Sins within the marital act

[clem456]

Marriage is a contract and a covenant. There are certain rights and responsibilities that go with it. The Church has always taught that each spouse has a right to sex; it is a debt that is owed to each other (noting there are various circumstances that excuse it).

The previous canon was more clear on this point, but the current canon still explains it, somewhat obliquely:

This is interpreted to include sex.

“Debt” is a term that many people find odd, but is can be thought of as a possitive thing. Like our obligation to go to mass on Sunday. It is a responsibility for our own good.

Point taken.
The language the Church currently uses is strikingly different. JP2 does not use contractual language or “debt” at all, but rather uses covenant language of reciprocity and mutuality.
The CCC specifically calls marriage a covenant, but also refers to marriage as being contracted. So perhaps the Church is pointing out the nature of marriage on the one hand, and how it is carried out on the other? I do not know.

 

[Bookcat]

Point taken.
The language the Church currently uses is strikingly different. JP2 does not use contractual language or “debt” at all, but rather uses covenant language of reciprocity and mutuality.
The CCC specifically calls marriage a covenant, but also refers to marriage as being contracted. So perhaps the Church is pointing out the nature of marriage on the one hand, and how it is carried out on the other? I do not know.

Even “if” St. Pope John Paul II did not use debt as Pope (not saying that he never did) - the marital debt (debitum) remains (and will also be) a very valid aspect of marriage (even if the language may not be understood as it ought today.

One has given oneself in marriage and thus there is a positive obligation in this (though such ought not be the only reason of course…just as ones Sunday Obligation ought not be the only reason…but both assist us in our weakness…to live the reality of our lives. As Married persons and Christians).

See Sacred Scripture - St. Paul 1 Corinthians 7: 3-5

 

[clem456]

Even “if” St. Pope John Paul II did not use debt as Pope (not saying that he never did) - the marital debt (debitum) remains (and will also be) a very valid aspect of marriage (even if the language may not be understood as it ought today.

One has given oneself in marriage and thus there is a positive obligation in this (though such ought not be the only reason of course…just as ones Sunday Obligation ought not be the only reason…but both assist us in our weakness…to live the reality of our lives. As Married persons and Christians).

See Sacred Scripture - St. Paul 1 Corinthians 7: 3-5

Yes agreed.
Language is important in expressing the fullness of the truth to the audience we are addressing.

 

[fpt]

Each member of couple has to avoid (a conjugal moral obligation):

The Manichaeism, the Catharism, the Jansenism, the neo-Jansenism, the Puritanism, the neo-Puritanism, the Victorianism, the neo-Victorianism, the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the radical feminism, the sexism from female, the misandry, the negationism of alterity and of the complementarity of male and female coming from women, the negationism of alterity and of the complementarity of male and female coming from men, the negationism of the sexuation coming from women, the negationism of the sexuation coming from men, the relativism of the sexuation coming from women, the relativism of the sexuation coming from men, the radical masculinism, the sexism from males, the misogyny, the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality about the conjugal sexuality;

The theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the moralism, the rigorism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the pharisaism, the scrupulism about conjugal sexuality;

The marriage is for one part a sexual contract, a sexual institution, a sexual covenant, a sexual alliance and a sexual consortium. The day of wedding, each one agrees with:

the fact of giving his/her own body to the other, sexually speaking, and of being taken and of being possessed by the other, sexually speaking, in all the sexual dimensions: body, soul and heart with all the corollaries.

the fact of receiving the body of the other, sexually speaking, and of taking and of possessing this body, sexually speaking, in all the sexual dimensions: body, soul and heart with all the corollaries.
**
Sexual donation and sexual reception**

 

[tafan]

I have long thought that one of the sins against the marital act was referring to it as the “marriage debt” – as though this most intimate of acts was some sort of commercial transaction. And yes, I’m aware that numerous Church documents use this term. Doesn’t make it right.

I think it is absolutely one of the best terms we could use. When we get married, we freely give ourselves to our spouse, for our whole life. That’s a major debt. It doesn’t boil it down to a commercial transaction, it boils it down to what it is. We know longer have the complete freedom to say no.

Whenever I hear someone say they can’t stand the term the marriage debt, I do not think it is the terminology that really bothers them. I think it is the existence of the obligation itself.

 

[Bookcat]

I have long thought that one of the sins against the marital act was referring to it as the “marriage debt” – as though this most intimate of acts was some sort of commercial transaction. And yes, I’m aware that numerous Church documents use this term. Doesn’t make it right.

Yes it does make it right…

What is not right is the way it can be “heard” by many ears today - for it is not as you note a commercial transaction.

The marital debt (debitum) though remains (and will also be) a very valid aspect of marriage (even if the language may not be understood as it ought today).

One has given oneself in marriage and thus there is a positive obligation in this. Though such ought not be the only reason of course…just as ones Sunday Obligation ought not be the only reason…but both assist us in our weakness…to live the reality of our lives. As Married persons and Christians.

See Sacred Scripture - St. Paul 1 Corinthians 7: 3-5

 

[clem456]

Yes it does make it right…

What is not right is the way it can be “heard” by many ears today - for it is not as you note a commercial transaction.

The marital debt (debitum) though remains (and will also be) a very valid aspect of marriage (even if the language may not be understood as it ought today).

One has given oneself in marriage and thus there is a positive obligation in this. Though such ought not be the only reason of course…just as ones Sunday Obligation ought not be the only reason…but both assist us in our weakness…to live the reality of our lives. As Married persons and Christians.

See Sacred Scripture - St. Paul 1 Corinthians 7: 3-5

The underlying reality is the same.
It is good to use the fullest expression possible to convey the truth. The fullest expression does not make the prior expression sinful in any way. The word debt unfortunately can be misunderstood and distorted.
John Paul 2 is brilliant in his expression of the truth. I hope we can emulate his expression.

 

[fpt]

In the natural and catholic marriage, there are:

the notion of sexual donation;
the notion of sexual reception;
the notion of conjugal debt;
the notion of marital request;
the notion of right to the body, the right on the body and the right of the body;
the notion of conjugal sexual rights;
the notion of conjugal sexual privileges;
the notion of conjugal sexual obligations;
the notion of conjugal sexual duties;

The marriage is a " contract / alliance / covenant / consortium " of donation / reception of two sexed persons (body, soul and heart), female and male. For being simple, that is *an institutional contract *concerning to two human persons in the sexed and sexual alterity, and also in the sexed and sexual complementarity.

 

[fpt]

I am a new Catholic, confirmed last year, and am still trying to figure out what is acceptable during the marital act. I saw a thread about this recently, and am confused. I ran across this article catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm where the author claims that any act that is not natural intercourse is a mortal sin.
I talked to my priest about this and he said everything is acceptable (except anal), as long as it ends with the husband completing the act in the wife the natural way.(Sorry, trying not to be graphic). I also suffer from scrupulosity, and I recently read a wonderful book called Understanding Scrupulosity, in which the author states when in doubt, trust your confessor.
My problem is, the author of the article I just mentioned said that some priests fall into the idea that certain acts of foreplay are okay, and that it’s a heresy, etc.
So, I’m caught wondering who’s right. But, of course, I trust my priest and think I should listen to him.
Any advice?

DoxieMama

As catholic, we have to try to make an unitary work for understanding the deep teaching of Roman Catholic Church about the marriage and the conjugal act,** in the details, with all the subtleties, without taboo and without heresy and without ideology**.

 

[tafan]

The underlying reality is the same.
It is good to use the fullest expression possible to convey the truth. The fullest expression does not make the prior expression sinful in any way. The word debt unfortunately can be misunderstood and distorted.
John Paul 2 is brilliant in his expression of the truth. I hope we can emulate his expression.

What is the fullest expression of this truth? The two most common used terms are “debt” and “obligation”, both of which seem synonymous in this context.
I have yet to hear an alternative terminology put forth by those who oppose these terms. Which is why I do not think it is an issue of terminology, rather it is an issue of not wanting to believe in this truth.

 

[clem456]

What is the fullest expression of this truth? The two most common used terms are “debt” and “obligation”, both of which seem synonymous in this context.
I have yet to hear an alternative terminology put forth by those who oppose these terms. Which is why I do not think it is an issue of terminology, rather it is an issue of not wanting to believe in this truth.

I don’t disagree with the meaning of the terms or disbelieve what they express. I simply don’t express sexuality this way in speaking with people. There is a better way in my opinion.
I like the way Saint JP2 expresses it.
That’s it.

This is a beautiful and profound document for those who want to know more about Catholic sexuality.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

 

[Bookcat]

The underlying reality is the same.
It is good to use the fullest expression possible to convey the truth. The fullest expression does not make the prior expression sinful in any way. The word debt unfortunately can be misunderstood and distorted.
John Paul 2 is brilliant in his expression of the truth. I hope we can emulate his expression.

And the debitum is not simply the “prior” expression…

 

[tafan]

I don’t disagree with the meaning of the terms or disbelieve what they express. I simply don’t express sexuality this way in speaking with people. There is a better way in my opinion.
I like the way Saint JP2 expresses it.
That’s it.

This is a beautiful and profound document for those who want to know more about Catholic sexuality.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

How did JPII express the concept of the marital debt? I have done a quick search and did not find anything, perhaps you could help save some time.

Oh, BTW, I have read all of Theology of the Body, and I don’t recall a talk on this particular subject (but it has been 3 or 4 years since I read it).

 

[Bookcat]

How did JPII express the concept of the marital debt? I have done a quick search and did not find anything, perhaps you could help save some time.

Oh, BTW, I have read all of Theology of the Body, and I don’t recall a talk on this particular subject (but it has been 3 or 4 years since I read it).

The theology of the body is not an all inclusive course on Marriage…as splendid as it is.

 

[tafan]

The theology of the body is not an all inclusive course on Marriage…as splendid as it is.

I am not arguing it is. I read clem456’s post as saying that JP II had a better way of expressing the concept of the marital debt. I would like to know what it is?

 

[Bookcat]

How did JPII express the concept of the marital debt?

Not specifically addressed here about the “marital debitum” per se - but it can assist in thinking about such. He even used the word “debitum”

“According to the different relationships and different aspects, justice has obtained more appropriate definitions throughout the centuries. Hence the concept of justice: communicative, distributive, legal and social. All this testifies what a fundamental significance justice has for the moral order among men, in social and international relations. It can be said that the very meaning of man’s existence on earth is bound up with justice. To define correctly “how much is due” to each one from all and at the same time to all from each one, “what is due” (debitum) to man from man in different systems and relationships—to define, and above all to put into practice!—is a great thing, through which every man lives, and thanks to which his life has a meaning.”

---

"Each of us, then, must be able to live in a context of justice and, even more, each of us must be just and act justly with regard to those near us and those who are far away, with regard to the community, to the society of which one is a member… and with regard to God.

Justice has many references and many forms. There is also a form of justice which regards what man “owes” God. This is a vast subject in itself. I will not develop it now, although I cannot abstain from indicating it.

Let us give our attention, meanwhile, to men. Christ left us the commandment to love our neighbour. In this commandment, everything that concerns justice is also contained. There can be no love without justice. Love" surpasses" justice, but at the same time it finds its verification in justice. Even a father and a mother, loving their own child, must be just in his regard. If justice is uncertain, love, too, runs a risk.

To be just means giving each one what is due to him. This concerns temporal goods, of a material nature. The best example here can be remuneration for work or the so-called right to the fruits of one’s own work or of one’s own land. But to man is due also his good name, respect, consideration, the reputation he has deserved. The more we know a man, the more his personality, his character, his intellect and his heart are revealed to us. And the more we realize—and we must realize!—with what criterion to “measure him” and what it means to be just towards him.

It is necessary, therefore, to deepen our knowledge of justice continually. It is not a theoretical science. It is virtue, it is capacity of the human spirit, of the human will and also of the heart. It is also necessary to pray in order to be just and to know how to be just.

We cannot forget Our Lord’s words: “The measure you give will be the measure you get” (Mt 7:2)."

(St) JOHN PAUL II

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday, 8 November 1978

 

[clem456]

How did JPII express the concept of the marital debt? I have done a quick search and did not find anything, perhaps you could help save some time.

Oh, BTW, I have read all of Theology of the Body, and I don’t recall a talk on this particular subject (but it has been 3 or 4 years since I read it).

He doesn’t use that language. He uses language of reciprocity, complementarity, mutual exchange. Why he didn’t choose to express marital relations in terms of “debt” I don’t know. I have my own suppositions as to why he spoke like he did, but I don’t pretend to know his mind.

As bookcat says, TOB is not an all inclusive course on marriage, it was never asserted or proposed as such. It’s not a marriage textbook. It lays the Christian philosophical foundation for our human physical nature and it’s expression.

 

[clem456]

Not specifically addressed here about the “marital debitum” per se - but it can assist in thinking about such. He even used the word “debitum”

“According to the different relationships and different aspects, justice has obtained more appropriate definitions throughout the centuries. Hence the concept of justice: communicative, distributive, legal and social. All this testifies what a fundamental significance justice has for the moral order among men, in social and international relations. It can be said that the very meaning of man’s existence on earth is bound up with justice. To define correctly “how much is due” to each one from all and at the same time to all from each one, “what is due” (debitum) to man from man in different systems and relationships—to define, and above all to put into practice!—is a great thing, through which every man lives, and thanks to which his life has a meaning.”

---

"Each of us, then, must be able to live in a context of justice and, even more, each of us must be just and act justly with regard to those near us and those who are far away, with regard to the community, to the society of which one is a member… and with regard to God.

Justice has many references and many forms. There is also a form of justice which regards what man “owes” God. This is a vast subject in itself. I will not develop it now, although I cannot abstain from indicating it.

Let us give our attention, meanwhile, to men. Christ left us the commandment to love our neighbour. In this commandment, everything that concerns justice is also contained. There can be no love without justice. Love" surpasses" justice, but at the same time it finds its verification in justice. Even a father and a mother, loving their own child, must be just in his regard. If justice is uncertain, love, too, runs a risk.

To be just means giving each one what is due to him. This concerns temporal goods, of a material nature. The best example here can be remuneration for work or the so-called right to the fruits of one’s own work or of one’s own land. But to man is due also his good name, respect, consideration, the reputation he has deserved. The more we know a man, the more his personality, his character, his intellect and his heart are revealed to us. And the more we realize—and we must realize!—with what criterion to “measure him” and what it means to be just towards him.

It is necessary, therefore, to deepen our knowledge of justice continually. It is not a theoretical science. It is virtue, it is capacity of the human spirit, of the human will and also of the heart. It is also necessary to pray in order to be just and to know how to be just.

We cannot forget Our Lord’s words: “The measure you give will be the measure you get” (Mt 7:2)."

(St) JOHN PAUL II

GENERAL AUDIENCE

Wednesday, 8 November 1978

This talk is not from TOB and is not in the specifically marital context we are discussing.
It does contain the word debt, so…ok. And justice can apply to any situation.

 

[tafan]

He doesn’t use that language. He uses language of reciprocity, complementarity, mutual exchange. Why he didn’t choose to express marital relations in terms of “debt” I don’t know. I have my own suppositions as to why he spoke like he did, but I don’t pretend to know his mind.

As bookcat says, TOB is not an all inclusive course on marriage, it was never asserted or proposed as such. It’s not a marriage textbook. It lays the Christian philosophical foundation for our human physical nature and it’s expression.

I don’t think you understand my point. There are many aspects of Catholic teaching with regards to marriage and human sexuality. The term “marriage debt” is used to express only one moral teaching of the Church with regards to sexuality, namely that one spouse cannot unreasonably refuse sex.
In the context of a discussion on this particular teaching’s terminology, you stated
“The word debt unfortunately can be misunderstood and distorted” and that “John Paul 2 is brilliant in his expression of the truth”. Due to the context of the discussion, I had interpreted this to say that JP II had a different expression of this particular teaching. So I am curious as to what that is.

I am by no means trying to say anything is wrong with JP II’s Theology of the Body. If you have read it, you know that at the end, he himself says that other theologians need to address other areas of Theology of the Body and even gives an example or two of areas where it needs to be expanded.

 

[Bookcat]

This talk is not from TOB and is not in the specifically marital context we are discussing.
It does contain the word debt, so…ok. And justice can apply to any situation.

Yes I said that. And yes debitum is there applied to all kinds of justice…(which includes what is being discussed here) …and yes as you note justice can apply widely…

yes that is the point. Take some time to read and meditate on the entire quotes there from him. Such can be helpful in understanding the matter at hand.