And as has already been stated numerous times, this is 100% totally incorrect and incompatible with Church teaching on marriage and sexuality.One of the worst things you could do in mariage would be to have sex for any reason but to produce children (otherwise a mortal sin).
Who on earth unleashed Tatian in a high school religion class? Tatian, while Christian for a period, took extreme ascetic views and apostacized into Gnosticism.The one that stands out the most is: “marriage is prostitution” spoken by Tatian.
This a completely incorrect explanation of Church teaching.There was a diagram in the cover of one of the books (almost like the shield of the Trinity) that had the three vocations (single, married, and religious) with words to the effect of celibacy being far superior to marriage (and anything in it). I believe that idea was from a decree of the Council of Trent. Essentially, celibacy was superior to marriage, but continence in marriage was superior to the view that one could have sex for non-procreative purposes. We had established a sliding scale of sinfulness, basically.
No, that is not correct.One last thing: they had said that Church teaching on the topic had changed in the 1920s to the one that is currently being put forth here (the modern one?). Were they being truthful in that regard?
Two wrongs do not make a right. The extreme you are taking is also a heresy.How so? I cannot see why that would not be the case.
But he was also taught sex in marriag is sinful. It is NOT sinful.This verse is entirely in conformity with Catholic doctrine on marriage.
- Celibacy is a higher calling.
- Marriage is a remedy for concupiscence.
Because marriage is a different calling with a different purpose. It is not the lack of sexual relations that makes religious life “better” or a “higher” calling. Remember sexual relations between spouses is NOT sinful.And one aspect is lack of sexual relations. So why not have that in marriage?
What you were taught was entirely WRONG. Yes, you do give the right to marital intercourse to your spouse in the exchange of consent in marriage.The way this:* “I say this as a concession, not as a command.”*
was interpreted for me is that you have to be married to have sex, but you do not have to have sex if you are married.
Without Love it is violence of a kind. Married couples consent to one another out of Love and commitment, not out of unilateral demands. Our bodies have an elemental spousal meaning (TOB), we are meant to be united with one another, body and soul. By the same token, no two people have the exact same physical makeup or expectations iin this area, so loving spouses need to take steps to nurture the conjugal life in mutual respect, giving and receiving. This involves sacrifice and flexibility, no way around it. In my experience, feelings follow sacrifice and commitment, not the other way around. We need to be open to Love, one special person can change a lot of our misconceptions.The one that stands out the most is: “marriage is prostitution” spoken by Tatian. This probably sums up my view on forced conjugal relations. I really cannot stomach the view people are putting forth here. It seems almost violent. In fact it is likely the major reason why I would not get married.
+Sebastian
It was a Catholic youth group. The (Catholic) high school many went to (as did I) taught very little of the faith (and was infamous for it) so the parents sent many of their children to this particular youth group. And I wouldn’t say “unleashed”; Tatian is very wise person. I would say “impart.”Who on earth unleashed Tatian in a high school religion class?
I’m struggling to understand why this is the case. To me it is coherent and consistent. The views being put forth here seem contradictory.This a completely incorrect explanation of Church teaching.
This was a Roman Catholic church in a Roman Catholic diocese under an orthodox Roman Catholic bishop. There was (and is) nothing schismatic about the church.Are you sure this was a CATHOLIC Church and not a schismatic group?
How can that be heretical? Where does that reasoning come from?Two wrongs do not make a right. The extreme you are taking is also a heresy.
I was taught that it was sinful if not for procreation.But he was also taught sex in marriag is sinful. It is NOT sinful.
I didn’t say it was the only thing. But emulating (in part) an ascetic element of a higher calling cannot be bad, right?Because marriage is a different calling with a different purpose. It is not the lack of sexual relations that makes religious life “better” or a “higher” calling. Remember sexual relations between spouses is NOT sinful.
This seems selfish. It is almost like indenture or something of the sort. Again, it comes across as violent. You’re forcing someone to do something. I have a feeling this might be one of the motivating factors in why sex is sinful if not for procreation. I think secular values have really had an effect on the Church, which is rather sad.Yes, you do give the right to marital intercourse to your spouse in the exchange of consent in marriage.
Not at all. It is an obligation freely entered into.This seems selfish. It is almost like indenture or something of the sort. Again, it comes across as violent. You’re forcing someone to do something.
The idea of one person belonging to another is dehumanizing, like owning a car or a refrigerator. Even the term “marriage debt” reeks of economics. The reading I’ve been doing on the forum for the past hour or so only reinforces it and adds on a dimension of legalism. There is clearly great wisdom in what Tatian and other Church Fathers say.Yes, you do give the right to marital intercourse to your spouse in the exchange of consent in marriage.
I hope you don’t mind if I ask you for the names of these saints.From Butler’s Lives of the Saints we were given several examples of female saints who decided unilaterally to have a celibate marriage and then informed their husbands of this decision with full expectation of compliance (which the husband did do).
You’re discussing this outside the context of sacrificial Love. The discussion makes no sense outside that context. Of course no one is a piece of property. That is not a Christian idea.The idea of one person belonging to another is dehumanizing, like owning a car or a refrigerator. Even the term “marriage debt” reeks of economics. The reading I’ve been doing on the forum for the past hour or so only reinforces it and adds on a dimension of legalism. There is clearly great wisdom in what Tatian and other Church Fathers say.
From Butler’s Lives of the Saints we were given several examples of female saints who decided unilaterally to have a celibate marriage and then informed their husbands of this decision with full expectation of compliance (which the husband did do).
+Sebastian
There were about ten to twelve, but the only ones I remember are St. Hedwig and St. Cecilia.I hope you don’t mind if I ask you for the names of these saints.
St. Hedwig: For some years after her marriage, Hedwig resided chiefly at Breslau. She had seven children.There were about ten to twelve, but the only ones I remember are St. Hedwig and St. Cecilia. There were male saints who did this, as well, such as St. Amun and St. Edward the Confessor. Blessed James Oldo and his wife lived a celibate/continent marriage.
Even fairly recently John Paul II beatified a married couple, Luigi and Maria Beltrame Quattrocchi who decided to live separately.
St. Cecilia told her husband that their marriage would be continent after they were married. I see nothing wrong with that.but BOTH spouses must be agreeable to this in the first place and EITHER spouse can end the continency.
Hello,The idea of one person belonging to another is dehumanizing, like owning a car or a refrigerator. Even the term “marriage debt” reeks of economics. The reading I’ve been doing on the forum for the past hour or so only reinforces it and adds on a dimension of legalism. There is clearly great wisdom in what Tatian and other Church Fathers say. …
St. Cecilia told her husband that their marriage would be continent after they were married. I see nothing wrong with that.
I am confused then as to why her life was focused on in detail in the liturgical year of 1901.
- Everything about St. Cecilia is apocryphal. She lived 1800 years ago and we have no factual accounts of her life.
I think you are probably right about not getting married; if I really am forced into a contractual obligation towards relations, then it seems that marriage isn’t the thing for me.Bottom Line: If you wish to enter into a josephite marriage, then knock yourself out. Find a girl who’ll agree to it and then the both of you bring it to your spiritual director / parish priest. Get his blessing and you’re good to go. Otherwise, just don’t get married. There’s nothing wrong with staying single (whether as religious or not) if you aren’t being called to marriage.
I can agree that seeking pleasure in that fashion is a mortal sin.
I find it rather unsettling that a spouse can make some exaction even if they have leprosy. Does this generalize to any disease then?
It is not a threat. But yes, continence (Joesephite Marriage) can only be entered into if both spouses are willing and able to assume all the duties of marriage, including sexual relations.That said, does a Josephite marriage still carry the threat of a marriage debt?
I think you missed the point. St. Thomas Aquinas is refuting that position, not agreeing with it.I can agree that seeking pleasure in that fashion is a mortal sin.