Aquinas Summa Demanding Marital Debt on Holy Days

  • Thread starter Thread starter LittleFlower378
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LittleFlower378

Guest
According to St. Thomas Summa, it seems like demanding the marital debt on holy days is a venial sin since one should have their mind set on prayer and on God. Now Im guessing Holy Days are Holy Days of Obligation such as all Sundays and the other Holy Days of Obligation. But my question here is does St.Thomas mean that it is a sin to ask for the debt, or it is a sin to demand the the debt. One can ask gently or playfully or one can ask for the debt in a more serious way(demand you can say).

Here is St.Thomas Aquinas Summa 3rd part Question 64

Article 7. Whether it is forbidden to demand the debt on holy days?

Objection 1. It would seem that a [person]ought not to be forbidden to ask for the debt on [holy] days. For the remedy should be applied when the disease gains strength. Now [concupiscence] may possibly gain strength on a feast day. Therefore the remedy should be applied then by asking for the debt.

Objection 2. Further, the only reason why the debt should not be demanded on [feast days] is because they are devoted to [prayer]). Yet on those days certain hours are appointed for [prayer]. Therefore one may ask for the debt at some other time.

On the contrary, Just as certain places are [holy] because they are devoted to [holy] things, so are certain times [holy] for the same reason. But it is not lawful to demand the debt in a [holy])place. Therefore neither is it lawful at a [holy] time.

I answer that, Although the marriage act is void of [sin], nevertheless since it oppresses the reason on account of the carnal pleasure, it renders [man] unfit for [spiritual] things. Therefore, on those days when one ought especially to give one’s time to [spiritual]) things, it is not lawful to ask for the debt.

Reply to Objection 1. At such a time other means may be employed for the repression of [concupiscence]; for instance, [prayer]) and many similar things, to which even those who observe perpetual [continence] have recourse.

Reply to Objection 2. Although one is not bound to [pray] at all hours, one is bound throughout the day to keep oneself fit for [prayer]
 
LittleFlower378 said:
But my question here is does St.Thomas mean that it is a sin to ask for the debt, or it is a sin to demand the the debt. One can ask gently or playfully or one can ask for the debt in a more serious way(demand you can say).
Click to expand...
When would it ever be acceptable to “demand” sex, Holy Day or not?
 
Please dont turn this thread into politcal correct non sense. Demand doesnt mean force or ask ignorantly or meanly.
 
Im trying to interpret what St.Thomas is thinking here. I already explained my self in the original post.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
But my question here is does St.Thomas mean that it is a sin to ask for the debt, or it is a sin to demand the the debt
Click to expand...
well he said in Reply to Objection 1 “it is not lawful to ask for the debt”

If its not lawful to ask for it, it can’t be lawful to demand it since asking must be a lower bar.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Im trying to interpret what St.Thomas is thinking here. I already explained my self in the original post.
Click to expand...
I just don’t understand the difference here, which is crucial to understanding your question. Can you give me a scenario in which it would be okay to ask for sex in a way that is not-gentle?
 
So ask and demand are basically the same thing here. Ok I was looking too much into this. I thought there was a difference but maybe not.
 
There were days of fasting from marital relations in the past, those laws are not binding today.
 
That is interesting, were the days of fasting from marital relations from the Magesterium?

Because St.Thomas uses the reason for fasting from marital relations is that Holy Days are days dedicated to prayer and openness to prayer and God, which would still be in effect today.
 
Last edited:
I strongly suspect there are varying translations between ask and demand from the original Latin. (Indeed, I think I have seen the translation of demand elsewhere). It does not matter, and Aquinas does a good job in explaining the marriage debt regardless of the exact word that is uses. The OP should be given a break on this.

I will note, the supplemental part of the Summa was not written by Aquinas, but is, to my knowledge, given just as much credence by the Church.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Because St.Thomas uses the reason for fasting from marital relations is that Holy Days are days dedicated to prayer and openness to prayer and God, which would still be in effect today.
Click to expand...
It’s also worth asking whether Thomas is suggesting that this is a hard and fast rule, on pain of sin, or if he’s merely suggesting it as a beneficial spiritual practice.
 
Im guessing St.Thomas thinks it a Venial Sin.

Article 8. Whether it is a mortal sin to ask for the debt at a holy time?

Objection 1. It would seem that it is a mortal [sin]to ask for the debt at a [holy]) time. For [Gregory] says (Dial. i) that the took possession of a [woman] who had intercourse with her husband at night and came in the morning to the procession. But this would not have happened had she not [sinned] mortally. Therefore, etc.

Objection 2. Further, whoever disobeys a Divine command commits a mortal [sin]). Now the Lord commanded ([Exodus 19:15]: “Come not near your wives,” when namely they were about to receive the Law. Much more therefore do husbands [sin] mortally if they have intercourse with their wives at a time when they should be intent on the sacred observances of the [New Law]).

On the contrary, No circumstance aggravates [infinitely]. But undue time is a circumstance. Therefore it does not aggravate a [sin] [infinitely, so as to make mortal what was otherwise venial.

I answer that, To ask for the debt on a feast day is not a circumstance drawing a [sin] into another [species]); wherefore it cannot aggravate [infinitely]. Consequently a wife or husband does not [sin] mortally by asking for the debt on a feast day. It is however a more grievous [sin] to ask for the sake of mere pleasure, than through fear of the weakness of the flesh.

Reply to Objection 1. This [woman] was punished not because she paid the debt, but because afterwards she rashly intruded into the divine service against her [conscience].

Reply to Objection 2. The authority quoted shows not that it is a mortal [sin] but that it is unbecoming. For under the [Old Law] which was given to a carnal people many things were required under an [obligation] of precept, for the sake of bodily cleanness, which are not required in the [New Law]which is the [law] of the spirit.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, but for any wisdom I might have, best to give glory to God, not me.

In this case I am not the expert on the history of fasting from marital relations in Latin rite. Anicette however has done research into it.
40.png
Marital lent question Moral Theology
In Church history, in latin rite, abstinence for lent included abstinence for marital intercourse during all the time of Lent. It was respected by the faithfull, so there is very few births 9 mouths later. Historians of the XVI- XVIIIe century can note that by examining baptismal records. Saint Louis, the king of France had a calendar of marital abstinence which include Lent, christains obligations holidays among others. I don’t know when this rules breaks. I am uncertain if they were always …
Click to expand...
 
Well, I am nornally a big fan of the Summa, but this would really spoil late night Christmas Eve for a lot of couples 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top