NFP and Traditional Catholicism

[Rence]

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.

Very nice, thank you! Once you start viewing yourself as an insignificant nothing, and regard your spouse the same, where is that mutual love, understanding and sacrifice for the other? If one doesn’t treat their spouse with respect and dignity and love, how can they be living a Sacrament? And where does consent fit into all this “demanding” and “debt paying”?

Reading some of the responses on this thread, I no longer question why some people opt for a civil marriage, even Catholics. But those who take the care to read the material available to them and talk with their priest so that they can understand what the Sacrament of marriage means for them are truly blessed.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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.

Thank you…that means a great deal coming from a parent of grown children.

We don’t demand…we give.

 

[whm]

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

Both spouses should meet with a priest or at least a Catholic counselor before it ever gets to that. They both have an obligation to work on whatever their issues are.

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.

Absolutely right if “grave reasons” are met there is no obligation to render the debt. I don’t think anybody has said anything to the contrary. There has been much discussion on what “grave reasons” are.

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.

I think we have to try and follow God’s will in everything (which may be what you were saying but it came across differently to me). The topic of the marriage debt was not brought up to use it as a club to demand sex. It was brought up to explore the seeming inconsistency between how NFP is being marketed/taught and the unchanging moral law. I for one have never and never will demand the debt from my spouse in so many words - knowing that she would refuse it for grave or any other reason.

Thankfully there are the encyclicals and CCC and priestly consult to help people.

Don’t forget the original inspired source - St. Paul (very similar to Pius XXII statements especially with respect to the dangers of mortal sin)

1 Corinthians 7 1:11 (not some translations use the word debt instead of duty hence the term marriage debt)
Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.

 

[Rence]

Both spouses should meet with a priest or at least a Catholic counselor before it ever gets to that. They both have an obligation to work on whatever their issues are.

Absolutely right if “grave reasons” are met there is no obligation to render the debt. I don’t think anybody has said anything to the contrary. There has been much discussion on what “grave reasons” are.

I think we have to try and follow God’s will in everything (which may be what you were saying but it came across differently to me). The topic of the marriage debt was not brought up to use it as a club to demand sex.

I have to respectfully disagree with this one sentence. I do feel that the marriage debt was brought up to use it as a club to demand sex, and that the party being demanded of had no choice but to submit, whether they wanted to or not. It’s possible I may have gotten the wrong message, but If that’s not the intended message, it can be clarified. But I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

It was brought up to explore the seeming inconsistency between how NFP is being marketed/taught and the unchanging moral law. I for one have never and never will demand the debt from my spouse in so many words - knowing that she would refuse it for grave or any other reason.

Don’t forget the original inspired source - St. Paul (very similar to Pius XXII statements especially with respect to the dangers of mortal sin)

1 Corinthians 7 1:11 (not some translations use the word debt instead of duty hence the term marriage debt)

Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman,"    but because of cases of immorality every man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.  The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband.   A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.  Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.  This I say by way of concession,  however, not as a command.   Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God,  one of one kind and one of another. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,  but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.  To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord):  a wife should not separate from her husband --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.

whm, I think I agree with everything you wrote. Marriage is cooperation and respect is a two-way street. If you love someone, how can you demand such things as the “marital debt” because again, if you love someone, how can it be given only when “demanded”? If it gets to be that way, I agree, a priest needs to be consulted ASAP. Marital relations is a give and take. Nothing can make a woman (or a man) feel much more than a prostitute by being demanded to “lie there and take it” because the other spouse is demanding payment because there is no Sacrament involved in that kind of relationship. If that was a true teaching of the Church, I would never get married in the Church, because it would be too demeaning – for either spouse.

 

[whm]

I have to respectfully disagree with this one sentence. I do feel that the marriage debt was brought up to use it as a club to demand sex, and that the party being demanded of had no choice but to submit, whether they wanted to or not. It’s possible I may have gotten the wrong message, but If that’s not the intended message, it can be clarified. But I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

whm, I think I agree with everything you wrote. Marriage is cooperation and respect is a two-way street. If you love someone, how can you demand such things as the “marital debt” because again, if you love someone, how can it be given only when “demanded”? If it gets to be that way, I agree, a priest needs to be consulted ASAP. Marital relations is a give and take. Nothing can make a woman (or a man) feel much more than a prostitute by being demanded to “lie there and take it” because the other spouse is demanding payment because there is no Sacrament involved in that kind of relationship. If that was a true teaching of the Church, I would never get married in the Church, because it would be too demeaning – for either spouse.

 

[CradleCath]

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…

I did & I was appalled by your use of the archaic terminology re the “Marriage Debt”. While I know that this term was used in the early Church & the medieval Church, I haven’t heard it once used by a Catholic priest & my husband & I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary in April.

When we received our “instructions on Catholic Marriage”, we were told the facts straight out. “Sex between a married couple is NOT a bargaining tool. **A Catholic wife does not reward her husband with sex when he’s a “good boy” & withold it when he’s not. A Catholic husband NEVER demands sex, **but revels in the fact that it is a gift freely given by a wife who loves him…his soul & his body & his mind.” When either of the negative scenarios that I’ve emboldened rear their ugly heads, the marriage ceases to be a true CATHOLIC marriage & it’s way past time to see both a priest & a marriage counselor.

It’s your attitude toward marital relations that troubles me AND your response to the question, “What if you are busy with your children & the husband/wife wants to indulge in sex”. First, that wouldn’t happen in a Catholic marriage where the couple is together primarily to make a FAMILY from the love between two people, & secondarily to sacramentalize their love for one another.

Also, the very idea that a Catholic man would use his wife’s body as a substitute for the body of a prostitute & that his wife would be sinning if her denial drove him to this…is just absurd.
#1. A grown, married Catholic man who would use his wife in this way has some BIG problems with self-control, with attitude & with obeying the laws of his Church.
#2. A Catholic wife is concerned with the happiness & the soul of her husband & would never withold her love to the point that it drove her husband away.
Perhaps you should dwell on the writings of Paul (first corinthians) for a while:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. Love never fails.”

BTW., I’m not asking the following to be rude, but…how old are you?
I’m 68 yrs. old & haven’t seen this attitude within a marriage during my lifetime. So, I’m just wondering if you were taught this attitude in pre-cana classes?

 

[Julianna]

*I did & I was appalled by your use of the archaic terminology re the “Marriage Debt”. While I know that this term was used in the early Church & the medieval Church, I haven’t heard it once used by a Catholic priest & my husband & I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary in April. *

Neither have I. What is with the going backwards deal? “Marriage debt”…how “cute”, and so not amusing. There isn’t a man I know today who has a wife who hops in bed when “he” says so. Geez louise…if you find a man like that…run in the other direction.

 

[Rence]

Cradle Cath, very well thought out and articulate response. Thank you very much!

 

[IntegraCatholic]

I did & I was appalled by your use of the archaic terminology re the “Marriage Debt”. While I know that this term was used in the early Church & the medieval Church, I haven’t heard it once used by a Catholic priest & my husband & I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary in April.

Your personal experience of whether it’s been used or not has no bearing on whether it is appropriate or whether it is archaic. This is what the nature of the act is, when one spouse asks the other. It is an act of justice to render the debt, hence the term. Congratulations on your long marriage. May God continue to bless you.

When we received our “instructions on Catholic Marriage”, we were told the facts straight out. "Sex between a married couple is NOT a bargaining tool. A Catholic wife does not reward her husband with sex when he’s a “good boy” & withold it when he’s not.

That’s good.

**A Catholic husband NEVER demands sex, **but revels in the fact that it is a gift freely given by a wife who loves him…his soul & his body & his mind."

While it may not be the best case scenario, nevertheless, if one party or the other “demands” the debt, it must be paid. It shouldn’t have to come to this. Each spouse should be looking out for the other, and he should willingly pay the debt when he realizes the other has need of it. He should assume that the other may be tempted to sin gravely and pay the debt generously in order to relieve the temptation of his spouse, which is the secondary purpose of the marital debt. If the couple is capable of conceiving, all the more reason to engage in the marital act, for then the two spouses are fulfilling their primary role as a married couple.

When either of the negative scenarios that I’ve emboldened rear their ugly heads, the marriage ceases to be a true CATHOLIC marriage & it’s way past time to see both a priest & a marriage counselor.

The former is false, though the latter may very well be the case, if either spouse has to stoop to demanding the debt.

It’s your attitude toward marital relations that troubles me

Does the teaching of the Church trouble you? I have done little else than explain or directly quote what moral theologians and dogmatic theologians agree to be the nature of marriage and the obligations of spouses to each other regarding the marriage debt.

AND your response to the question, “What if you are busy with your children & the husband/wife wants to indulge in sex”. First, that wouldn’t happen in a Catholic marriage where the couple is together primarily to make a FAMILY from the love between two people …]

The love of the spouses necessitates that they are willing to pay the debt so that the other spouse would not fall into grave sin. Charity toward God requires this, for nothing is worse than mortal sin, and charity for one’s neighbor (especially one’s spouse) requires this even more, for to love one’s neighbor truly is to wish that he grow in love of God and ultimately save his soul, neither of which is accomplished by refusing the debt.

& secondarily to sacramentalize their love for one another.

I’m not exactly sure what that means.

Also, the very idea that a Catholic man would use his wife’s body as a substitute for the body of a prostitute

That would be a mortal sin. Please refer back to what I quoted before from the Summa.

& that his wife would be sinning if her denial drove him to this…is just absurd.

Please consult the various doctors of the Church I have quoted throughout this text. I would highly encourage you to consider a moral theology manual within the perennial teaching of the Church for more information.

#1. A grown, married Catholic man who would use his wife in this way has some BIG problems with self-control, with attitude & with obeying the laws of his Church.

A Catholic wife who is so selfish as to neglect helping her husband in a time of temptation has BIG problems with self-control, with attitude & with obeying the laws of her Church.

Perhaps you should dwell on the writings of Paul (first corinthians) for a while:

I recommend I Cor. vii. for you, while I consider chapter xiii.

BTW., I’m not asking the following to be rude, but…how old are you?

Old enough to know about the matter. My age is irrelevant to the discussion. Suffice it to say that I am old enough to have to consider these very issues myself.

I’m 68 yrs. old & haven’t seen this attitude within a marriage during my lifetime.

Refer to my comment above about personal experience and its relevance to this discussion.

So, I’m just wondering if you were taught this attitude in pre-cana classes?

I didn’t need to study this in pre-Cana, as I had already had the opportunity to do so in depth before that time in studying moral theology, though the priest who teaches took up the charge of teaching pre-Cana at my parish would agree with what I have said here.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

What strikes me most about this thread is the ironic fact that IntegraCatholic’s language/terminology is so accurate, in spite of how troubling the downright Kantian attitude of obligation/duty with which he’s applying it is.

Anyone here ever read A Burnt-Out Case by Graham Greene? That novel - through its plot and characters - illustrates far better than I could the same problem that plagues this thread…

And for anyone who’s read it, if you’re curious, I mean that in both the specific sense - i.e. Rycker’s marriage in the novel - and in the general sense - i.e. the novel’s broader theme of the futility of even accurate theology when coldly, heartlessly applied in real life.

To be more pointed:

“If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.” - 1 Corinthians 13: 2

This Scripture passage must apply here. I don’t think anyone is denying that there’s a marriage debt, and that each spouse has an obligation selflessly to “render it” under ordinary, reasonable circumstances.

But IntegraCatholic, do you not see that your emphasis on that principle to the point where you feel that it’s being threatened by a concern for sensitivity between spouses, is quite undue?

After all, if one spouse is sad, troubled, etc. for some reason, I suppose objectively that probably wouldn’t count as a grave reason not to “render the debt.” But do you not see that for the other spouse to demand it nonetheless in that situation would in fact clearly be the worse sin?

And furthermore, do you not acknowledge that if the spouse who wanted to have sex is led into sin by his or her spouse’s refusal, that the responsibility for that sin still lies with the former? And that he or she should take the primary responsibility for it instead of blaming his or her spouse? And if you do acknowledge that, then why even blame the other spouse in an abstract example/discussion?

But then again, this is coming from someone who - like William May, Michael Waldstein, and other great Catholic theologians of our time - appreciates Christopher West’s interpretation of the theology of the body…

 

[Julianna]

Ok, I get it now.

Basically, Integra is saying “If you don’t give it up when your husband wants it, he may go get it somewhere else, thereby, you, the wife would be the cause of him sinning,”

It took all this time to figure out that is pure nonsense.

As Fone Bone stated…“reasonable circumsances.” Reasonable being the key here.

I’m not going to stop shopping for the weekly groceries in the middle of the store because he called me on the cell phone and said to come home right now because he wants some.

Ridiculas.

Be “reasonable”.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Ok, I get it now.

Basically, Integra is saying “If you don’t give it up when your husband wants it, he may go get it somewhere else, thereby, you, the wife would be the cause of him sinning,”

It took all this time to figure out that is pure nonsense.

As Fone Bone stated…“reasonable circumsances.” Reasonable being the key here.

I’m not going to stop shopping for the weekly groceries in the middle of the store because he called me on the cell phone and said to come home right now because he wants some.

Ridiculas.

Be “reasonable”.

Maybe leave the cell phone in the car?

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)

I brought up this woman, because it was a true story. Her husband would expect her to leave the children who were 2 in order to fulfil his needs.

So his needs were supposed to be paramount to the safety of the kids.

 

[Julianna]

Maybe leave the cell phone in the car?

I’d go for a flat out “No”.

I brought up this woman, because it was a true story. Her husband would expect her to leave the children who were 2 in order to fulfil his needs.

So his needs were supposed to be paramount to the safety of the kids.

I hope the woman in this story had better sense and told him no. Chasing after toddlers all day renders the mom, exhausted. Been there, done that. My wonderful DH, would “plan” getaways for just the two of us every 6 months for a weekend, so we could “marriage debt” all we wanted. This was a wonderful break for me as a mom…as my life at that time was “mom mom mom mom”. Now that kiddos are grown…everyday can be marriage debt day…without demand.

 

[whm]

This is a theological discussion in the Traditional forum. Some of people are taking this too personally. Intera Catholic has accurately quoted Popes and Fathers of the Church. His/her responses have all been in response to errors stated by others and are factually based. Every criticism leveled at IC in the last couple of pages of this tread may as well be leveled at Pope Pius XXII, St Thomas Aquinus and others.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I have no problem with the Church’s teachings. I humbly accept them

My objection is the idea presented that:

Most requests for payment of the marital debt are completely ordered, and that most rejections fall under mortal sin.

In the above scenario(husband wants debt payment while wife is attending to children)

The answer given was:

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.

2 year old are still babies. The chance of them getting into trouble alone is pretty much a given.

As a mother, I put my needs behind the needs of my family. I would much rather sleep than wake up at 5 to feed the baby. I woud enjoy buying clothes for myself, instead of spending money on Catholic School.

But, this specific Dad put his needs before those of the family.

And, as a mom, there are many times when **mutually desired relations **are delayed because of the children, be they sick, or colickky, or toddlers needing supervision. We put our needs on the back burner.

 

[Rence]

There is no question that there is a “marital debt” despite that I’ve never seen these words in the CCC, ever heard them in any Catholic school I attended, or from any priest with whom I have ever spoken. And depending on who you ask, you’ll get answers ranging from opposite ends of the spectrum on this forum (of course, with this many people in an online community, that’s going to happen.).

For example, on the one end of the spectrum we have those who say that sex doesn’t matter in a marriage, or is minimally important at best, because “we are not animals, we are human and have self control”. And then the opposite end of the spectrum says we have to roll over and play dead at the snap of the fingers of a spouse and take it like a man/woman. But common sense lies somewhere in between, and only a few people will stand at the extremes insisting that everyone else must do the same – but make no mistake, they’ll stand in the minority. Don’t expect others to join the bandwagon of sexual abuse within a marriage because it won’t happen.

The fact is you can comb through the SSPX literature and dig up any quotes from the Pope all one pleases, but the reality of it is we do not live in a slavery culture, and we do not “roll over and play dead”, and the Church never told anyone to take sex as a form of abuse – EVER. And it’s sinful to teach others that they must take sex as a form of abuse. Yes, a spouse has the right to “demand” sex, but if there is a point in a marriage where sex is “demanded” then there is a problem. The sharing of one’s body with his/her spouse has a required consensual element according to the teachings of the Church and there is no consent associated with “demands”, which equate to “coersion”. Thankfully the Church fathers had enough common sense to condemn rape, so one can “demand” until they are blue in the face, but can do nothing more but whine and stamp their feet about it and complain to their priest — or fix the problem. Otherwise, the duty to “pay the marital debt” could easily be taken out of context, which of course it has as we all know that women in the past have been raped by their husbands. Again, thankfully the law has changed that.

I have to admit that some of the Catholic teachings quoted here are repulsive and repugnant that make me not only glad I’m not married in the Church, but also make me understand quite well why others don’t. But after I have a few minutes to think about it, I think about some of the posts written by Mary Gail and Cradlecath and others who make me realize that it’s not the Church I don’t agree with, but the overly scrupulous. My heart goes out to those who don’t know the difference between Church teaching and scrupulosity, because these are the ones who are pushed away from the church by extremes, and immoral ones at that. No one wants to feel like a sex object at the level of a prostitute. That’s not what Catholic marriage is about. In fact, the Church goes to great lengths to teach about the sanctity of marriage and the dignity of the spouses. So we can’t blame the Church when sex becomes abusive.

For every rule about sex and marriage that the Church has, there is always a “but if”. For example, “but if” the asking-spouse is unfaithful, or has a contagious disease transmittted by sex, or the one being asked is sick, or if there is “grave reason” to abstain — Which the Church has allowed married couples to discern for themselves with the help of their priest and with the directive to discern carefully with prayer and can only be determined by each individual family. Argue about it all you like among yourselves, the fact is, grave for one family does not equal grave for another for multiple reasons. And if the couple is not on the same page about “grave reasons” then they need to see a priest who will help them to determine if it is grave or not. I can gurantee that there will be instances where the priest will agree that there are grave reasons, just as he would say something is not grave. It depends on the individual family and their situation.

But the “marital debt” is not required to be paid to unreasonable demands. The Church NEVER said that the marital debt had to be paid when unreasonably demanded. What is “unreasonable” will vary from family to family. The Church has done a lot to try and teach married couples and guide them, but they are not able to give a Q&A list of every senario. That’s where using the 'grey stuff" in your head comes in, and of course, the consult of a priest. The Church is dedicated to preserve the dignity of the spouses, which cannot be reflected in the ‘roll over and take it’ mentality, which the Church does not teach.

 

[ac_claire]

There are two sides to every story. I’d ask why they are not on the same page. Selfish reasons can go both ways. There are situations in which one spouse wants another child and the other spouse does not due to non-“grave” reasons, and in this case I would agree that it would be wrong to deny the spouse the wanted child. However, we’ve also seen examples of a spouse who wants another pregnancy, and the opposing spouse has “grave” reasons. In this case it is not wrong to deny the spouse the wanted child.

In any event, when one spouse is not willing to have another child for grave reasons, it’s not fair just to look at the spouse who is opposed. The fair thing to do is look at the whole picture, not one or the other.

That’s a big reason why a priest should be consulted. It is a misconception and an untruth to believe and teach others that the Church wants couples to have as many kids as they can year after year until they can’t, and that they must pay the “marital debt” whenever their spouse wants it or they may be sinning. What the Church does teach s that The Church wants couples to have as many children as they can, but not to the extent of destroying those in the family. The Church does not teach to inundate your spouse with too many children to care for. And they gave us enough tools (CCC, encyclicals and priest counsel, in addition to the books available) to help descern whether they have grave reasons or not. Having children has to be a shared reponsibility and having more children is a shared agreement between spouses, not something to be demanded from one of another spouse. This means that if having another child would cause hardship on one of the spouses, the spouse indeed has the right to withold the marital debt until it is not a hardship.

One also has to consider why on earth one spouse would insist on the marital debt being paid when they know the other spouse isn’t ready at the time, and for whatever reason makes it grave enough for them to discern to withold.

Again we’re talking about a hypothetical situation. And the assumption here (which I see on CAF all the time) that *any time *someone decides to abstain from sex to avoid conception, they are doing so because they have “rightly discerned” (from God, no less) that it’s the prudent thing to do. Since we’re talking about general situations, I think it’s silly to generalize that this is in fact the case with all couples. And my main point with all this isn’t even the discerning to abstain thing, it’s the fact that we’re talking about a *marriage *here, where one party wants to abstain and the other doesn’t. Why would the benefit of the doubt automatically be given to the party who wants to abstain? Mock it all you want, but there is such a thing as the “marriage debt” and it matters. The couple needs to be on the same page or you’re left with one spouse out in the cold.

And if they are not on the same page and can’t come to any kind of agreement, and since producing children is the primary purpose of marriage, I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the spouse who just wants to do what married people are naturally supposed to do.

 

[Rence]

I have no problem with the Church’s teachings. I humbly accept them

My objection is the idea presented that:
Most requests for payment of the marital debt are completely ordered, and that most rejections fall under mortal sin.

I object to that as well, and would add that there is no basis for that claim.

In the above scenario(husband wants debt payment while wife is attending to children)
The answer given was:
*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. *

2 year old are still babies. The chance of them getting into trouble alone is pretty much a given.

I don’t know who posted that bit, but I wonder if they have children. I would challenge that person to watch my nephew for a day and see if that person had time to even go to the bathroom, let alone satisfy a demanding and selfish spouse who would demand sex while a 2 year old ran amok without supervision. But then, I’d be too frightened for the child to send him. Leave a 2 year old alone in their room? Doesn’t that depend on the 2 year old? It certainly wouldn’t work with my nephew. He evidently must be demon-spawn and should be left to his devices while his parents “satisfied their cravings”.

As a mother, I put my needs behind the needs of my family. I would much rather sleep than wake up at 5 to feed the baby. I woud enjoy buying clothes for myself, instead of spending money on Catholic School.

But, this specific Dad put his needs before those of the family.

And, as a mom, there are many times when **mutually desired relations **are delayed because of the children, be they sick, or colickky, or toddlers needing supervision. We put our needs on the back burner.

Yes! Where in all this dug up documentation does it say to put care of the family on the backburner because one of the spouses has to have his/her sexual needs tended to? The Church would not determine it “reasonable” that a spouse demands sex while a mother is taking care of her children, expecting her to put the children in ‘time outs’ in the play pen or left to their own devices so they can have sex. Which reminds me, if mom is taking care of babies all day, and is exhausted it would be unreasonable (not to mention incredibly insensitive and cruel) for her husband to come home and “demand” that she round up the kids, tie them up, and pay the marital debt to him. Yeah, he can demand. But she doesn’t have to pay. This is unreasonable. She is not sinning by refusing.

The same goes for a man coming home from two jobs and his wife managed to put the kids down for a nap. It would be cruel of her to “demand” that he pay her the marital debt if he is exhausted from work. She can ask…he can give her a raincheck. She can demand, but he doesn’t have to pay. This would be unreasonable. He is not sinning by refusing.

If a spouse has to “demand” the marital debt of an unwilling spouse, for whatever reason the spouse is unwilling — there is a problem, with one or the other or both. The solution isn’t to roll over and play dead. The Church doesn’t demand that of anyone. The solution is to fix the problem. Otherwise, it’s just sex, and anyone can have that.

 

[Rence]

Again we’re talking about a hypothetical situation. And the assumption here (which I see on CAF all the time) that *any time *someone decides to abstain from sex to avoid conception, they are doing so because they have “rightly discerned” (from God, no less) that it’s the prudent thing to do. Since we’re talking about general situations, I think it’s silly to generalize that this is in fact the case with all couples. And my main point with all this isn’t even the discerning to abstain thing, it’s the fact that we’re talking about a *marriage *here, where one party wants to abstain and the other doesn’t. Why would the benefit of the doubt automatically be given to the party who wants to abstain? Mock it all you want, but there is such a thing as the “marriage debt” and it matters. The couple needs to be on the same page or you’re left with one spouse out in the cold.

And if they are not on the same page and can’t come to any kind of agreement, and since producing children is the primary purpose of marriage, I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the spouse who just wants to do what married people are naturally supposed to do.

I think that maybe you got too upset about the first part of my post, so that you didn’t finish reading it. Here’s the rest of what I said pertaining to your above reply:

the Church has allowed married couples to discern for themselves with the help of their priest and with the directive to discern carefully with prayer and can only be determined by each individual family. Argue about it all you like among yourselves, the fact is, grave for one family does not equal grave for another for multiple reasons. And if the couple is not on the same page about “grave reasons” then they need to see a priest who will help them to determine if it is grave or not. I can gurantee that there will be instances where the priest will agree that there are grave reasons, just as he would say something is not grave. It depends on the individual family and their situation.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Again we’re talking about a hypothetical situation. And the assumption here (which I see on CAF all the time) that *any time *someone decides to abstain from sex to avoid conception, they are doing so because they have “rightly discerned” (from God, no less) that it’s the prudent thing to do. Since we’re talking about general situations, I think it’s silly to generalize that this is in fact the case with all couples. And my main point with all this isn’t even the discerning to abstain thing, it’s the fact that we’re talking about a *marriage *here, where one party wants to abstain and the other doesn’t. Why would the benefit of the doubt automatically be given to the party who wants to abstain? Mock it all you want, but there is such a thing as the “marriage debt” and it matters. The couple needs to be on the same page or you’re left with one spouse out in the cold.

And if they are not on the same page and can’t come to any kind of agreement, and since producing children is the primary purpose of marriage, I believe that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the spouse who just wants to do what married people are naturally supposed to do.

The red part shows the balance.

If there were truly valid reason to avoid relations, *the good Catholic *spouse would not demand.

and

If there were no truly valid reasons to avoid relations, *the good Catholic *spouse would not refuse.

How do you determine?
Prayerfully.