If a family is unable to take care of their kids, should they continue to have kids?

[SerraSemper]

Who makes that decision? You? The state? Should we have forced sterilizations?

Has the Church ever in the history of salvation made the distinction that you make? That it can be sinful to procreate between two Catholic, spouses who freely decide to engage in the marital embrace? Does the Church give one example of this ever happening?

The Church, through 200 + popes thought all time has never said what you are saying about poverty and procreation. And if She has not felt the right to invade that right reserved to a couple, then what on earth gives you the right. How is it that you have come up with a moral sin that the Church herself has not. How are you that powerful?

Believe me, if the Church were to do this, it has had much better opportunities than this family. Like the holocaust, third world poverty, plagues and persecutions. Education, and wealth or lack there of has NEVER been the determining factor of sin.

But point your fingers all you want. But if that is the case then people should stop complaining when someone else thinks YOU should have more kids or not have more kids and judges you without any knowledge of the situation.

I’m sorry but you are reading things that are not present in what I wrote. Have a great day.

 

[TEPO]

As to the OP, if the situation were a health concern, I would handle it through the Helth Department or CPS. But as far as the Catholic position is concerned, I would think that this isn’t a religious issue.

 

[severus68]

I think this is the issue: It is one thing to have a conversation with a discerning couple concerning the issue of whether a serious reason to avoid pregnancy exists or not. It is fine to advocate for couples to know their own fertility so that they can decide to refrain from marital relations in an intelligent and self-aware way, should they discern that the need to avoid a pregnancy has arisen. It can be a duty to step in when children are not being given the care they need, sacrificing parental perogatives when the children are objectively suffering neglect or abuse. The source of the abuse pr neglect does not need to be judged in order for the abuse or neglect to be stopped. All fine, so far.

It is quite another thing to look at a couple with more children than they can care for and judge their situation from outside. It can be a duty to judge that they are incapable of caring for their children, but judging that they do not have the right to decide when they will have marital relations or that they were sinful in their discernment of when to do so or not do so is another thing altogether. To have respect for the marriage bond means respecting their right to decide when to have marital relations. That is no one’s decision except theirs. Yes, it is possible to sin when making that decision; what is not allowed is to judge from the outside when one does not have the office to do that. (Their confessor, for instance, has the duty to help them to discern what sorts of actions or failures to act in their past were sins or not.)

I don’t think the OP was judging, he was concerned and asking a general question.

No one is saying we have the right to interfere in the decisions of married couples with regard to having sex so I am not sure why you said the above. Most in the US, would know how to licitly space out children/limit the number. It is the children that matter. It is heartbreaking to see children in need. Of course, whether the parents were irresponsible or callous, help for those children should be given/procured.

 

[severus68]

If I am carpooling and I discover my ride is drunk at the party, you better believe I will judge that drunkeness is a bad state to drive in and would refuse to be driven by such a person. I am not judging their soul and whether they sinned but I am judging that drink and drive don’t mix. Likewise, if CPS is dealing with a family or needs to, then it is not illogical to wonder at continued procreation (Octomom, anyone?). When we say drunkenness is sinful, we are not saying that wine is bad but that wine imbibed in a certain context (to excess or during Communion fast) is bad. When we say the act of procreation is sinful in some circumstances, we are simply stating that intercourse is bad when done under certain circumstances. Procreating IS bad and sinful under different circumstances: fornication, adultery, marital rape, etc. To what degree people doing such actions are sinning is not our business.

Each human action is either virtuous or vicious. Therefore between a married couple, having acts proper to the generation of children is either virtuous or vicious depending on the circumstances. A husband who has full control of his faculties (not drunk or anything) who forces himself on his wife who has a serious medical condition that requires abstinence and who does not agree to do this is sinning. He is sinning because one of the key components for sex to be virtuous is missing: it must be free and a humane act. It is sinful even if something good (a child) results.

People have the responsibility to eat well. This means that to deliberately eat a poor diet or too much food or too little food or to be bulimic or anorexic is sinful because the purpose of food is to provide sufficient nourishment to the body and those actions thwart that purpose. We call those actions sinful. Likewise, people have the responsibility to regulate their sexual appetite even in marriage. It must be regulated for the welfare of the couple, their children, prospective children and society. God created us as rational beings so that we could live well and virtuously. We are not animals governed by instinct.

Well said in your posts.

 

[severus68]

This jump by you condemns the Church in the poorest places of earth. The place where God and Children are needed the most. The Pope himself, goes out into the streets, not passing out NFP brochures for the poor but ministering to them, sharing their joys and sorrows and helping them. In places where Francis is from, Latin America he married people and baptized children with a smile, with Godly hands. He did not teach about limiting procreation, but welcomed it, in people so poor that you have probably never seen nor smelled what it was like for them.

sigh
Pro life? I guess even that has a monetary value.

The Church is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. It is the same in America and Somalia. It is the same in all places. In this parish where this family of 16 kids struggling in poverty somehow makes a public appearance at Mass each week and gets judged by not only the OP but now random strangers on the internet. Dictating the morality of a married couple to have sex by only your own biased standards of when it is Holy to create a life. Geesh, no wonder our world is so confused about sex and marriage.

At least this family is educating their children in the faith by attending Mass. Which is more than I can say for the majority of self proclaimed Catholics. Perhaps we should use your criteria for the rich as well.

“Catholics who are rich and do not teach nor follow the teachings of the Church should not be allowed to have sex.” Because they are failing to provide for their children. Somebody get between nancy pelosi and her husband.

Oh man! Now I’ve done it. I will never get that image out of my mind!

You are not addressing the poster’s points. Now you are judging and condemning most Catholics.
Has our Pope said to go and have as many children as possible, don’t bother about the well being of the children, the health of the mother, as long as we increase the Catholic population. No.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think the OP was judging, he was concerned and asking a general question.

No one is saying we have the right to interfere in the decisions of married couples with regard to having sex so I am not sure why you said the above. Most in the US, would know how to licitly space out children/limit the number. It is the children that matter. It is heartbreaking to see children in need. Of course, whether the parents were irresponsible or callous, help for those children should be given/procured.

I am not saying that the OP is saying that. I’m saying that those who say things implying it is immoral to keep having children are essentially saying it is immoral to keep having sex that is open to procreations. Let us not pretend that some of us find NFP less reliable than others do. It is not as if one only hears these criticisms for the parents of sixteen, but I do know couples who feel as if they can get pregnant by looking at each other longingly over the table. Some people are very fertile, that is the truth.

BTW, why assume that parents who are failing must be irresponsible or callous? It is possible to be incapable without being either. Poverty is often a matter of wanting to, feeling you ought to, trying your best to, and yet not being able to provide. In a case where there are many young children, even a relatively educated mother might find there is no paid work that will cover the costs of working for a salary. OK…so in that case only Dad works, and wasn’t that one of the elements of the OP’s scenario?

 

[EasterJoy]

I think it’s a pretty big norm amongst Republicans on this website, but I’ve always felt that this site is Republican first and Catholic second. The American Democrats are the ones who want to help the impoverished, such as struggling single mothers. If you want to be pro-life, you have to be pro-life beyond the womb. The GOP most certainly is not, in my opinion.

As I said: there are few people in my immediate acquaintance of any political stripe who feel that the available political parties have a truly satisfactory stance when it comes to societal and governmental attitudes towards the poor.

We ought to be pro-life beyond the womb, too, yes, it is all of a piece. Still, being pro-choice prior to birth does kill a tremendous number of children, sometimes in the name of “helping poor mothers.” In her defense of late term abortions (!!), Nancy Pelosi even went so far as to assert that “As a practicing and respectful Catholic, this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this.” That is not just a scandal. It actually far more callous than the other serious fault in respect for our fellow human beings. Both are callous, but advocating for abortion as a necessity for the poor is the worse of the two. If you don’t believe me, ask yourself if a Jew would rather have been held in starvation conditions at the concentration camps or immediately gassed and incinerated before having a chance to suffer. You know what they’d say. Since that is so, I don’t think either party can throw dirt on the other as being callous towards poor children. They both do their share. Neither can let themselves off the hook by pointing fingers.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You are not addressing the poster’s points. Now you are judging and condemning most Catholics.
Has our Pope said to go and have as many children as possible, don’t bother about the well being of the children, the health of the mother, as long as we increase the Catholic population. No.

There have been posters who have said it is sinful for a married couple to procreate because of poverty. That is what I am pointing out as wrong. And it is wrong. It should be left to the couples conscience. Not others.

 

[severus68]

I am not saying that the OP is saying that. I’m saying that those who say things implying it is immoral to keep having children are essentially saying it is immoral to keep having sex that is open to procreations. Let us not pretend that some of us find NFP less reliable than others do. It is not as if one only hears these criticisms for the parents of sixteen, but I do know couples who feel as if they can get pregnant by looking at each other longingly over the table. Some people are very fertile, that is the truth.

BTW, why assume that parents who are failing must be irresponsible or callous? It is possible to be incapable without being either. Poverty is often a matter of wanting to, feeling you ought to, trying your best to, and yet not being able to provide. In a case where there are many young children, even a relatively educated mother might find there is no paid work that will cover the costs of working for a salary. OK…so in that case only Dad works, and wasn’t that one of the elements of the OP’s scenario?

I was making the point that if children are in dire need whether or not such need was the result of irresponsibility etc, they should get help. Not making any assumptions.

 

[EasterJoy]

I was making the point that if children are in dire need whether or not such need was the result of irresponsibility etc, they should get help. Not making any assumptions.

Yes. If they need help, it does not matter who is to blame or even whether anyone is to blame. They ought to have the help, and it is no judgment on the parent or guardian to insist they need to have it.

 

[SerraSemper]

There have been posters who have said it is sinful for a married couple to procreate because of poverty. That is what I am pointing out as wrong. And it is wrong. It should be left to the couples conscience. Not others.

Incorrect. Objective morality is just that. It is the standard to which we should individually measure our acts. If we say that it is up to a couple’s conscience, we are really saying it’s all relative. The OP asked whether a couple who CAN’T take care of their kids SHOULD have kids. The answer is NO. The Church teaches responsible parenthood. This means that people who cannot provide for a prospective baby cannot in conscience engage in sexual intercourse during the fertile period. In plain English, if a couple realize that they are in a financial position whereby they are unable to provide for their prospective child and unable to tap into any social nets, they have a moral obligation to abstain because they have a serious obligation to provide the basics. I would question the morality of those who deliberately depend on social nets for supporting offspring, but that’s a whole different topic.

 

[EasterJoy]

Incorrect. Objective morality is just that. It is the standard to which we should individually measure our acts. If we say that it is up to a couple’s conscience, we are really saying it’s all relative. The OP asked whether a couple who CAN’T take care of their kids SHOULD have kids. The answer is NO. The Church teaches responsible parenthood. This means that people who cannot provide for a prospective baby cannot in conscience engage in sexual intercourse during the fertile period. In plain English, if a couple realize that they are in a financial position whereby they are unable to provide for their prospective child and unable to tap into any social nets, they have a moral obligation to abstain because they have a serious obligation to provide the basics. I would question the morality of those who deliberately depend on social nets for supporting offspring, but that’s a whole different topic.

The Church doesn’t teach that poor people shouldn’t have children, and in fact Humanae Vitae warns against governents taking a materialistic view of the human person. If we say it is up to the couple’s conscience, we’re saying that our conscience ought to be concerned about our own duties.

As for the OP, it is probably good to seek advice about this particular couple. It may be that authorities should be called; a pastor can give advice about that.

 

[WildCatholic]

Original Poster, you need to understand that judging another family for having “too many children” is gravely sinful. You are buying into the modern Culture of Death. Human life is a gift from God, not some terrible curse. If you see families in your parish in need, you can try to organize charitable physical and spiritual help for them. However, telling married people not to have children or that they have already had too many is not Christian.

I understand, but isn’t their an obligation when you can’t take care of a kid. For those who are asking for more details, I guess from what I can say, the parents don’t really take care of the kids and have the others do it. Both of the parents. while functioning, are probably on the low end of the spectrum, and since only the dad works, there isn’t enough income to take care of these kids since they have mental health problems. I’ve worked with these kids and they are sweet and kind but have issues ranging from severe Autism to MR, and in part because of stubbornness and in part because of the parent’s lack of knowledge they don’t treat these kids. Some of them have turned out okay, yes since a few are older (one of them is my age, and him and his two older sisters have found success in the military). Also, their must be issues because when I or other teachers (i’m only a sub so I don’t see them as often as other teachers) see them their heigeine isn’t that great and it just doesn’t sound like a great situation. Also, granted I hope this is a terrible rumor, but I’ve heard that the mother doesn’t really consent to marital relations, but feels she can’t say no since she feels she has to obey her husband.

Trust me, i’m not against big families. If you have the means to have one, go ahead. If you are able to love and provide for them, even if its on a shoestring budget go ahead. This situation though is different. When these poor kids don’t even get to wash up that much before school or basically eat junk food since no one really cooks, or have mental and emotional issues that can’t be taken care of by the school district, it’s a problem. I’m also not saying these kids should not have been born or anything. I guess I just feel though parents need to be responsible. If you know it might be tough to raise 5 kids with the amount you make, then you might have to practice NFP. Certainly though I don’t advocate contraception or anything contrary to the church, but i’m sure the church doesn’t want to see people suffer just because parents can’t take care of their kids.

 

[Et_Cetera]

I understand, but isn’t their an obligation when you can’t take care of a kid. For those who are asking for more details, I guess from what I can say, the parents don’t really take care of the kids and have the others do it. Both of the parents. while functioning, are probably on the low end of the spectrum, and since only the dad works, there isn’t enough income to take care of these kids since they have mental health problems. I’ve worked with these kids and they are sweet and kind but have issues ranging from severe Autism to MR, and in part because of stubbornness and in part because of the parent’s lack of knowledge they don’t treat these kids. Some of them have turned out okay, yes since a few are older (one of them is my age, and him and his two older sisters have found success in the military). Also, their must be issues because when I or other teachers (i’m only a sub so I don’t see them as often as other teachers) see them their heigeine isn’t that great and it just doesn’t sound like a great situation. Also, granted I hope this is a terrible rumor, but I’ve heard that the mother doesn’t really consent to marital relations, but feels she can’t say no since she feels she has to obey her husband.

Trust me, i’m not against big families. If you have the means to have one, go ahead. If you are able to love and provide for them, even if its on a shoestring budget go ahead. This situation though is different. When these poor kids don’t even get to wash up that much before school or basically eat junk food since no one really cooks, or have mental and emotional issues that can’t be taken care of by the school district, it’s a problem. I’m also not saying these kids should not have been born or anything. I guess I just feel though parents need to be responsible. If you know it might be tough to raise 5 kids with the amount you make, then you might have to practice NFP. Certainly though I don’t advocate contraception or anything contrary to the church, but i’m sure the church doesn’t want to see people suffer just because parents can’t take care of their kids.

Unfortunately, there isn’t really much that anyone here can do. It sounds like this is a job for CPS. If these children aren’t getting proper medical attention, healthy food, and clean living conditions, then I think someone needs to contact the state. This isn’t a fair way for them to live.

 

[SerraSemper]

The Church doesn’t teach that poor people shouldn’t have children, and in fact Humanae Vitae warns against governents taking a materialistic view of the human person. If we say it is up to the couple’s conscience, we’re saying that our conscience ought to be concerned about our own duties.

As for the OP, it is probably good to seek advice about this particular couple. It may be that authorities should be called; a pastor can give advice about that.

Actually, Humanae Vitae repeatedly emphasizes that parents must exercise responsible parenting. This boils down to the fact that our own individual conscience as a parent must take into consideration the moral obligation of providing the essentials for children. If one cannot, then one’s conscience must judge it is not right to have human relations. If it is not prudent then it is imprudent and in so grave a matter as being unable to adequately sustain and nurture a human being, the obligation is proportional. This is what I mean by there is an objective morality. You keep insisting that it is up to the couple. Yes, and I keep saying that the couple must examine their conscience and apply the teachings of the faith to it, and part of the teaching says that there is responsible parenthood and irresponsible parenthood. Let me put it this way. The obligation is so sacred and important that the deliberate intention to omit the basic formation of children can be a grounds for marital nullity. That’s serious. Here’s a little from Vatican II:

Let them [husband and wife] thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself.

The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight
of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that** they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself,** and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. (GS, #50)

 

[tawny]

Actually, Humanae Vitae repeatedly emphasizes that parents must exercise responsible parenting. This boils down to the fact that our own individual conscience as a parent must take into consideration the moral obligation of providing the essentials for children. If one cannot, then one’s conscience must judge it is not right to have human relations. If it is not prudent then it is imprudent and in so grave a matter as being unable to adequately sustain and nurture a human being, the obligation is proportional. This is what I mean by there is an objective morality. You keep insisting that it is up to the couple. Yes, and I keep saying that the couple must examine their conscience and apply the teachings of the faith to it, and part of the teaching says that there is responsible parenthood and irresponsible parenthood. Let me put it this way. The obligation is so sacred and important that the deliberate intention to omit the basic formation of children can be a grounds for marital nullity. That’s serious. Here’s a little from Vatican II:

Let them [husband and wife] thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself.

The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight
of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that** they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself,** and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. (GS, #50)

Very good.

 

[SerraSemper]

From Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, **responsible **parenthood is exercised by those who **prudently **and generously decide to have more children, **and **by those who, for **serious reasons **and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.(HV, #10)

Here Humae Vitae is contrasting two good positions: prudent judgement (ie. judgement that assesses a situation and sees that the couple can actually support life with the essentials) OR those for serious reasons see that it is imprudent not to have chlildren for serious reasons. It takes for granted that Christians (humans) will act according to prudence/right reason:

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them. (HV, #10)

 

[TEPO]

From Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, **responsible **parenthood is exercised by those who **prudently **and generously decide to have more children, **and **by those who, for **serious reasons **and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.(HV, #10)

Here Humae Vitae is contrasting two good positions: prudent judgement (ie. judgement that assesses a situation and sees that the couple can actually support life with the essentials) OR those for serious reasons see that it is imprudent not to have chlildren for serious reasons. It takes for granted that Christians (humans) will act according to prudence/right reason:

With regard to man’s innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man’s reason and will must exert control over them. (HV, #10)

How do we know if someone is exercising prudential judgement or not? Who is the judge of that? General observers, family members, the judicial system or the parents themselves?

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually, Humanae Vitae repeatedly emphasizes that parents must exercise responsible parenting. This boils down to the fact that our own individual conscience as a parent must take into consideration the moral obligation of providing the essentials for children. If one cannot, then one’s conscience must judge it is not right to have human relations. If it is not prudent then it is imprudent and in so grave a matter as being unable to adequately sustain and nurture a human being, the obligation is proportional. This is what I mean by there is an objective morality. You keep insisting that it is up to the couple. Yes, and I keep saying that the couple must examine their conscience and apply the teachings of the faith to it, and part of the teaching says that there is responsible parenthood and irresponsible parenthood. Let me put it this way. The obligation is so sacred and important that the deliberate intention to omit the basic formation of children can be a grounds for marital nullity. That’s serious. Here’s a little from Vatican II:

Let them [husband and wife] thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society, and of the Church herself.

The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight
of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that** they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself,** and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment. (GS, #50)

Yes, this is right. The parents have a duty to be responsible and may not be arbitrary about it, and yet they alone ultimately have the right to make the decision. That is not to say that their pastor does not have the office to make certain that they have been properly instructed; he has that duty for all the married couples in his care. Yes…that puts it in a nutshell.

The main thing is that people realize that the Church doesn’t require married couples to avoid sex completely, and the Church also recognizes that being open to life sometimes means achieving a pregnancy that the couple had a moral reason to avoid. A couple can arrive at a family far larger than they can cope with without being to blame. It is also not a condemnation of parents to conclude that their family is living in conditions that warrant investigation by those in a position to intervene on behalf of the children if the parents are failing in their duties. Failure does not always come from culpable wrong-doing. It can, but that cannot be assumed generally, as if it is always that way. Still, if the parents are failing, an intervention is needed, even if they do not want it.

 

[SerraSemper]

Yes, this is right. The parents have a duty to be responsible and may not be arbitrary about it, and yet they alone ultimately have the right to make the decision. That is not to say that their pastor does not have the office to make certain that they have been properly instructed; he has that duty for all the married couples in his care. Yes…that puts it in a nutshell.

The main thing is that people realize that the Church doesn’t require married couples to avoid sex completely, and the Church also recognizes that being open to life sometimes means achieving a pregnancy that the couple had a moral reason to avoid. A couple can arrive at a family far larger than they can cope with without being to blame. It is also not a condemnation of parents to conclude that their family is living in conditions that warrant investigation by those in a position to intervene on behalf of the children if the parents are failing in their duties. Failure does not always come from culpable wrong-doing. It can, but that cannot be assumed generally, as if it is always that way. Still, if the parents are failing, an intervention is needed, even if they do not want it.

Let’s go back to the analogy of drinking. You as a bystander don’t have the right to determine whether a person is going to get drunk. It is up to the conscience of the person actually imbibing alcohol. Nevertheless, self control is obligatory on people drinking and depending on the situation, they may be sinning or being virtuous. (Jesus drank moderately- virtuous. Noah got drunk accidentally- virtuous. Someone purposely gets drunk even though they know it is a mortal sin- sinful. To eat, drink,
have sex within proper boundaries and with right intentions is virtuous.

To do so out of boundaries is vicious. As I have said before, I am only addressing the larger question of whether a couple who can’t raise kids should have more, and once more I would have to answer that it would be sinful to try to procreate when there is no reasonable expectation of being able to provide for the basic needs of the child. Easter Joy, you keep trying to make this a matter of an outsider judging the soul or the culpability of a parent(s) for procreating and I am saying that this is a matter where we should be discussing whether a person CAN be culpable of sin. I agree with the Church that drunkeness is gravely sinful. Likewise, I claim that the Church says that irresponsible acts of procreation can be gravely sinful. This is not judging anyone, but saying there is a clear moral teaching to which couples must measure their individual consciences against.

It is not wrong to judge that I will not be driven by someone under the influence of alcohol. Nor is it wrong to say that objectively speaking, some people did actions that are very imprudent or objectively sinful for their circumstances. Octomom is a perfect example. I don’t pretend to judge the state of her soul, but I do say that it is gravely wrong to indulge in immoral sexual acts that brought those children into being. If the Church believed that a couple could morally indulge in the marital act as often or as little as they pleased with no reference to any kind of moral standard, then Humanae Vitae and other documents would not have been written. Right now, due to our culture’s emphasis on contraception, people are focused on being generous with procreative acts. A while ago, people were focused on “the marital debt” and felt obliged to do it even in circumstances when they shouldn’t have and needn’t have. Anyone suggesting that there was such a thing as marital rape would have been accused of going against Church teachings just because the Church didn’t emphasis that aspect.