I wanted to add a problem I have, because for me there needs to be clarity in one point. In my opinion one cannot ask for intercourse as obligation in the name of love. In my reasoning, that can’t happen (though I know my reasoning is not the one blessed by the Holy Spirit, lol).
I saw in a movie (Karol the man who become Pope) that someone states that the nazis were going to pass away, because evil will destroy itself, but if love is not taught and shown correctly, evil will come back with another name. This is the importance of seeking what is true love and therefore what is true goodness, and learning about their source (us catholics know that the source is God). This is why I like clarity, because I believe this remark is very true.
Intercourse is not a duty or a right in the sense that you can “forcibly” ask for it in the name of love (as an obligation to give pleasure), because (in my understanding) it would cancel the essence of love (sacrifice, the cross) for pleasure. In the sense that we can’t sacrifice someone for pleasure because we sacrifice the pleasure for someone.
I believe (my opinion) we cannot use the word duty, comply, or even be obliged (in the sense of having a favor out of debt, in my case it is more permissible in the definition of giving a favor to a loved one), as for me you would be saying that one can be obligated to give pleasure (in the name of love), but if the essence of the union of intercourse has a procreative and a unitive essence, then why do people think they can “force” someone that doesn’t want to have intercourse (for pleasure), and say, that is love, how can that be love in your understanding, because I cannot say it is love in my mind?
Some can say they agree that a Josephite marriage is possible, but my problem is, when one uses that a spouse should be obliged (give a favor out of a debt) to have intercourse in case one spouse wants to have intercourse. Now it would be a better case if the spouse wants a child, that would change my reasoning a bit, but most of the times that people referred that one has to be obliged, is for pleasures sake. Then doesn’t that make the Josephite marriage an impractical thing, because if you are living your life in the world, one will have temptations of many kinds. A josephite marriage is not an easy thing, but it will never come to be if we do not try to persevere over temptations (an urge for example, as that will happen surely), and practice the faith, spirituality.
We know that Mary and Joseph had the ability to “consummate” their marriage, but stayed celibate. In my reasoning, because their spirituality was so high, that intercourse (its desire) was not a problem to detach from (as they were with God, the source of love and the source of why we want love). But don’t you think then, that the lack of spirituality in people closes that door to this kind of detachment (and to many more)? But then isn’t this lack of spirituality, or understanding that spirituality takes the same formula of self denial and the cross, preventing us from seeing faith as a reality (as living the faith is in fact spirituality), God in us, and changes it for the sum of all pleasures way, which is why we don’t understand detachment.
I saw this quote (I don’t know if it is in fact a real quote but it seems like it is):
“GOD has assigned as a duty to every man the dignity of every woman.” Saint Pope John Paul II
So in my reasoning, I as a man, cannot think that if I would “force” (as an obligation of marriage) my spouse to have intercourse, I would be doing a saintly thing (this is just my circumstance though, my way of thinking). And add to this the Ephesians scripture:
“25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her 26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5, 25
The body helps bring the desire so that we desire to be one, to a certain extent (the sex drive with its end procreation), though the “one-ness” of the result of the act (to become one flesh, and we should love our own flesh (Ephesians 5, 30)), does not rely on the physical “accident” but on the spiritual one (as the “one-ness” needs love, only love can unite), as that is what truly follows the natural order in man (to love God first, to love others like ourselves, and love like He does, as that are the commandments).
For example, I cannot fathom that a saint will ask for intercourse as an obligation.
Marriage is directed toward procreation because the union of a man and a woman needs to flourish, and how more disposed can this union be but by giving life. The uniting essence is fulfilled when the physical accidents join to create a new vessel for a new soul. But those “accidents” need to have the essence of the union, which resides in the interior part of the man and the woman, their soul and spirit. That essence is love.
