Marital debt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moore11
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As I noted there can be legit reasons to even “refuse” the “debitum”. Such as the spouse has been committing adultery…they are drunk…etc

And too there can be ways where it would be venial etc…
Of course too…one should seek to lovingly understand ones spouses wishes or feelings etc that day…and it can be a very loving act to forgo when such a request would be not well timed…(of course when such is not going to be a near occasion)…

and of course on the other side…it is loving too…to readily accept such ‘requests’ even if one has had a bad day…

As Christians we love each other…

The “marital debt” should be “generously” observed

as well as “marital relations” -like other things in life --should be “moderate”
 
Bookcat said:
I try to also argue that back rubs several times a week – are the secundum debitum…but my wife is still not convinced with my theology there…
Click to expand...
It could not be so, or an outside party could not administer the same in exchange for payment. 😉

Still, if you are going to enlarge the obligation to include those indespensible but unspecificed acts of friendship and affection which tend to incline the heart towards spontaneous payment of the debt, you might have better luck if you initiate payment of your debt to her first. In that case, perhaps the point will become moot, since there will be no need for theological argument.

Do not forget, though: Nothing kills romance faster than an obvious presumption of quid pro quo. It’s a covenant, not a contract, guys!! 😛
 
Bookcat said:
actually it is also a contract 🙂

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34750
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, the context is of a free mutual gift of relationship, not a straight exchange of sex for sex (let alone sex for something else). When someone is approached for sex as if there were a quid pro quo involved, that can arouse feelings not of desire, but of repulsion, even if the person approaching is a spouse. We don’t want that.
 
EasterJoy said:
Be that as it may, the context is of a free mutual gift of relationship, not a straight exchange of sex for sex (let alone sex for something else). When someone is approached for sex as if there were a quid pro quo involved, that can arouse feelings not of desire, but of repulsion, even if the person approaching is a spouse. We don’t want that.
Click to expand...
Of course…😃

(but of course the spouses need to know too the realities embraced upon the consent of marriage…and to live them…with love and generosity)
 
Here are the verses from Paul

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz1oNLTBukv
 
Bookcat said:
Of course…😃

(but of course the other spouse needs to know too the realities embraced upon the consent of marriage…and to live them…with love and generosity)
Click to expand...
Yes. If you just don’t feel like it and don’t feel like it, sometimes there will come a time when you need to muster the desire anyway, because you promised to love him/her as your spouse, and that includes sex. The desire for sex may be missing, perhaps, but if there is the desire to show love, there is nothing inherently distasteful about that.
 
Not married but I believe when one makes a commitment to another person such as marriage one puts that persons needs over their own. If one partner isn’t in the mood but the other partner is then there is such a thing as a debt/obligation. Now is one partner is sick or in pain or maybe stressed out both partners should use consideration in dealing with such matters. In other words think of the other person not just yourself.
 
Luvz2travel said:
Not married but I believe when one makes a commitment to another person such as marriage one puts that persons needs over their own. If one partner isn’t in the mood but the other partner is then there is such a thing as a debt/obligation. Now is one partner is sick or in pain or maybe stressed out both partners should use consideration in dealing with such matters. In other words think of the other person not just yourself.
Click to expand...
If someone isn’t in the mood, then his/her spouse should be considerate of that as well. My dh & I don’t ever push the issue if one of us isn’t “in the mood”. We are respectful of each other, and know that there are times one of us will be feeling it, the other won’t, so we wait for a different day. There is no “debt owed”, nobody keeps track of who denied who when, and by respecting the one who isn’t in the mood, we are constantly thinking of the other instead of ourselves and we then find other ways to bond on an intimate level. Sometimes a night of cuddling on the couch just talking is better than anything. 🙂
 
_Jenn said:
If someone isn’t in the mood, then his/her spouse should be considerate of that as well. My dh & I don’t ever push the issue if one of us isn’t “in the mood”. We are respectful of each other, and know that there are times one of us will be feeling it, the other won’t, so we wait for a different day. There is no “debt owed”, nobody keeps track of who denied who when, and by respecting the one who isn’t in the mood, we are constantly thinking of the other instead of ourselves and we then find other ways to bond on an intimate level. Sometimes a night of cuddling on the couch just talking is better than anything. 🙂
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
I go to Mass on Sundays too – not focusing on the “obligation”…such is yes the right way to think…love…generosity etc…

Yes it is an obligation --and I can sin gravely if I where to not go (aside from say sickness or dispensation etc)…

But I think more of the* reality of the Lords Day* than the obligation…

Just as “Love one another”…is a commandment

But hopefully we will do so without needing to think of obligation…
 
Bookcat said:
I go to Mass on Sundays too – not focusing on the “obligation”…such is yes the right way to think…love…generosity etc…

Yes it is an obligation --and I can sin gravely if I where to not go (aside from say sickness or dispensation etc)…

But I think more of the* reality of the Lords Day* than the obligation…

Just as “Love one another”…is a commandment

But hopefully we will do so without needing to think of obligation…
Click to expand...
Exactly. An obligation is not something that you have to regard as an onerous duty. It just means that it is something that you know you must do when you can, even if your natural inclination didn’t happen to be in support of the idea that day.
 
_Jenn said:
If someone isn’t in the mood, then his/her spouse should be considerate of that as well. My dh & I don’t ever push the issue if one of us isn’t “in the mood”. We are respectful of each other, and know that there are times one of us will be feeling it, the other won’t, so we wait for a different day. There is no “debt owed”, nobody keeps track of who denied who when, and by respecting the one who isn’t in the mood, we are constantly thinking of the other instead of ourselves and we then find other ways to bond on an intimate level. Sometimes a night of cuddling on the couch just talking is better than anything. 🙂
Click to expand...
Why is the default decision always in favour of the one who is not in the mood? What about respecting the one who is in the mood? Isn’t engaging in the marital act for the spouse’s sake a way of thinking of the other?
 
Debt is something someone can pay off. This situation does not seem like debt unless we are talking constant debt that someone can never pay off and never get out of for a lifetime possibly. Which is more like a type of slave. Either way, the term and implications are upsetting to me being a part of a loving marriage.
 
floresco said:
Why is the default decision always in favour of the one who is not in the mood? What about respecting the one who is in the mood? Isn’t engaging in the marital act for the spouse’s sake a way of thinking of the other?
Click to expand...
More often than not the one that is not in the mood gets in the mood if the one who is in the mood does things right:o Make sense?
 
aloe said:
Debt is something someone can pay off. This situation does not seem like debt unless we are talking constant debt that someone can never pay off and never get out of for a lifetime possibly. Which is more like a type of slave. Either way, the term and implications are upsetting to me being a part of a loving marriage.
Click to expand...
Because of associations here that are not part of what is meant.
 
Bookcat said:
Here are the verses from Paul

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

Read more: ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz1oNLTBukv
Click to expand...
 
floresco said:
Why is the default decision always in favour of the one who is not in the mood? What about respecting the one who is in the mood? Isn’t engaging in the marital act for the spouse’s sake a way of thinking of the other?
Click to expand...
Because who wants to have sex with someone who isn’t interested? I would not want mercy sex from my husband when he’d rather be doing something else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top