Is going against a malformed conscience a sin?

[LeafByNiggle]

Your thinking legal definitions. Marriage by nature involves the reality that the exchange of the right to marital relations…the exchange of complete consent at the time of the wedding…it can be a mortal sin if I deny my wife marital relations. (though as I noted above there can be times when it is not…) Very evil actions of abuse etc could happen…but in marriage such is not “rape”.

(any use of the term “rape” in marriage would be by analogy to what such actions would be outside marriage…but I would really not use it)…

In your posting #73 where you first objected to the term rape you were apparently responding to the scenario in posting #68, which was clearly not specifically the theological definition (if there is one). It was the ordinary common understand of rape as any forceable sexual contact without the consent of the victim (at that time). Even if there does exist a separate theological definition for the word, that fact has no bearing on the use of the word in posting #68 to which you were responding. And in your response you did not indicate that you were talking about a different word. Therefore you give the mistaken impression to anyone reading that posting that the common understand of the word “rape” cannot apply to spouses. And I still would like to see where the word “rape” is defined theologically to be so different from the common understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

In your posting #73 where you first objected to the term rape you were apparently responding to the scenario in posting #68, which was clearly not specifically the theological definition (if there is one). It was the ordinary common understand of rape as any forceable sexual contact without the consent of the victim (at that time). Even if there does exist a separate theological definition for the word, that fact has no bearing on the use of the word in posting #68 to which you were responding. And in your response you did not indicate that you were talking about a different word. Therefore you give the mistaken impression to anyone reading that posting that the common understand of the word “rape” cannot apply to spouses. And I still would like to see where the word “rape” is defined theologically to be so different from the common understanding.

Correct that was my intent. I would not use rape to describe any action within a marriage.

as I noted above actions that are analogious to rape outside of marriage…can be even of much graver nature due to the marriage. But I would not call them by the term rape.

(I refer back to my last couple posts for more if readers wish)

 

[Corki]

Correct that was my intent. I would not use rape to describe any action within a marriage.

as I noted above actions that are analogious to rape outside of marriage…can be even of much graver nature due to the marriage. But I would not call them by the term rape.

(I refer back to my last couple posts for more if readers wish)

I know you guys are having fun with this side debate. But I just wanted to point out that the poster who posisted this hypothetical situation started by saying the huband wanted to have sex on his whim and then changed her sceanrio to one where the husband was practically raping his wife because she couldn’t refuse him. It is more a question of one partner not wanting to abstain periodically in order to space children and not a matter of force or violence. I am not sure if a discussion of the posibility of marital rape is even applicable - even though it has been very interseting.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Correct that was my intent. I would not use rape to describe any action within a marriage.

That is fine if you mean it as a personal preference of yours. But words have agreed-upon meanings, and the common understanding of this word does include the possibility of rape within marriage. This usage in no way denies the principle of the marriage debt, so I really don’t understand why you are reluctant to use the word in this context. But as I said, it is your choice.

 

[Bookcat]

That is fine if you mean it as a personal preference of yours. But words have agreed-upon meanings, and the common understanding of this word does include the possibility of rape within marriage. This usage in no way denies the principle of the marriage debt, so I really don’t understand why you are reluctant to use the word in this context. But as I said, it is your choice.

Not just a personal preference of mine…I was taught this by my professor at university for my degree in Catholic Theology…others hold it as well.

Common words in the secular realm…are exactly that. In the theology of marriage …we use deeper understandings then civil courts etc. Just as certain other civil laws seem to not understand the nature of marriage …

I have explained why in my posts above. It simply is not rape. Rape is not something that takes place between two married persons…any more than fornication (except as noted perhaps via “analogy” which I recall at least one theologian notes). It is not just about the marital debt (which of course should not be “forced like that”) …but the nature of marriage.

You welcome to argue the another view … but I hold tightly to this one for it seems entirely reasonable and reflecting the reality of marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

I think though this is getting the thread derailed…so we should cease the train from its falling.