if you refrain from having sex you are yourself not open to life, correct?
[/quote]

Based on the way the question is worded, it's a marriage in which the wife is not fulfilling her vows to be open to life and the husband knows this, so by renewing their marriage convenant through their sexual relationship, he is expecting her to lie with her body. They are one flesh, after all, so if he has any knowledge at all that she considers abortion an option, then he remains at least partially culpable. As a husband, his path to holiness is getting his wife to heaven, and in this situation the best course of action for both of them would be sexual abstinence. It is better to abstain in faithfulness to God than for a couple to say with their bodies what they reject with their lips. Of course, most wives confronted with the rare husband who would actually be faithful to God than get his rocks off will probably stray and eventually divorce, and if that happens, [i]then[/i] her sin is on herself because she's seen her husband's courageous witness to the Gospel and rejected the opportunity to follow him.

Let's remind ourselves of Joshua's command to Israel: "If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve." What you claim sounds more like the words of Adam, who pinned the blame of Eve's sin on Eve alone, as if he had no part in spite of their marriage.

This is why Christ is a man: the husband's role is to die in order to save his wife. Abstaining from sex, even within marriage, is not so much to ask. Our baptismal obligation to holiness is greater than the married privilege to enjoy sexual intimacy. Truth is, they are not "within marriage" if both are not fully consenting to their marriage vows.

Edited September 18, 2009 by LouisvilleFan

[Sojourner]

[quote name='rkwright' date='17 September 2009 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1253214539' post='1968149']
Actually, if you refrain from having sex you are yourself not open to life, correct?
[/quote]
Tell that to all the couples who practice NFP.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Terra Firma' date='18 September 2009 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1253283243' post='1968563']
Tell that to all the couples who practice NFP.


[/quote]

I meant to say that if one enters into marriage, planning on abstaining the entire time because of a fear that there is a possibility for aborition, then they are not open to life.

NFPers are open to life "just not right now" - without getting too much into the NFP debate.

Terra I'd like to hear your take on the transferred culpability debate?

Louisville, I'll have to respond later at home... sadly my firm won't let me bill for phatmass time

[Aloysius]

a woman could marry a man who was pro-choice, "agreeing to disagree" as it were, because the woman will simply refuse to ever allow her child to be killed.

a man may not marry a woman who is pro-choice (personally). as the laws stand, the man has no say to protect his child if she decides to kill it, therefore it would be immoral to consummate the relationship because it would put innocent life at risk of being murdered.

now, I put "personally" in parenthesis because there does exist the type of inconsistent person who believes in the abstract that women should have the legal right to abortion (and is thus "pro-choice") but says that she personally would never even consider it for herself ever. such a woman may be married, if one can really trust her when she says she would never consider it for herself.

possibly, if after the man and woman were married the woman then decided to become pro-choice, it may be incumbent upon the man to cease all marital relations. that's a tough question, like when one of the partners in a marriage is HIV positive, but the answer is chastity.

[Slappo]

Simply put, if the fiancee/girlfriend had this mindset before marriage, they cannot be married, and if they were married, it could easily be annulled. One of the questions directly asked by the priest for marriage prep and signing up to be wed is "do you agree to non-contraceptive intercourse with *name*." Chances are if she would want an abortion she'd want contraception as well. Even if she didn't it breaks the necessity of openness to life within marriage.



If she were to decide this after marriage that she would get an abortion, it is still within her marriage right to practice the conjugal act, and it would be immoral for the man to refuse her right (by marriage) to conjugal relations. It would not be bad for the man to try and get the woman to practice NFP while continuing to pray for her conversion from an abortion stance and talk with her about it/receive marriage counseling from a strong Catholic. Unless she agrees to abstaining with him, then it is still within her marriage right to participate in the conjugal act (NFP is mutual abstinence, this would be abstinence forced by one party).

[Slappo]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='18 September 2009 - 09:10 AM' timestamp='1253290242' post='1968612']
possibly, if after the man and woman were married the woman then decided to become pro-choice, it may be incumbent upon the man to cease all marital relations. that's a tough question, like when one of the partners in a marriage is HIV positive, but the answer is chastity.
[/quote]

If the marriage is valid though, both spouses have a right to conjugal relations that cannot be refused by one party alone. It would have to be a mutual decision on both their parts to abstain (except maybe in the HIV case, not sure about that).

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Slappo' date='18 September 2009 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1253290759' post='1968616']
Simply put, if the fiancee/girlfriend had this mindset before marriage, they cannot be married, and if they were married, it could easily be annulled. One of the questions directly asked by the priest for marriage prep and signing up to be wed is "do you agree to non-contraceptive intercourse with *name*." Chances are if she would want an abortion she'd want contraception as well. Even if she didn't it breaks the necessity of openness to life within marriage.



If she were to decide this after marriage that she would get an abortion, it is still within her marriage right to practice the conjugal act, and it would be immoral for the man to refuse her right (by marriage) to conjugal relations. It would not be bad for the man to try and get the woman to practice NFP while continuing to pray for her conversion from an abortion stance and talk with her about it/receive marriage counseling from a strong Catholic. Unless she agrees to abstaining with him, then it is still within her marriage right to participate in the conjugal act (NFP is mutual abstinence, this would be abstinence forced by one party).
[/quote]

why do you say that it'd be permissible if it occurred after the marriage?
it looks like you just stated that it'd be permissible, without saying why, really. not that you didnt state or dont have reasons etc, im just wanting more illumination.

[Didacus]

A woman being pro-choice would definately be a deal-breaker for me.
ALthough I don't know if it would be wrong or not. I would definately have questions for a priest that mariies anyone who is openly pro-choice.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='18 September 2009 - 11:32 AM' timestamp='1253291540' post='1968631']
why do you say that it'd be permissible if it occurred after the marriage?
it looks like you just stated that it'd be permissible, without saying why, really. not that you didnt state or dont have reasons etc, im just wanting more illumination.
[/quote]
When it comes to whether a marriage is valid, we look at the minds and intentions of the parties on the day they married. It either "takes" or doesn't. Many things can happen later that will not change the validity of the marriage on the day they exchanged vows. A person could later become abusive, or an alcoholic, or addict, or change their views on contraception. As long as they were pro-life on the day of their marriage, it can't be annulled later if they change their minds and become pro-choice. If they are pro-choice the day of the wedding, then it can be annulled later because they were not in the proper mindset to make a valid marriage.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='18 September 2009 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1253292365' post='1968640']
When it comes to whether a marriage is valid, we look at the minds and intentions of the parties on the day they married. It either "takes" or doesn't. Many things can happen later that will not change the validity of the marriage on the day they exchanged vows. A person could later become abusive, or an alcoholic, or addict, or change their views on contraception. As long as they were pro-life on the day of their marriage, it can't be annulled later if they change their minds and become pro-choice. If they are pro-choice the day of the wedding, then it can be annulled later because they were not in the proper mindset to make a valid marriage.
[/quote]

im actually asking why it'd be okay to have relations with that woman, even if the marriage is valid, if she became what i described in the first post. im not asking in terms of such that why it's okay in terms of one marriage valid and the other not etc.
you might be trying to answer the question as in "the marriage is valid, therefore he must do his duty despite her changed views". but even that doesn't appear to me to answer the question of why it'd be permissible, why no 'accomplice' liability isn't imposed given he could just abstain as Loius and others seem to suggest is the proper action. what are the deeper ethical and moral reasons etc.
i suppose it's not totally far fetched 'that's just the way it is- a valid marriage requries duty to be fulfilled no matter the situation pretty much'- it just seems weak to me.

Edited September 18, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

one has an ordinary right to relations with one's spouse, HOWEVER, for grave reasons separations sometimes happen... so long as neither party re-marries then they are not in sin. a woman becoming pro-choice personally would be as much a reason for a separation as a man being abusive to his wife. yes, unilaterally ending conjugal relations is morally permissible, perhaps morally required, if a woman is a potential threat to her future offspring. that's called a separation, and as unpleasant as it is, things like murderous wives sometimes require it.

the purpose of the marital obligation is to say that neither spouse may morally use sex as a bargaining chip in an argument or any such thing.. as often happens in modern marriages with wives withholding sex out of anger and other such nonsensical things. each spouse has a right to conjugal relations and they cannot morally be withheld for arguments and such, but grave and serious reasons can cause separations... and no one should ever have sex with someone who may be a murderous danger to any offspring that sexual intercourse might produce.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i know it's not a catholic response but.
when i view the issues of abortion early on, it's a matter of deferring the uncertainty of human personhood to life. in cases of other things, like stem cells or maybe rape etc, there's counterweighing formbidable concerns, given it's all a matter of practical weighing.
i suppose if i use those are premises, one could argue, that if the change occurred after marriage, then the balancing principle could be the conjugal duty, and the notion that the husband didnt intend the act, and the wife isn't prone to abortion, just keeps intercourse etc at least as arguable.
but even with my premises, this argument is still iffy, as most are, that regard balancing something as sacred as human life.

if you dont take the uncertainty thing, though, even more still, then. i dont see how it'd be permissible to say they are required to engage, at least in the after marriage scenario.

Edited September 18, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c