NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[IntegraCatholic]

I guess I don’t understand…husband requests payment of debt, wife might be tired from taking care of kids, wife might have a headache, wife might just not be in the mood, and will have a difficult time getting in the mood. Husband requests* immediate *payment…and he is not guilty of lust…but wife is guilty of mortal sin. Mortal sin?

No, certainly not guilty of lust. How is using the marital act, which is proper to the married state, an act of lust? It’s secondary end is, in fact, for the remedy of concupiscence. Perhaps the spouse is in danger of falling into sin. Yes, mortal sin because it involves a case of justice in a grave matter.

By the way, the wife could request the debt paid as well, husband could not be in the mood.

True, and he would be equally obligated. He is even more obligated (in a sense) because he has the obligation to render the debt if it is clear that the wife would like to engage in the marital act but is too shy to ask outright.

I paid attention in pre-cana…I don’t remember ever hearing that.

A lot of people pay attention in pre-Cana, RCIA, confirmation classes, etc., and never hear the truth. Alas.

Do people even approach each other that way…“I demand my debt to be paid?”

No, it is not necessary to use such language for there to be an obligation.

Sounds like a contract…marriage is a covenant not a contract

Marriage is a contract. A covenant is a form of contract.

 

[paperwight]

True, and he would be equally obligated. He is even more obligated (in a sense) because he has the obligation to render the debt if it is clear that the wife would like to engage in the marital act but is too shy to ask outright. .

Umm, well, let’s be realistic here. If the man isn’t in the mood, he can’t render the debt. A man’s body doesn’t work that way, particularly in later years. If he’s too tired, taking strong blood pressure meds, whatever, it affects function.
All right. this is how we are created. But given this physical fact, I fail to see that there is any parity of obligation.
If the man can’t, he can’t. Whereas all the woman has to do is to lie there, so there’s more pressure on her to oblige. And in the worst cases, all the more likelihood of the woman being accused of being selfish if she doesn’t.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Umm, well, let’s be realistic here. If the man isn’t in the mood, he can’t render the debt. A man’s body doesn’t work that way, particularly in later years. If he’s too tired, taking strong blood pressure meds, whatever, it affects function.
All right. this is how we are created. But given this physical fact, I fail to see that there is any parity of obligation.
If the man can’t, he can’t. Whereas all the woman has to do is to lie there, so there’s more pressure on her to oblige. And in the worst cases, all the more likelihood of the woman being accused of being selfish if she doesn’t.

A man can do what he is capable of in order to fulfill the marriage debt as it is intended to be fulfilled (that is, with the possibility of procreation). Even if he cannot do so with all his efforts (rare, indeed, though a treatable medical problem), still he must render the debt at least to fulfill its secondary purpose, which is why one spouse would have to ask the other to render the debt, that is, for the remedy of concupiscence. If they were merely desirous to have children and this is the only reason the wife petitioned the debt (which would be “very rare if not practically non-existent”) and both parties knew that, then this could be discussed. If the wife still persisted, then the debt must be paid at least for its secondary end, which is still an end and may be engaged in so long as the primary end of procreation is still intended insofar as it is possible.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Take care to not sin in making an uncharitable demand, for there is no excuse for it, the husband being responsible, as head of the family, for the care of his wife’s feelings and to give affection.

Also, venial sin rather than mortal sin may be the result of refusal when, for example, the demand frequency is often, or it is only a delay, or the demander will forgo.

I agree.

I think a truly Catholic couple doesn’t view sexuality as an obligation, but as a gift. A truly Catholic couple knows when is a good time, when isn’t, and a good Catholic couple doesn’t make unreasonable demands.

I personally think NFP works very well for couples in developing temperence.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No, certainly not guilty of lust. How is using the marital act, which is proper to the married state, an act of lust? It’s secondary end is, in fact, for the remedy of concupiscence. Perhaps the spouse is in danger of falling into sin. Yes, mortal sin because it involves a case of justice in a grave matter.

True, and he would be equally obligated. He is even more obligated (in a sense) because he has the obligation to render the debt if it is clear that the wife would like to engage in the marital act but is too shy to ask outright.

A lot of people pay attention in pre-Cana, RCIA, confirmation classes, etc., and never hear the truth. Alas.

No, it is not necessary to use such language for there to be an obligation.

Marriage is a contract. A covenant is a form of contract.

To demand it, without taking into consideration the needs of the other spouse. Someone said, “the woman just has to lie there”

Really?

A man having relations with a woman so unitrested that she is just “lyng there” isn’t guilty of lust.?

“I have a need, you need to fulfuill it for me right now, or else you sin…”

 

[IntegraCatholic]

No.

You made a vow; you must fulfill it, or you sin.

Very simple.

 

[Melchior_1]

No.

You made a vow; you must fulfill it, or you sin.

Very simple.

Not so simple.

1. Asking a woman to “just lie there” is pretty disrespectful.
2. Demanding a woman “just lie there” is very disrespectful.
3. **Forcing **a woman to “just lie there” is self explanatory.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Not so simple.

1. Asking a woman to “just lie there” is pretty disrespectful.
2. Demanding a woman “just lie there” is very disrespectful.
3. **Forcing **a woman to “just lie there” is self explanatory.

I never said anything about that.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No.

You made a vow; you must fulfill it, or you sin.

Very simple.

Spouses are not supposed to have some self control at all? “Debt payment” needs to be immediate?

I remember being at a play group with my DD and other women. When women are together often they talk about intimacies.

One lady, a mother of twins who were about 2 at the time. was speaking about her husband. He tended to demand “marital debt” quite often, and would expect his wife to leave the babies unattended to fulfill the debt.

Would that be an example of “grave” matter?

Could the wife be committing mortal sin if she declined?

Was her husband not acting at all in the a lustful fashion, expecting marital debt irrespective of the babies safety?

Could he not wait until the babies were sleeping?

Is this an example of what St. Paul says to husbands, to love their wives as Jesus loves His Church?

(Respectfully, just curious not angry)

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I never said anything about that.

I know you didn’t…a PP did though.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Spouses are not supposed to have some self control at all? “Debt payment” needs to be immediate?

Within reason, yes.

One lady, a mother of twins who were about 2 at the time. was speaking about her husband. He tended to demand “marital debt” quite often, and would expect his wife to leave the babies unattended to fulfill the debt.

Would that be an example of “grave” matter?

No… they can be put in a playpen or in their room. I don’t see how standing over top of a two-year old every second of the day is necessary.

Could the wife be committing mortal sin if she declined?

Yes.

Was her husband not acting at all in the a lustful fashion, expecting marital debt irrespective of the babies safety?

It’s not my or her prerogative to discern intentions. Her duty is to fulfill the debt. The secondary end of the marital act is the remedy of concupiscence. Each spouse has this right when he deems it necessary. The other spouse has a grave obligation in justice to fulfill this by his marriage vow.

Could he not wait until the babies were sleeping?

Maybe, maybe not. Only he can know the gravity of the situation. The spouse can’t decide for his significant other what is and is not grave. If the spouse didn’t think it were grave, he wouldn’t be asking. I’m not saying there can’t be a discussion of the matter, but if either spouse insists, the debt must be paid.

Is this an example of what St. Paul says to husbands, to love their wives as Jesus loves His Church?

Yes, because he knows that he is a better husband in a state of grace rather than in a state of mortal sin. He is doing his duty as a husband and as a Christian to prefer anything rather than to commit mortal sin.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Within reason, yes.

No… they can be put in a playpen or in their room. I don’t see how standing over top of a two-year old every second of the day is necessary.

Yes.

It’s not my or her prerogative to discern intentions. Her duty is to fulfill the debt. The secondary end of the marital act is the remedy of concupiscence. Each spouse has this right when he deems it necessary. The other spouse has a grave obligation in justice to fulfill this by his marriage vow.

Maybe, maybe not. Only he can know the gravity of the situation. The spouse can’t decide for his significant other what is and is not grave. If the spouse didn’t think it were grave, he wouldn’t be asking. I’m not saying there can’t be a discussion of the matter, but if either spouse insists, the debt must be paid.

Yes, because he knows that he is a better husband in a state of grace rather than in a state of mortal sin. He is doing his duty as a husband and as a Christian to prefer anything rather than to commit mortal sin.

Sigh…so all men have perfectly ordered libidos and women need to leave their children to fulfill the husband’s needs. 2 two year olds unattended is not a big deal, because if he doesn’t get his needs fulfilled right now…he’s going to commit a mortal sin, and it is all the wife’s fault.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I regret that we can’t have a rational discussion of the topic.

 

[Melchior_1]

Sigh…so all men have perfectly ordered libidos and women need to leave their children to fulfill the husband’s needs. 2 two year olds unattended is not a big deal, because if he doesn’t get his needs fulfilled right now…he’s going to commit a mortal sin, and it is all the wife’s fault.

I suppose now there’s no need for men to have self-control once they get married, right?

Looks like I better tell my wife we’re be busier than usual.

/sarcasm

 

[Melchior_1]

I regret that we can’t have a rational discussion of the topic.

Honestly? I doubt it. And I’d be surprised if anyone truly expected there to be one. The fact that people actually think and believe that one can demand the “debt” (any debt) at anytime (to the point of one person having the audacity to say “all they do is lie there”) points towards irrationality.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I didn’t even say anything about that. It not relevant to bring it up to me. What’s more, the comment did not completely understand the situation. The spouse who has been requested to pay the debt cannot pay it unwillingly, for that is not to pay it at all. I think he was playing devil’s advocate, anyway.

 

[Rence]

I guess I don’t understand…husband requests payment of debt, wife might be tired from taking care of kids, wife might have a headache, wife might just not be in the mood, and will have a difficult time getting in the mood. Husband requests* immediate *payment…and he is not guilty of lust…but wife is guilty of mortal sin. Mortal sin?

By the way, the wife could request the debt paid as well, husband could not be in the mood.

I paid attention in pre-cana…I don’t remember ever hearing that.

Do people even approach each other that way…“I demand my debt to be paid?”

Sounds like a contract…marriage is a covenant not a contract

Thank God for pre-cana classes Mary Gail so that people don’t come across this thread and agonize over the some of the things being said in this thread.

Yeah, and I am the one who needs to re-read the thread

 

[Rence]

No.

You made a vow; you must fulfill it, or you sin.

Very simple.

I don’t know of anyone who vows to be a blow up doll.

No one is under obligation to “render the marriage debt” every single time is asked of them. And certainly if one’s common sense dictates that now is not the right time due to grave reasons, they have an obligation NOT to do so.

But if you feel you have to render the marriage debt every single time your spouse asks it of you, feel free. We all have to do what we feel is best. Others should know (and thankfully it seems a few of us here know) that they don’t have to do the same. And I know that I don’t have to do the same. Thankfully there are the encyclicals and CCC and priestly consult to help people.

 

[CradleCath]

What I don’t understand regarding the marriage debt…(love that euphemism, btw)… If one spouse demands the debt, and demands immediate payment, isn’t there the possibility of treating the other spouse in a lustful fashion…?

Yes there sure is. I think what’s missing here is the fact that a Catholic marriage is different. In a truly Catholic marriage, one doesn’t “demand”. It is a SACRAMENTAL UNION & graces are supplied by the Sacrament of marriage. It’s a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

A Catholic marriage is a union of two people who
respect one another,
who love one another.

As the marriage grows…little by little… the couple decides that first on their agenda is now going to be the life, the happiness, the holiness of this other person. The good of this other takes precedence even over the desires and dreams they have for themselves.** And when they both make that commitment,** together the two embark on a whole new adventure. It seems to me that this is the basic meaning of the Sacrament of Marriage. Unless we understand these basic facts concerning this Sacrament, nothing within it will work right.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

This thread should be shut down. It is just the same wheel over and over and over. Please read the 18 pages of the thread before adding a new post…