F
freerf
Guest
Yeah, I agree with this. Your husband is a lucky man. . .at any age. Good way to die, if you ask me.
- Status
F
freerf
Guest
Based on every conversation I’ve had on this topic with men, I think this is a rarity.
T
twoangels
Guest
I think its an issue of trust. The passage in Ephesians where St. Paul calls men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and for women to submit to their husbands as to Christ, begins with “submit to one another.” I think thus we’re both called to submit to one another, but in different ways. Men are called to submit with a self sacrificing love. Only if they do this are they worthy of their authortative role. Women are called to submit as to Christ and the submission to Christ is one of trust. Even with a perfect God, its hard to trust Him enough to completely submit. That’s why we continue to sin. How much harder is it to submit to someone you know is a sinner?
The thing is that in my cultures very bad men have abused this passage to cause women great harm. We, women, are very familiar with stories from battered women and how men will demand total submission in a demeaning and unloving way. Heck, even if you don’t hear about it from friends, just turn on Lifetime Television. How many made for TV movies are about battered women?
For a woman to just hear the word “submit” - it sounds to us like having obeying unreasonable demands. To hear “You can’t refuse your husband sexually” sounds a lot like rape. Whether you’re threatening my life with a knife or threatening me with visions of “You’ll go to Hell” that’s still coersion to have her submit her body to sexual violation. And I’m sorry but to compare it to a man going to work is basically like saying her job is to have sex with her husband. It would make her feel very much like a whore and not like a wife.
I’m not saying that a woman can’t refuse sex in a sinful manner. I am saying that the words being used about it give false impressions about what the Church teaches. To submit as to the Lord is not the same as submitting to a rapest or someone violent. That submission, as I said before, is a submission of total trust in faith in Christ. The problem is that if you haven’t learned that submission to God is simply an act of loving trust and is not at all about an angry Heavenly dictator, than submission itself just looks terrible. The fact that the Church calls us to submit and that women are given no authority ends up looking more and more like that stereotypical angry, abusive husband whose desires and will will crush the woman’s dignity and personhood into the ground.
As such, the focus needs to be first on trust God and the wife trusting her husband and that trust being expressed by allowing him to make decisions outside of her control. I think women grasp for control when we’re frightened. Perhaps its our motherly instinct - like a mother cat lashing out at any possible threats to herself or her newly born young. I don’t think that instinct is necessarily sinful and I think men need to understand that her urge to say no may have absolutely nothing to do with some fickle selfish reason.
Again, if a man and woman are having arguments about this and the man is just complaining about how difficult her lack of submission is making things for him, than I think he’s really failing to dig deeper to see what’s lying underneith in her heart. The battle between the sexes will continue on as both husband and wife misunderstand each other’s actions and statements.
V
violet81
Guest
Sometimes what is lying underneath the womans heart is just plain old entitlement, selfishness, and a lack of respect for the duties of the marriage vocation. That doesn’t mean that the man saying “Put out or else” is going to CURE it (hardly), but the fact that the “marriage debt” is even mentioned at all in our faith means that it is a very serious issue and husbands (or wives) have a right to expect reasonable needs to be met. The best approach isn’t to “demand”…but rather to seek the help of a priest who can address the issue in a loving and firm way.
This is why it is very important to be wise in ones choice of husband. It probably shouldn’t be a decision you make alone but with (name removed by moderator)ut from others who can better recognize problems.
The Church stopped talking about the marriage debt around the time Humanae Vitae came out- unfortunately the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and women (even some in this thread) are getting married with zero understanding or acknowledgment of their duties.
The language really needs to be harsh because men and women must enter marriage with full acknowledgement of what they are getting themselves into.
An abusive husband and a wife refusing to be intimate without just reason are both serious issues and possibly grounds for an annulment. A man who abuses his wife may have had no intention on loving his wife when he got married. At the same token a wife that says “I will not be intimate” without just reason is also saying she wasn’t willing to practice the sacrificial love marriage requires.
As for authority and headship- that exists regardless of trust. The wife is in no position to demote him just because she doesn’t trust her husband. If she won’t submit because he is abusive then he may have entered the marriage invalidly. If she won’t submit because of her own hang-ups and not much to do with him, then she may have entered invalidly.
All of these marriage rules exist for a reason- so that when entering into marriage you know exactly what the sacrifices entail. No- a man shouldn’t be abusive and abuse is grounds for considering an annulment. Same token- a wifes unwillingness to submit or prioritize the marriage debt also is grounds. So husbands shouldn’t get married to a woman unless they are sure they can get their needs met from their wife and have no inclinations to be abusive. Wives shouldn’t marry unless they are confident the man is not abusive and believe themselves to be able to prioritize intimacy.
T
twoangels
Guest
Violet, I’m sorry but here you are being very judgmental of what is going on in “most” women’s hearts. We can only know what is going on in our own hearts. So if you felt that to submit to your husband you merely had to get over a sense of entitlement, selfishness and learn to respect the duties of the marriage vocation, you simply cannot assume that is the case with other women.
The reason I think its about a lack of trust isn’t just because I see that as the area I need to work on in myself in our marriage, but I could also hear the lack of trust in the women’s voices during my marriage prep when I even mentioned that I was praying about and trying to understand St. Paul calling wives to be submissive to their husbands. I knew he wasn’t being demeaning to women. The problem had only two images in my head: either the woman is squashed under the authority of her husband like a bug, or they are co-equals. I had no examples of a positive relationship between a man and a wife where the woman’s dignity was upheld and the man was still the head of the house.
What I got from women who found out I was considering this passage was constant statments not about my husband (who is great) but about the male sex in general. Its a total lack of confidence in them.
I’ve also read a lot of radical feminist literature. My husband has also taken classes with a radical feminist professor. Both of us agree: the heart of radical feminism is not the belief that women are equal than men, but that women are superior to men - because men are violent, power-hungry, a bit stupid, etc. Oh they won’t actually admit it to themselves, but overall they think women need to lead because men have made a mess of the world.
I really think that orthodox Catholicism has the only truly balanced view of men and women, acknowledge our differences, our true equality in value and contribution, etc. But I think that its very reactionary to simply go in the exact opposite direction of the culture, as if the image they give you of what they’re protesting (which is really a strawman argument anyway) is what we should actually be pursuing. And we need to understand just how much our culture and the way we grow up changes the connotation of words and thus gives us false impressions over what the Church used to say versus what its saying now.
As such, I think the Church is right in not using the term “marriage debt”, but rather the term “conjugal rights.” I don’t think anyone is arguing that spouses don’t have a right to expect that they will be having sex with their spouse, and certainly you can unreasonably deny the conjugal rights. But I think its a gross distortion to even assume that “marriage debt” is intended to mean that couples are required to have sex as frequently as possible.
T
twoangels
Guest
Trusting the individual is completely different than simply having a lack of trust in the opposite sex. Sometimes to a woman the only safe man seems to be the man who allows her to be in control. And again in my experience, most older women who were available for me to seek advise from saw it that way as well. No one was specifically concerned with him. They were concerned that I was even considering the concept of submission, because in their minds that just doesn’t work with even the best of the opposite sex.
Unforunately, I don’t think with the way the language has evolved, that the term “marriage debt” has the correct connotation anymore. So many people think languages are so easy to comprehend. They’re not. That’s why its great that the Church keeps official documents in a dead language. The meaning of the words don’t change as they do in a living language. Connotations don’t change, denotations don’t change. The average reader has no concept of how fluid the meaning of words are. That’s also why generations are constantly re-translating biblical texts and why its important to still have the texts available within the dead languages and with scholars to translate it.
Abuse is a grounds for divorce. An annulllment doesn’t occur on “grounds.” An annullment is simply recognition that matrimonial consent was never given. The consent to conjugal rights of marriage does not make marital rape impossible nor does it mean that either partner has to say yes every time. They should overall strive to love each other as sacrificially as possible, but being sinners with imperfect hearts and still being effected by the grace of God, as they grow spiritually and their love becomes deeper in marriage, they learn together to sacrifice more and more lovingly overtime. My Dad always tells me he loves my mom so much more now than he did when they got married, that its hard to even call that little seed they had in the beginning love anymore.
The fact that a woman may say no from time to time is no different from the fact that a man may get angry and say hurtful things from time to time. Abuse is where it is consistant. The man is not making an effort to treat his wife with dignity, he is demanding too much of her, belittling her with his words and his expression of anger graduates from insults, to yelling, to shoving and to hitting. All and all, he goes in the opposite direction becoming more selfish over time rather than more loving.
The same is true for a woman. Its not the end of the world and not grounds for an annullment if she says no, nor would I say its necessarily even a grave offense. However, if its been several months since she’s had sexual contact with him, or if they only ever have sex when she wants it, than yes she’s not living up to her marital duties.
Overall the duty is to love each other. Having sex is a part of that marital love. But to say a woman has a religious duty to have sex with her husband whenever he asks it doesn’t sound at all like a duty to love, but rather a duty to be used. It focuses solely on what is taking place physically and not on the entirity of the person. And it takes a lot greater effort to submit wholely as a person than to simply submit alone with your body. Not that submitting bodily is the easiest thing in the world either.
V
violet81
Guest
twoangels-
I don’t see where I used the word “most”… I said “sometimes”.
How is it “very judgmental” to use the word “sometimes”?
The problems in the world betray the fact that some women have a poor attitude. If it was just men, the problems in the world would be halved.
I don’t see where I used the word “most”… I said “sometimes”.
How is it “very judgmental” to use the word “sometimes”?
The problems in the world betray the fact that some women have a poor attitude. If it was just men, the problems in the world would be halved.
V
violet81
Guest
What I mean to say is that abuse may be a sign that there is no valid marriage.
A consistent unwillingness to perform the marital act may also be a sign of an invalid marriage.
If a man is prohibited to marry because of impotence, how is a mental/emotional block against sex any different? Both have a similar result.
A consistent unwillingness to perform the marital act may also be a sign of an invalid marriage.
If a man is prohibited to marry because of impotence, how is a mental/emotional block against sex any different? Both have a similar result.
Completely disagree- The duty is to prioritize the marital act…that is not the same as being “used”…because the marital act isn’t just for the benefit of the husband. It is for the benefit of the couple. Sex is a display of unity, an act of vulnerability, and an emotional/physical renewal of vows. Just like we cross our selves with holy water when we enter a Church to renew our baptismal vows…we ought to highly prioritize the renewal of our marriage vows.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
This is very disturbing. Women expect men to continue to perform their duties, while these “liberated” biddies contrive reasons to distrust men and withhold. Then they spread their poison to younger women. The mistrust of men is rampant. The belief that women are superior to men is alive and well in the Church just as much as among feminists. In fact many religious women are worse because they use religion as a justification for their holier-than-thou attitude.
An entitlement to money carries over into divorce. He must continue to pay without question. Women file for twice as many divorces as do men.
Therefore men should be able to decide when they feel like doing their “duty” too. And without ANY consequences.
Do you have any idea how cruel and nasty women can be with words. Equating a man getting angry to a woman saying no, is a false analogy. So if a woman is cruel and nasty can a man withdraw his financial support?
Therefore it is also not a grave offense if the husband chooses to keep more of the money he earns for himself. Women often have the idea that what is his is ours, what is mine is mine. Women have demeaned themselves (with their entitlement and superiority attitude)and are now a liability, not an asset. The only rational reason for a man to get married is to have children, because getting sex is not that difficult outside of marriage. You can argue all you want that this is not how it SHOULD be, but it is modern reality. Is she a helper or a hindrance?
And it is many times worse for a wife to expect that she will be financially supported regardless of her behavior, without even needing to ask whenever she wants money. I guess some duties are duties and some duties are optional.
There is a double standard going on and men are realizing it. It is time for you ladies to shape up and apply expectations equally and give up the princess mentality. Or not and end up unhappy controlling women still married, or unhappy divorced women. It seems that women have no qualms in using men and often don’t even realize what they are doing.
Most women will choose to dismiss my remarks without any consideration. It is just easier to ignore than do a self assessment, because that would lead to feeling bad and guilt. Better to rationalize that it is all the fault of men so women can continue to decide when to say yes, and also nag if he doesn’t perform up to his expectations.
As to the egalitarian model, if every decision is always by consensus, and a wife should never agree to anything she does not like, and a man should be flexible and consider his wife’s feelings to not make mountains out of molehills, and sacrifice his wants for her desires, THEN who is really the “Head of the Household.” Of course he must still bear all the responsibility.
I also have heard women say that he must earn her trust and then she will ALLOW him to make the decisions (most women will retain veto power). Again who is REALLY the leader in this circumstance? Women think this arrangement will make them happy, but it always results in unhappiness.
V
violet81
Guest
CSPB-
I really appreciate your hard-hitting no-nonsense perspective because it is this kind of willingness to defy the typical political correctness that will make us THINK.
I don’t have to agree or even like every word you say and how you say it to appreciate the sincerity or acknowledge the logic.
I can totally appreciate a real dislike for the idea of being “demanded” to “perform” the marriage act. If that happened I would take it as a sign that there are some serious kinks in the relationship. I’d probably do it, and then follow it by talking about my feelings for 2hrs. He would reconsider his approach in the future after putting up with that much emotional talking.
But if the “need” for a demand exists it means 1 of 2 things…the wife is not accommodating enough, or the man’s needs border on excessive or poorly timed. In the case of the poorly timed a “yes…but can it wait a few hours” should suffice… If it doesn’t, then that may indicate excessive need.
To use CSPB’s analogy- if the woman expects the man to work 3 jobs to support her fashion budget that might be excessive. A mans responsibility is to support the family, not kill himself to make sure she has every luxury.
I really appreciate your hard-hitting no-nonsense perspective because it is this kind of willingness to defy the typical political correctness that will make us THINK.
I don’t have to agree or even like every word you say and how you say it to appreciate the sincerity or acknowledge the logic.
I can totally appreciate a real dislike for the idea of being “demanded” to “perform” the marriage act. If that happened I would take it as a sign that there are some serious kinks in the relationship. I’d probably do it, and then follow it by talking about my feelings for 2hrs. He would reconsider his approach in the future after putting up with that much emotional talking.
But if the “need” for a demand exists it means 1 of 2 things…the wife is not accommodating enough, or the man’s needs border on excessive or poorly timed. In the case of the poorly timed a “yes…but can it wait a few hours” should suffice… If it doesn’t, then that may indicate excessive need.
To use CSPB’s analogy- if the woman expects the man to work 3 jobs to support her fashion budget that might be excessive. A mans responsibility is to support the family, not kill himself to make sure she has every luxury.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
I don’t have to be nice to be a good man.
Few people are comfortable taking extreme views. Moderate views are easier and there is more company there. When I propose something extreme, I do it on purpose, that way people can move their opinion a little bit and still not be as extreme as others. My views broaden the spectrum. There are a lot of things broken in our world and a return to more traditional living may be appropriate, and in fact people may be happier too. Children would benefit.
I like to point out things that most people don’t think about, but it is up to them to decide how to live.
Certain things are linked:
Risk.& Reward
Authority & Responsibility
Sacrifice does not work well with entitlement.
Giving does not work well with taking or expecting.
Equal does not mean same.
Duties may equivalent, but not always equal.
Compromise is not the same as accommodation.
Few people are comfortable taking extreme views. Moderate views are easier and there is more company there. When I propose something extreme, I do it on purpose, that way people can move their opinion a little bit and still not be as extreme as others. My views broaden the spectrum. There are a lot of things broken in our world and a return to more traditional living may be appropriate, and in fact people may be happier too. Children would benefit.
I like to point out things that most people don’t think about, but it is up to them to decide how to live.
Certain things are linked:
Risk.& Reward
Authority & Responsibility
Sacrifice does not work well with entitlement.
Giving does not work well with taking or expecting.
Equal does not mean same.
Duties may equivalent, but not always equal.
Compromise is not the same as accommodation.
C
cviolette
Guest
C S B P - I agree with some of what you are saying. I remember when the kids were younger going to preschool meetings with a bunch of moms. One mom saying she hated sex and her husbands could have sex once a year. On their anniversary or birthday. Another mom agreeing. Which made me wonder why she HAD to get married. I train with a woman that has no children and stays at home. She no longer has sex with her husband but doesn’t work and spends his money. I don’t get why he stays with her. But like there are good and bad husband. It is the same with wives. There are plenty of good women in the world.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
There is way more to life than sex, just as there is way more to weather than atmospheric pressure. But sex is an indicator of the overall quality of a marriage and a barometer is an indicator of the weather condition. Sometimes hurricanes exist in both! LOL
J
jilly4ski
Guest
I think I disagree with the implied premise that not having sex every night is somehow depriving ones spouse of their marital rights. but if a couple finds that edifying to their marriage then by all means.
In my marriage, we each initiate only after we have considered the others physical, emotional state and even after initiating, if we find out that the other is not up to snuff, we back off with no hard feelings. (This only happens if we haven’t communicated well during the day). I think I have only refused twice. Both times I was pregnant and once was sick and the other had developed a migraine and didn’t inform my husband before he came to bed. Obviously, once my husband found out I was sick he stopped initiating and there was no fear of rejection.
I think what is missing from the discussion is that requests for the “marital debt” must be reasonable. Thus any refusal must be for legitimate reasons like illness. Say a woman just gave birth and has not been cleared for sex by the doctor. Clearly it would be unreasonable for her husband to ask for the marital debt, and it would not be sinful for her to refuse. However, if she was arbitrarily refusing or trying to punish her husband, or “just didn’t feel like it” then it would be sinful. But illness, care of children, propriety may all be legitimate reasons for both spouses to refuse.
Oh and at one point in my, still rather new, marriage I was asking more than my husband and he commented as such.
CSP, you sound very angry, I can hardly make it through your posts, the anger against women is so strong. You are accusing women of mistrusting and hating all men and then you go and do the same to women.
twoangels was actually commenting that she and many devote Catholic girls seek to live out the submission in our vocations, but that radical feminism that permeates in those who are middle aged (generalization) leaves us younger women with few role models and little discussion on what submission actually means. What’s your point about divorce, there are women here who had to file for divorce because their husband were fine with having their wife at home and their mistress on the side, and didn’t see the need for divorce.
And no one is saying that spouses can just refuse with no consequences. The request must be reasonable, and if it is not, then refusal is not sinful, but a refusal can be sinful. Just like a man staying home from work because he is sick, or there was a death in the family, birth of a child, etc. so can a spouse refuse the marital debt for similar reasons.
T
twoangels
Guest
Both men and women are prohibited from marrying if they have permament untreatable impotence. If either the man or the woman is suffering from temporary or treatable impotence, they are not barred from marriage provided they are willing to take the steps to overcome the problem. Moreover, I don’t believe that the conjugal rights consented to in marriage have any statement about how frequently sex occurs or whether the spouse is forbidden to say “no” occassionally.
You know, I’d have no problem with it if having sex were as simple as crossing myself with holy water. However, in my experience so far sex is more like climbing a mountain with your husband. If you’ve got the energy and the resources to do it, than it can be something you enjoy with a beautiful view you can both enjoy once you get at the top or close to the top since the top. But if you’re exhausted, tired and simply do not have the resources, well you can go through the motions of climbing that mountain with your husband for the sake of appeasing him, but in the end, you’re not going to be able to even get close to the top, its going to be uncomfortable, unenjoyable and more of the thing you grit your teeth to get through. And in the end since you’re not enjoying it in the least, he can’t enjoy it very well either.
There certainly is no quota about how frequently a couple has sex. How frequently they have sex is completely up to the couple. Telling a couple that they’re sinning and wrong because they use NFP or because they don’t try to have sex everyday I think is just wrong and a bit overscruplous. Its like shunning someone because they don’t go to daily Mass.
D
David2010
Guest
You should have sex whenever it is mutually agreeable. Your schedules, feelings, energy levels, etc. are going to change over time any how. You might as well enjoy it while it is good. Even if the church specified the regularity with which couples are supposed to make love, I suspect most people would ignore such a rule.
I don’t think my wife and I had daily sex even before we had children. And now, with children, they don’t determine our routine. Mostly, it is physical tiredness that sets our routine. I have a physically-demanding job and usually fall asleep before my wife. And she works two jobs. So we often just cuddle, and then the next thing we know, the morning alarm clock is going off. (And, NO, nothing is wrong. Everything works fine. I don’t need any little blue pills).
When it comes to BOTH being ready at the same time, that can be a tricky issue to resolve. Sometimes I initiate it and she is not in the mood, or vice versa. At these times, sometimes a little work on seduction is enough to change a “not tonight, honey” to “all right, let’s go! Woo hoo!”. And when even that doesn’t work, you just leave it alone–sometimes the day just wears you out too much for any seduction. So just get a good night’s sleep.
I don’t think my wife and I had daily sex even before we had children. And now, with children, they don’t determine our routine. Mostly, it is physical tiredness that sets our routine. I have a physically-demanding job and usually fall asleep before my wife. And she works two jobs. So we often just cuddle, and then the next thing we know, the morning alarm clock is going off. (And, NO, nothing is wrong. Everything works fine. I don’t need any little blue pills).
When it comes to BOTH being ready at the same time, that can be a tricky issue to resolve. Sometimes I initiate it and she is not in the mood, or vice versa. At these times, sometimes a little work on seduction is enough to change a “not tonight, honey” to “all right, let’s go! Woo hoo!”. And when even that doesn’t work, you just leave it alone–sometimes the day just wears you out too much for any seduction. So just get a good night’s sleep.
V
violet81
Guest
There is a distinct possibility that what is mutually agreeable is not exactly what is beneficial for the marriage.
There was a time when my husband and I lacked interest in frequent relations…but we found that the relationship was growing apart as a result. We initiated a more frequent routine because the marriage needed it, not necessarily because that is what we desired at the time. Now we try to keep the frequency up as a pre-emptive strike against possible marital problems.
My husband is crippled, so it isn’t like I expect him to do all the work regardless of if he is tired. Sometimes we may start the process and decide we really are both just too tired…but at least the routine is there.
I do value abstinence, but we have had so many obstacles that we have had no reason to volunteer for it. If we had fewer obstacles we might do some routine abstinence for spiritualities sake.
Then thing I don’t agree with is letting mood set the pace. I think routine is important. Even if the routine is 2x a week and not daily. I am not a stickler for the “daily” part…just the “routine” part.
C
C_S_P_B
Guest
I think in practice there is a “utilitarian bargain” that must be recognized. I know this may be contrary to what was written in Love & Responsibility, but discarding this notion seems to lead to an entitlement mentality in either sex to expect the other to “sacrifice.” Practical and ideal often seem to conflict in real life.
Therefore there it might be necessary to say, “you need to do your part or I won’t do mine.” Not ideal, but it keeps both husband and wife from taking advantage of the other, which if allowed to continue. with no penalties, usually leads to disaster.
Unilateral sacrifice is a nice concept but both men and women can be unilaterally selfish and not inclined to change unless there are some repercussions. Otherwise we are easily able to let the other do all the sacrificing and someday, if they are “nice” enough, maybe we will change.
Therefore there it might be necessary to say, “you need to do your part or I won’t do mine.” Not ideal, but it keeps both husband and wife from taking advantage of the other, which if allowed to continue. with no penalties, usually leads to disaster.
Unilateral sacrifice is a nice concept but both men and women can be unilaterally selfish and not inclined to change unless there are some repercussions. Otherwise we are easily able to let the other do all the sacrificing and someday, if they are “nice” enough, maybe we will change.
V
violet81
Guest
In my experience frequency is a route that may install a metaphorical elevator to the metaphorical “top of the mountain”.
When my physical enjoyment is lacking (and that does occasionally happen, especially with hormonal fluctuations) I am satisfied with the psychological comfort that my actions are extremely healthful for the perpetuation of my marriage and our growth in mutual holiness.
If it is physically painful then we stop or try something different and hope for better luck the next day.
I am a believer that there are few things in life that should be dictated by moods, and sex isn’t one of them. Sex is too important for its unitive quality to be decided by something that is so variable.
The fact that it is often the man who wants it more seems like to be the biggest issue. If both husband and wife generally liked or disliked sex to the same degree then there would be no fear of being “used”. It would be seen as simply a mutually beneficial act. We are in danger of letting our subjective experience dictate what is objectively good. That rarely leads to a good place.
V
violet81
Guest
There is a constant conflict in life between what is spiritually ideal and what is practical- pacifism is one example. When it comes to marriage we have to be masterful negotiators because are spouses ARE sinful (just as we are) and we can’t badger and berate them into compliance without driving a wedge in the relationship. We MUST create rituals that pre-empt possible problems and when problems do occur we must both correct and develop a maintenance plan.
If readers disagree with my understanding of the most appropriate means of handling marriage sexuality then I can accept that, but I think there is a fundamental flaw in approaching marriage as anything less than extremely fragile and in need of lots of positive reinforcement. Our adversary is a tricky son of a gun and we must be very watchful against any complacency lest he get a foothold.
- Status