Mary_Gail_36
New member
Mrs. Roper and Mrs. Bundy come to mind (TV characters)
- Status
W
white_sheep
Guest
St. Paul certainly needs to grow up, that immature embarrassment of a man that he was.
Read 1Cor 7:3
R
Rence
Guest
Yes, that was a nice and reasonable and fair quote. But St. Paul wasn’t perfect eitherSt. Paul certainly needs to grow up, that immature embarrassment of a man that he was.
Read 1Cor 7:3
O
Onegin
Guest
Do you believe that St. Paul got it wrong, then?Yes, that was a nice and reasonable and fair quote. But St. Paul wasn’t perfect either
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Just a little bit more of the section…
J
jilly4ski
Guest
All these people believe what St. Paul said, what they are saying is that we need to understand St. Paul and the rest of scripture in the context of sacred Tradition, and that the church has a rich tradition and teaching on sacramental marriage the “marital debt” which some of the posters have tried to put forth.
R
Rence
Guest
I don’t believe he always got it right.
R
Rence
Guest
Yes, and also take it in the context of when it was written as well.
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
Well three things are to be considered IMO. First , When you give yourself in Matrimony that means your spouse has rights to you. Now before the entire forum attacks me - let me clarify. Sure there are good reasons - medical reasons - etc to deny your spouse his or her Marital rights. But these should be reached by consensus for just as they have their rights - so too are these rights to be exercised in a Charitable Catholic Manner serving the will of GOD at all times.I have had a difficult time figuring out the morality of using NFP in marriage. I am looking for traditional Catholic’s opinions on the subject. One thing I found that was interesting is that the american SSPX website appears to consider it a mortal sin. Is this consistent with pre Vatican II beliefs? or is this something that came up with on their own?
Here are my thoughts - NFP is allowed under some circumstances, this is clear from the CCC. The CCC is a little vague in not defining what “serious reasons” are. Just because it is allowed doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good idea (sort of like alter girls, communion in the hand, wearing shorts to Mass etc)
I have also read people suggesting use of a fertility monitor as being equivalent to NFP. I guess I can see that.
Assuming it is allowed, how would you view a situation where the wife gets serious postpartum depression (to the point of being tempted to her herself). Well this is tricky to me, certainly the PPD is serious on one hand, but there are medications that can control it, on the other hand the medications may effect any potential baby before birth or after birth through the milk, not to mention the effects on the mom. The options are complete abstinence, NFP/monitor, or have relations and deal with what comes of it. All of them have potential negative consequences(relationship, health/potential sin/lack of virtue, health respectively).
btw there are other issues involved that have lead to the abstinence path, but I am trying to find peace one issue at a time.
Second - the decision to have children should come naturally. In the society in which we live - the use of sexuality has been completely convoluted IMO. The purpose should always be to serve the will of GOD not self gratification. Hense are things like fornication or adultery or artificial birth control always intrinsically evil.
Third , GOD sends children and in addition the means to support them. The single greatest consideration today seems to be financial in so many cases. Trust GOD. We have everything we own because GOD knows we need it. If GOD doesnt think you can afford it - then he wont send you a child. As my mother in law once said ( A mother of 13) they are born with a sandwich in their hand. Thats my 2 cents - pray on it.
Pax
E
edwest2
Guest
I would encourage Catholics to avoid listening to opinions about this. The Church has clear teaching that should answer all questions. A wife is from God. Marriage is a sacrament and a commitment to a vocational life between two people who become one after the marriage act is completed. It should not be entered into lightly.
In the not so distant past, Catholic men like myself were taught clear rules of behavior regarding the opposite sex. These rules were not opinions but proven and practical ways to develop a relationship with another person that may lead to marriage. Young ladies were also taught the rules. These rules helped insure that if followed properly, it would lead to a healthy relationship and a healthy home life.
Instead, today, the cart is put before the horse. Only sex gets airplay. Relationships? Who needs a relationship? Without having rules in place, after the marriage when all the sex has died down, you then realize what kind of person you’re with. But it’s too late at that point.
Healthy relationships, followed in good conscience and based on Church teaching, are possible. We just need to put it into practice.
God bless,
Ed
In the not so distant past, Catholic men like myself were taught clear rules of behavior regarding the opposite sex. These rules were not opinions but proven and practical ways to develop a relationship with another person that may lead to marriage. Young ladies were also taught the rules. These rules helped insure that if followed properly, it would lead to a healthy relationship and a healthy home life.
Instead, today, the cart is put before the horse. Only sex gets airplay. Relationships? Who needs a relationship? Without having rules in place, after the marriage when all the sex has died down, you then realize what kind of person you’re with. But it’s too late at that point.
Healthy relationships, followed in good conscience and based on Church teaching, are possible. We just need to put it into practice.
God bless,
Ed
V
Vico
Guest
Consensus
Well, a marital right is actually a grant of the natural act apt to the generation of children under the condition that it be consentual, with no danger of infection of disease or abnormally high risk of danger from pregnancy, under non-harmful and non-distressing conditions, when the request is reasonable, and not corrupted by onanism, and not otherwise sinful, and when the spouse is not an unforgiven adulterer. So a spouse cannot claim a right that they do not have.
My grandmother was a wife of a cotton farmer and married at age 14. She had 14 children beginning in 1895 (at age 15) till 1917 at age 38. She had twins in the last delivery, and she and the twin babies died after giving birth. They did not live in luxury and did have enough food, and my mother tells me they used to feed the prarie dogs pancakes.
R
Robert_Burns
Guest
I think that an Examination of Conscience can shed some light as well : Sixth & Ninth
Have I denied my spouse his or her marriage rights?
Have I practiced birth control?
Have I abused my marriage rights in any other way?
Have I committed adultery or fornication?
Have I touched or embraced another impurely?
Have I sinned with others of the same sex?
Have I committed masturbation or otherwise sinned impurely with myself?
Have I harbored lustful desires for anyone?
Have I indulged in other impure thoughts?
Have I failed to dress modestly?
Have I done anything to provoke or occasion impure thoughts in others?
Have I read indecent literature or looked at indecent pictures?
Have I watched suggestive films or programs?
Have I permitted my children or others under my charge to do these things?
Have I used indecent language or told indecent stories?
Have I willingly listened to such stories?
Have I boasted of my sins?
Have I sinned against chastity in any other way?
J
Julianna
Guest
oh and he was just as “human” as the rest of us.
A
ac_claire
Guest
He was a human being and the epistles he wrote which were included in the BIble are considered by our Church to be infallible and inerrent. That’s gotta mean something.oh and he was just as “human” as the rest of us.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I don’t know why, but I am honestly surprised that there would be so many Catholics on here openly dissenting against the Bible itself.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
An honest question;
My wife is projectile vomiting thanks to the pregnancy (like four feet worth of distance) several times a day, has consistent headaches, and an upset stomach. Having sex would not be pleasant for her, and could result in her throwing up as we’re doing it.
If I’m going to sin, should she still accept my request for sexual intercourse?
Or should I suck it up, respect her, and exercise some self-control like before we were married?
My wife is projectile vomiting thanks to the pregnancy (like four feet worth of distance) several times a day, has consistent headaches, and an upset stomach. Having sex would not be pleasant for her, and could result in her throwing up as we’re doing it.
If I’m going to sin, should she still accept my request for sexual intercourse?
Or should I suck it up, respect her, and exercise some self-control like before we were married?
W
white_sheep
Guest
I’d have to go with B. That falls into the ‘within reason’ category and in that situation it isn’t within reason.
Of course I’d give her something for the nausea.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
It goes without saying, of course
(we’re getting a refill on that tomorrow hopefully)An extreme case, it is. But at what point is “within reason”?
- Say she isn’t pregnant, but still has vomiting and migraines. Is this within reason?
- Say it’s just migraines. Is this within reason?
- Say it’s severe cramps. Is this within reason?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying if a woman isn’t receptive that a husband can’t try to ply the romance (apparently women like romance) to…scratch the itch. But there are times when a women says no, she means no and as men we should suck it up, exercise some self-control and fight our issues.
And under no circumstances should a man physically force himself upon a woman, wife or no, who says no and with no consent from her. I’m assuming everyone can be agreed on that one.
W
white_sheep
Guest
I’d say no to all of those. When it becomes important is when for no good reason a spouse refuses to pay the debt. One time, no big deal, continually, repetitively on the other hand is.It goes without saying, of course
An extreme case, it is. But at what point is “within reason”?
I suppose what I’m getting at is as men we’ve had to exercise self-control and respect towards women throughout our lives being single. I don’t think it’s appropriate to change that once you get married by demanding the “debt” be paid unless it is through mutual consent.
- Say she isn’t pregnant, but still has vomiting and migraines. Is this within reason?
- Say it’s just migraines. Is this within reason?
- Say it’s severe cramps. Is this within reason?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying if a woman isn’t receptive that a husband can’t try to ply the romance (apparently women like romance) to…scratch the itch. But there are times when a women says no, she means no and as men we should suck it up, exercise some self-control and fight our issues.
And under no circumstances should a man physically force himself upon a woman, wife or no, who says no and with no consent from her. I’m assuming everyone can be agreed on that one.
W
whm
Guest
Well that situation sounds pretty serious to me, but lets assume that it is a little less harsh. If you can “suck it up”, you have your answer do not request sex. Think of it more as “I am going to jump off a cliff” if I don’t have relations with my wife. It is not about satisfying needs it is about avoiding mortal sin. The concept here is if you (hypothetical person) can’t stop yourself from turning to porn or some other mortal sin, it is preferable that your wife consents to have relations for you. I think everybody will agree it is better that a man can have more self control and more compassion for their spouse. But mortal sin is the worst possible outcome. That seems to be lost these days, mortal sin is really really really bad, one should prefer death (in a state of grace) to mortal sin. A man or a women who has to request under these circumstances probably should seek spiritual direction.
The temptation itself does not make the man bad either, it is tough to judge some are tempted more than others. There are loving alternatives such as a heart to heart talk or having a nice meal/snack together that can also help the man (or wife) through a tempting time. What folks are resisting on this thread is the implication that concept of the debt doesn’t exist or using extreme examples to start a slippery slope attack on the moral law (akin to rape/incest exception tactics used in abortion debates). That might not be the intent of the discussion, but internet discussions are not the same as face to face discussions, one can’t interact in real time, read expressions, get instant clarification nor assume every reader will understand things the same way( I might trust that you understand, but am also concerned that they next person might not have the full context).
Another point to clarify requesting/demanding the “debt” is not necessarily a formal verbal command or something. It is what takes place every time spouses have relations. One spouse attempts to initiate relations. A lot people get kind of fixated on the formal language (from St. Paul and old english translations).
The other thing is most of the examples revolve around a man wanting to satisfy himself. A lot of first born babies are the result of the wife requesting relations out of maternal instincts.
- Status