Summa's logic on "marital debt", isn't it flawed?

[chevalier]

Posting here because I’d prefer to avoid turning this into something of an advice thread, especially practical/common sense advice.

Essentially, In the author’s judgement (Supplement to the Third Part, Q. 49, article 5, Answer):

Just as the marriage goods, in so far as they consist in a habit, make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest, as regards those two marriage goods which relate to the marriage act. Hence when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to “faith”) they are wholly excused from sin. But the third good does not relate to the use of marriage, but to its excuse, as stated above (Article 3); wherefore it makes marriage itself honest, but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.

Basically, always at least a venial sin unless paying debt (but not demanding it?) or intending offspring. It also says that “signification” is not a good reason to justify the marriage act. That would basically mean that to show love, even to “celebrate” the wedding night, would not be good enough, offspring or debt payment would still need to be there to avoid venial sin. This really seems to go that far.

Also (same place, Reply to Objection 2):

If a man intends by the marriage act to prevent fornication in his wife, it is no sin, because this is a kind of payment of the debt that comes under the good of “faith.” But if he intends to avoid fornication in himself, then there is a certain superfluity, and accordingly there is a venial sin, nor was the sacrament instituted for that purpose, except by indulgence, which regards venial sins.

*Basically a venial sin if the spouse intends to “remedy” his own or her own concupiscence. Sinless only if intended to remedy the other’s concupiscence. However, in 1 Corinthians, 7, it says:

But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

It seems that Saint Paul is saying that if you can’t contain yourself, marry. But how so if you can’t have remedying your own concupiscence/avoiding fornication in yourself as an object of your will, you need to intend to avoid it only in your spouse?

And:

Consequently the right answer to this question is that if pleasure be sought in such a way as to exclude the honesty of marriage, so that, to wit, it is not as a wife but as a woman that a man treats his wife, and that he is ready to use her in the same way if she were not his wife, it is a mortal sin; wherefore such a man is said to be too ardent a lover of his wife, because his ardor carries him away from the goods of marriage. If, however, he seek pleasure within the bounds of marriage, so that it would not be sought in another than his wife, it is a venial sin.

“Within the bounds of marriage,” seems to be not merely not using contraception. Perhaps the part below will be helpful.

And (now Question 41, Article 4, Answer):

But if the motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings

, namely that he would by no means be willing to go to another woman, it is a venial sin; while if he exclude the marriage blessings, so as to be disposed to act in like manner with any woman, it is a mortal sin. And nature cannot move without being either directed by reason, and thus it will be an act of virtue, or not so directed, and then it will be an act of lust.

*Since “blessings” of marriage include offspring, and clearly says, “motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings,” meaning it is possible to lust without excluding the blessings, this would mean that it’s possible to have lust as a motive without excluding offspring. So this doesn’t stop at merely not excluding offspring, it only makes the sin venial rather than mortal.

Moreover, it seems that there is no such thing as mutual healthy desire. It seems that begetting the children or avoiding fornication in your spouse is the only allowed reason to engage in marital intercourse. You can enjoy the pleasure when it comes (this much is granted in some neighbouring points to those quoted) but that’s it.*

(Note: Catechism in 2362, which is obviously later than the Summa, quotes Pius XI as saying: The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just** moderation**. My comment: there can simply be no denial whatsoever that moderation is a question of quantity. Unless perhaps this is an imperfect way of expression, in which failure to have the right intent automatically results in immoderation. I also remember reading a modern opinion somewhere, according to which marital intercourse could be of great help in a time of emotional distress, which would mean basically intended as a means of consolation, although without excluding offspring etc. However, according to the summa lack of exclusion only makes the sin venial rather than making the act sinless.)

So far this is basically my idea that something is wrong with the logic of the Summa. I am referring to the Summa and not to St. Thomas because he did not actually write the Supplement, it was finished basing on his notes and on some other works that weren’t his.*

 

[tonyrey]

“paying the debt” can be interpreted as the obligation for the spouses to love each other and express that love as God intends they should do - unless there is a good reason for not doing so.

 

[chevalier]

Now let’s move to the debt. This will all be within Question 64.

From Article 1, basically one short clause from the Answer:

the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife, in matters pertaining to the begetting of children

So, basically, a request for the payment of the debt is binding. This even though the requesting spouse may be committing a venial sin in asking?

And from Reply to Objection 3:

If the husband be rendered incapable of paying the debt through a cause consequent upon marriage, for instance through having already paid the debt and being unable to pay it, the wife has no right to ask again, and in doing so she behaves as a harlot rather than as a wife. But if he be rendered incapable through some other cause, then if this be a lawful cause, he is not bound, and she cannot ask,** but if it be an unlawful cause, then he sins, and his wife’s sin, should she fall into fornication on this account**, is somewhat imputable to him. Hence he should endeavor to do his best that his wife may remain continent.

So, basically, while it is only non-sinful for her to ask when she wants to “avoid fornication in him”, the problem with his inability to render the debt when asked by her is the failure of “preventing fornication” in her? It’s theoretically possible that we’re talking about it being impossible for her to have her “fornication prevented” as a side-result of “preventing fornication” in him. Possible but sounds like a far stretch, an impossible leap of logic and some kind of configurations of intent that I doubt anybody is capable of forming.

Also, lets look at Reply to Objection 2:

The wife has no power over her husband’s body, except as is consistent with the welfare of his person, as stated above. Wherefore if she go beyond this in her demands,** it is not a request for the debt**, but an unjust exaction; and for this reason the husband is not bound to satisfy her.

Apparently, if the wife goes beyond “preventing fornication” in her husband, then she isn’t requesting the debt, and can be refused…

Let’s look at Article 2, though, firstly the Answer:

The debt may be demanded in two ways. First, explicitly, as when they ask one another by words; secondly, implicitly, when namely the husband knows by certain signs that the wife would wish him to pay the debt, but is silent through shame. And so even though she does not ask for the debt explicitly in words, the husband is bound to pay it, whenever his wife shows signs of wishing him to do so.

And how can she show signs? Obviously only be acting sexually attracted to him and/or giving signs of being sexually starved or something of this kind. Aren’t we already presuming that the wife is basically sinning anyway? I really, really doubt this can possibly mean that she’s giving signs that she would wish for him to pay the debt in terms of specifically intending the procreation of a child but without reference to sexual desire.

Also, Reply to Objection 1:

The appointed time is not only when it is demanded but also when on account of certain signs there is fear of danger (to avoid which is the purpose of the payment of the debt) unless it be paid then.

I’m probably not making a far leap in concluding that the “danger” is probably failure to “prevent fornication” in the wife. But if she were trying to “prevent fornication” in herself, exceeding the “welfare of her husband”, then this wouldn’t be a valid request for the debt and he wouldn’t be obliged to satisfy her, so?

I suspect we have a clear contradiction at this point: the husband should be intending the “prevention of fornication” in the wife. But if she asks for the debt because she wants to “prevent fornication” in herself, then he can refuse. So what exactly should he do? Refuse her request but immediately make his own request of her in order to “prevent fornication” in her?

From Reply to Objection 2:

The husband may presume this of his wife when he perceives in her no signs of the contrary

Basically it was, “presume that it please her to be continent,” (Objection 2). So the end result is that spouses should basically 1) each presume that it pleases the other to be continent unless signs are given otherwise, 2) basically try to be pleased by being continent because they shouldn’t be asking for the debt merely because it does not please them to be continent (and venial sin if asking due to being tired of continence)?

But if we look at 1 Corinthians, 7, verse 5:

Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

The Scripture verse does not seem to advocate trying to pull off infinite continence, much less demand it. The part about “returning together” doesn’t seem to suggest a debt-paying mechanic with rules about asking but rather a situation in which spouses mutually “come together”.

 

[chevalier]

A couple more dents:

As noted above, there would basically be no way under the debt-paying mechanic from the Summa, for spouses to enjoy spontaneity without venial sin. Somebody would have to be asking. Desiring the other would be no excuse, it would be irrelevant. The act would have to be a conscious effort at procreation or a conscious payment of debt in terms of (since procreation has already been mentioned) “preventing fornication” in the spouse. This seems to leave no room for mutuality. There must be one asker.

Also, to complicate matters further, payment of the debt to one’s spouse would still be technically impossible without asking the spouse to pay the debt, since some manner of request must be employed in order to get the act to happen.

In the Author’s own Answer to Article 6 in this same Question:

Consequently, since husband and wife are mutually bound as regards the payment of the debt which is an obstacle to continence, the one cannot vow continence without the other’s consent; and if he take the vow he sins, and must not keep the vow, but must do penance for an ill-taken vow [Cf. 53, 1,4; 61, 1].

The above doesn’t seem to sit well with the idea that the spouses can request the debt only for 1) procreation (which actually seems to be removed from the debt mechanic and presented as something separate from the debt), 2) “preventing fornication” in the spouse. That would be “preventing fornication” in the spouse who actually wants to make that vow of continence. Obviously, we wouldn’t be withholding the consent to the spouse’s vow of continence in order to keep that spouse continent! So do we sin (venially) in keeping the spouse to ourselves for the sake of “preventing fornication” (remedying concupiscence in more modern language, especially canon law) in ourselves? This here is looking like an exercise of a legitimate right.

 

[chevalier]

So, to end this long opening post coming in four instalments:

To be fair, it’s hard to nail down a flat contradiction by which the statements could definitely not be reconciled with each other. But the logical leaps that I believe would be needed to reconcile them or just prove that they are consistent with each other seem to be huge and seem to lead to some kind of absurd. Such absurd as no sex on the wedding night because celebration is not a good enough reason—the spouses should instead wait until one of them specifically thinks of children or the other’s “fornication prevention”. While he or she is also entitled to presume that a lack of signs means that everything is okay! and anyway, the same signs which betray a wish for the debt to be paid are also indicative that the debt is wanted for the wrong reasons. So basically a good wife should try not to appear too starved but her husband should notice anyway and should ask her to pay the debt but only with the mind to “preventing fornication” in her, which she should ideally not be accepting, perhaps, because it would be wrong for her to ask on the same ground on which she is receiving (“fornication prevention”)? However, it’d be sinful for her to refuse, so she can’t. So what, her husband should use the power of the binding request to “prevent fornication” with her basically against her will? This is where I see this logic going. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

Please note I’m talking about faulty logic here, not looking for one-sentence practical advice (I’m not even married. I’m pondering the problem.) Thank you.

 

[chevalier]

“paying the debt” can be interpreted as the obligation for the spouses to love each other and express that love as God intends they should do - unless there is a good reason for not doing so.

That is what one would normally think. But according to the Author, it seems that:

Just as the marriage goods, in so far as they consist in a habit, make a marriage honest and holy, so too, in so far as they are in the actual intention, they make the marriage act honest, as regards those two marriage goods which relate to the marriage act. Hence when married persons come together for the purpose of begetting children, or of paying the debt to one another (which pertains to “faith”) they are wholly excused from sin. But the third good does not relate to the use of marriage, but to its excuse, as stated above (Article 3); wherefore it makes marriage itself honest, but not its act, as though its act were wholly excused from sin, through being done on account of some signification. Consequently there are only two ways in which married persons can come together without any sin at all, namely in order to have offspring, and in order to pay the debt. otherwise it is always at least a venial sin.

Which is the answer to Article 4 in Question 49. Basically, “some signification” (of love, of sacrament, of anything) will not “excuse the act from sin”, and since it is not specifically in order to have offspring or pay the debt, it will be venially sinful, according to the Author.

Obviously, the Scripture does not contain the same kind of explanation of paying the debt and the Catechism doesn’t really seem to be taking that position, at least not in an overt way.

 

[Della]

Without the benefit of a background/classes in either philosophy or theology, you’re only going to tie yourself into knots dealing with these questions.

The language of philosophy and theology are quite precise and technical. It can’t be understood without the proper context/understanding of their meaning as they are used here.

Let’s compare it to talking to a computer tech or a car mechanic. In both cases they have precise terms for what they do and how the machinery they deal with operates. If you don’t know the language, you can’t communicate effectively with either one about computers or car engines.

It’s the same here. I suggest you learn philosophy and theology before worrying over what is meant when a master theologian writes on any topic. Even then, it is our bishops and priests who bring these ideas down to earth for us. I suggest you schedule an appointment with a priest who has studied these issues.

 

[tonyrey]

paying the debt" can be interpreted as the obligation for the spouses to love each other and express that love as God intends they should do - unless there is a good reason for not doing so.

The key words are “paying the debt to one another (which pertains to “faith”)”.
If faith is interpreted to include love there is no problem but unfortunately St Thomas is not available to answer that question - if indeed he was responsible for this passage.
I interpret “paying the debt” as giving themselves to each other physically and spiritually so that the marriage is not consummated once but throughout their life together. Fidelity is not only the absence of adultery but the presence of total commitment.

 

[chevalier]

Without the benefit of a background/classes in either philosophy or theology, you’re only going to tie yourself into knots dealing with these questions.

The language of philosophy and theology are quite precise and technical. It can’t be understood without the proper context/understanding of their meaning as they are used here.

Let’s compare it to talking to a computer tech or a car mechanic. In both cases they have precise terms for what they do and how the machinery they deal with operates. If you don’t know the language, you can’t communicate effectively with either one about computers or car engines.

It’s the same here. I suggest you learn philosophy and theology before worrying over what is meant when a master theologian writes on any topic. Even then, it is our bishops and priests who bring these ideas down to earth for us. I suggest you schedule an appointment with a priest who has studied these issues.

Point taken but on the one hand my credentials with this kind of language aren’t hopeless and on the other hand the language isn’t that horrible in the most problematic spots. Speaking of which, I’m eagerly waiting for someone to point out that I’m getting something wrong here!

The key words are “paying the debt to one another (which pertains to “faith”)”.
If faith is interpreted to include love there is no problem but unfortunately St Thomas is not available to answer that question - if indeed he was responsible for this passage.
I interpret “paying the debt” as giving themselves to each other physically and spiritually so that the marriage is not consummated once but throughout their life together. Fidelity is not only the absence of adultery but the presence of total commitment.

I see. Thank you for your perspective. Mine is similar. On the other hand, it does seem the Author’s is different (it wasn’t St. Thomas, it was someone else completing the work after his death). It does say that signification of anything doesn’t make the marital act honest and sinless. In regard to faith, not conclusively, but it seems to be limited to the absence of other partners and to the payment of the debt (with the same definition of debt as elsewhere, i.e. basically only to “prevent fornication” in the other spouse, i.e. only in order to prevent the other spouse from cheating).

 

[Della]

Point taken but on the one hand my credentials with this kind of language aren’t hopeless and on the other hand the language isn’t that horrible in the most problematic spots. Speaking of which, I’m eagerly waiting for someone to point out that I’m getting something wrong here!

Boiled down, what it means is that sex in marriage isn’t just for gratification, but for unification and for procreation. If gratification is all it amounts to, then that constitutes sin for the marital embrace is meant to make “two into one” not just satisfy one’s urges. If there is no self-giving and no consideration for the other, it makes it worse than the animals who engage in sex in due time for procreation and for reasons of bonding not just to “get it on”, as the saying goes.

 

[tonyrey]

Point taken but on the one hand my credentials with this kind of language aren’t hopeless and on the other hand the language isn’t that horrible in the most problematic spots. Speaking of which, I’m eagerly waiting for someone to point out that I’m getting something wrong here!

That won’t happen unless the precise meaning of “paying the debt” is definitively resolved…

 

[chevalier]

Boiled down, what it means is that sex in marriage isn’t just for gratification, but for unification and for procreation. If gratification is all it amounts to, then that constitutes sin for the marital embrace is meant to make “two into one” not just satisfy one’s urges. If there is no self-giving and no consideration for the other, it makes it worse than the animals who engage in sex in due time for procreation and for reasons of bonding not just to “get it on”, as the saying goes.

What you say is current teaching. But in these passages from the Summa, as I understand them, unification seems actually to be excluded (“signification” of anything not being enough to make a marital act “honest”, just the narrowly understood debt and procreation), and in order to create a venial sin, the gratification sought does not seem to need to be the exclusive motivation of the spouse who seeks sex, it seems enough that he or she is seeking sex for pleasure (or not even that! basically just not having a good enough reason to have sex, as it seems), even if he or she isn’t excluding the blessings. The way I read it, the lack of a specific intent either to beget a child (and bring it up in the Catholic faith, since desiring only the begetting is not enough, one needs to direct that desire also toward bringing up the child in the faith) or to “prevent fornication” in the other spouse, results in a venial sin from the marital act. Therefore, anything about unity, celebration of being joined together (“signification”), things like emotional support and a sense of closeness, none of these things would seem to avoid venial sin.

That won’t happen unless the precise meaning of “paying the debt” is definitively resolved…

Granting the request to intercourse. Except it’s not paying the debt when the request does not fall within the limits of the debt.

 

[tonyrey]

Granting the request to intercourse. Except it’s not paying the debt when the request does not fall within the limits of the debt.

How is that determined? This interpretation of marital obligations seems far too legalistic. I think St Thomas would agree that there is a limit to the extent to which conjugal love can be subjected to hard and fast rules.

 

[Gorgias]

How is that determined? This interpretation of marital obligations seems far too legalistic. I think St Thomas would agree that there is a limit to the extent to which conjugal love can be subjected to hard and fast rules.

Part of consent was seen to be the granting the right (of use) of one’s body by the spouse. Therefore, Thomas is saying that, by granting that right, one is indebted to one’s spouse to actually allow the use of one’s body (for the purpose of the goods of marriage – other than the good of the sacrament, of course).

I don’t think that Thomas would see this as “too legalistic”. Rather, this is what the Church taught in the day, regarding marriage; if you want “legalistic”, look at his answer in the previous question, article 1 (the definition of consent, in which he decides that consent is the consent to the marriage (explicitly) and to “carnal copula” (implicitly)). Incidentally, he touches upon the notion of the “debt” there, too: “they each receive power over the other in reference to carnal intercourse”.)

 

[tonyrey]

Part of consent was seen to be the granting the right (of use) of one’s body by the spouse. Therefore, Thomas is saying that, by granting that right, one is indebted to one’s spouse to actually allow the use of one’s body (for the purpose of the goods of marriage – other than the good of the sacrament, of course).

I don’t think that Thomas would see this as “too legalistic”. Rather, this is what the Church taught in the day, regarding marriage; if you want “legalistic”, look at his answer in the previous question, article 1 (the definition of consent, in which he decides that consent is the consent to the marriage (explicitly) and to “carnal copula” (implicitly)). Incidentally, he touches upon the notion of the “debt” there, too: “they each receive power over the other in reference to carnal intercourse”.)

I’m sure St Thomas would include consideration for the other person’s feelings in addition to the use of the body. The exercise of power without love would be the last thing in his mind…

 

[Gorgias]

Basically, always at least a venial sin unless paying debt (but not demanding it?) or intending offspring. It also says that “signification” is not a good reason to justify the marriage act. That would basically mean that to show love, even to “celebrate” the wedding night, would not be good enough, offspring or debt payment would still need to be there to avoid venial sin. This really seems to go that far.

Not exactly, I don’t think. He’s asking the question whether it’s sinful to have sex with your spouse if your intent is anything other than procreation or for the good of the marriage – that is, if your intent, essentially, is lustful. His answer is that, if you’re intending the act in order to procreate, or to make good on your marriage promises, you’re safe. Otherwise, look out…

Also (same place, Reply to Objection 2):Basically a venial sin if the spouse intends to “remedy” his own or her own concupiscence. Sinless only if intended to remedy the other’s concupiscence.

If you’re doing it to help your spouse avoid sinning, then great; if you’re saying, “honey, come to bed, so that I don’t run off and find someone else to jump in the sack with”, then that’s sinful.

how so if you can’t have remedying your own concupiscence/avoiding fornication in yourself as an object of your will, you need to intend to avoid it only in your spouse?

Because* your spouse* can intend it to help keep you from sin!!!

“Within the bounds of marriage,” seems to be not merely not using contraception. Perhaps the part below will be helpful.

That doesn’t seem to be what’s in play here: he’s asking whether marital sex, when it’s not for procreation or the good of the marriage, but only for pleasure, is sinful. His answer dovetails nicely with John Paul II’s notion on lust in marriage: if you were to have anonymous sex with some random person, then the reason you would be doing it is purely for the sake of the pleasure it generates in you. That’s sinful. Now, if you approach your spouse in the same way, intending only to look to your own lustful needs, and not to express your love for your spouse, then you’re in a state of sin. If you’re doing it out of lust, it’s a mortal sin; if you’re doing it only because you’re trying to avoid walking out the door and jumping the first person you see, it’s still a venial sin. I don’t think there’s any intent in this answer to address the notion of contraception. Is there something you see there that leads you to that conclusion?

And (now Question 41, Article 4, Answer):

Since “blessings” of marriage include offspring

Aah… but offspring aren’t exclusively the blessings of marriage! see Q49, Art 1, Objection 1 – Lombard identifies the goods as “faith, offspring, and sacrament”.

and clearly says, “motive be lust, yet not excluding the marriage blessings,” meaning it is possible to lust without excluding the blessings, this would mean that it’s possible to have lust as a motive without excluding offspring.

No – I think it means that it’s possible to be lustful, but to act on that lust in order to avoid going outside of the marriage for sex (i.e., to continue to be faithful). That’s still a venial sin, but it’s an act with a view to avoiding a greater sin (unfaithfulness).

Moreover, it seems that there is no such thing as mutual healthy desire. It seems that begetting the children or avoiding fornication in your spouse is the only allowed reason to engage in marital intercourse. You can enjoy the pleasure when it comes (this much is granted in some neighbouring points to those quoted) but that’s it.

I don’t see where you’re getting this. You can enjoy the act for the sake of the good of the marriage – in the answer to Q49 art.6, “pleasure in a good action is good”. If your desire is for the good of the marriage – for the unitive aspect of the marriage (although this language isn’t yet present for Aquinas), then that’s fine. You’re enjoying the good act of building the unitive aspect, and enjoying the fact that the act itself is pleasurable, too… and that’s OK, too.

My comment: there can simply be no denial whatsoever that moderation is a question of quantity.

Really? I’m thinking it’s a question of quality.

However, according to the summa lack of exclusion only makes the sin venial rather than making the act sinless.

No, based on my reasoning above. You’re forgetting the notion of the “right to the body” and the “debt” incurred therein.

 

[tonyrey]

Not exactly, I don’t think. He’s asking the question whether it’s sinful to have sex with your spouse if your intent is anything other than procreation or for the good of the marriage – that is, if your intent, essentially, is lustful. His answer is that, if you’re intending the act in order to procreate, or to make good on your marriage promises, you’re safe. Otherwise, look out…

If you’re doing it to help your spouse avoid sinning, then great; if you’re saying, “honey, come to bed, so that I don’t run off and find someone else to jump in the sack with”, then that’s sinful.

Because* your spouse* can intend it to help keep you from sin!!!

That doesn’t seem to be what’s in play here: he’s asking whether marital sex, when it’s not for procreation or the good of the marriage, but only for pleasure, is sinful. His answer dovetails nicely with John Paul II’s notion on lust in marriage: if you were to have anonymous sex with some random person, then the reason you would be doing it is purely for the sake of the pleasure it generates in you. That’s sinful. Now, if you approach your spouse in the same way, intending only to look to your own lustful needs, and not to express your love for your spouse, then you’re in a state of sin. If you’re doing it out of lust, it’s a mortal sin; if you’re doing it only because you’re trying to avoid walking out the door and jumping the first person you see, it’s still a venial sin. I don’t think there’s any intent in this answer to address the notion of contraception. Is there something you see there that leads you to that conclusion?

Aah… but offspring aren’t exclusively the blessings of marriage! see Q49, Art 1, Objection 1 – Lombard identifies the goods as “faith, offspring, and sacrament”.

No – I think it means that it’s possible to be lustful, but to act on that lust in order to avoid going outside of the marriage for sex (i.e., to continue to be faithful). That’s still a venial sin, but it’s an act with a view to avoiding a greater sin (unfaithfulness).

I don’t see where you’re getting this. You can enjoy the act for the sake of the good of the marriage – in the answer to Q49 art.6, “pleasure in a good action is good”. If your desire is for the good of the marriage – for the unitive aspect of the marriage (although this language isn’t yet present for Aquinas), then that’s fine. You’re enjoying the good act of building the unitive aspect, and enjoying the fact that the act itself is pleasurable, too… and that’s OK, too.

Really? I’m thinking it’s a question of quality.

No, based on my reasoning above. You’re forgetting the notion of the “right to the body” and the “debt” incurred therein.

An excellent analysis!

 

[Gorgias]

Now let’s move to the debt.

oh, boy…

So, basically, a request for the payment of the debt is binding. This even though the requesting spouse may be committing a venial sin in asking?

Inasmuch as the venial sin comes from trying to avoid sin outside the marriage, and denying might lead the spouse more likely into serious sin, it seems reasonable to say “yes”.

And from Reply to Objection 3:

So, basically, while it is only non-sinful for her to ask when she wants to “avoid fornication in him”

Pardon? It’s not “only non-sinful for her to ask when she wants to ‘avoid fornication in him’”! Article 2 talks about the wife asking (as well as not asking, but wanting). So, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, here…

the problem with his inability to render the debt when asked by her is the failure of “preventing fornication” in her?

Yes. Here’s the scene: the woman asks, but the man can’t rise to the challenge. If it’s because he’s still recovering (ahem), then there’s “no right to ask again”. If it’s for some other reason, then it depends on the reason: if it’s a good reason (e.g., he’s injured while working, or whatever), then he’s not required to say “yes” (and, in fact, she shouldn’t ask), but if it’s not a good reason (e.g., he just left the maid’s room (again, ahem)… or he was injured in the commission of a sin… or maybe he’s too drunk… or whatever), then he sins by virtue of not being able to perform (ahem) when asked; moreover, if, due to his unlawful incapacity, she goes off and sins with the pool boy, then he’s at least partially at fault.

Also, lets look at Reply to Objection 2:

Apparently, if the wife goes beyond “preventing fornication” in her husband, then she isn’t requesting the debt, and can be refused…

You’re too hung up on “preventing fornication in her husband”. If a wife places unreasonable demands on her husband, he doesn’t sin in deferring.

Let’s look at Article 2, though, firstly the Answer:

And how can she show signs? Obviously only be acting sexually attracted to him and/or giving signs of being sexually starved or something of this kind. Aren’t we already presuming that the wife is basically sinning anyway? I really, really doubt this can possibly mean that she’s giving signs that she would wish for him to pay the debt in terms of specifically intending the procreation of a child but without reference to sexual desire.

Again, rethinking your logic here might be a good approach for you. You’re being too strict in your understanding of the rights and motivations of the wife. Thomas is allowing the wife to ask, and is telling the husband that even if his wife is trying to be polite and not ask (but he can tell that she’s making eyes at him), he should “man up” and do his duty…!

Also, Reply to Objection 1:

I’m probably not making a far leap in concluding that the “danger” is probably failure to “prevent fornication” in the wife. But if she were trying to “prevent fornication” in herself, exceeding the “welfare of her husband”, then this wouldn’t be a valid request for the debt and he wouldn’t be obliged to satisfy her, so?

Your thought on “danger” seems reasonable. These are different grounds, though – here, the wife isn’t asking, but the husband is obliged to notice that she’s put on her fanciest nightgown and expensive French perfume, so he’s obliged to help her avoid sin.

I suspect we have a clear contradiction at this point: the husband should be intending the “prevention of fornication” in the wife. But if she asks for the debt because she wants to “prevent fornication” in herself, then he can refuse. So what exactly should he do? Refuse her request but immediately make his own request of her in order to “prevent fornication” in her?

There’s no request from the wife, so your case doesn’t hold.

From Reply to Objection 2:

Basically it was, “presume that it please her to be continent,” (Objection 2). So the end result is that spouses should basically 1) each presume that it pleases the other to be continent unless signs are given otherwise, 2) basically try to be pleased by being continent because they shouldn’t be asking for the debt merely because it does not please them to be continent (and venial sin if asking due to being tired of continence)?

But if we look at 1 Corinthians, 7, verse 5:

The Scripture verse does not seem to advocate trying to pull off infinite continence, much less demand it. The part about “returning together” doesn’t seem to suggest a debt-paying mechanic with rules about asking but rather a situation in which spouses mutually “come together”.

I don’t think that article 2 is talking about “infinite continence”. If your wife isn’t asking, you shouldn’t presume she’s interiorly wishing for a night of passion… unless she gives signs that she really is hoping for a night of passion. At that point, “it would be foolish of him to (think she’s not interested) if he does see such signs”. That’s it; take it at face value. Don’t overthink it…

 

[Gorgias]

A couple more dents:

Nope.

As noted above, there would basically be no way under the debt-paying mechanic from the Summa, for spouses to enjoy spontaneity without venial sin.

I disagree, by my reasoning in an earlier post. Unless you have additional thoughts on this, I’m going to treat it as “asked and answered”.

In the Author’s own Answer to Article 6 in this same Question:

The above doesn’t seem to sit well with the idea that the spouses can request the debt only for 1) procreation (which actually seems to be removed from the debt mechanic and presented as something separate from the debt), 2) “preventing fornication” in the spouse.

Asked and answered.

This here is looking like an exercise of a legitimate right.

And that’s exactly what’s going on here: the spouses, in their freely-given consent at the wedding, have given each other the right to each others’ bodies (within appropriate limits). If one spouse later promises to be celibate, without the express consent of his spouse, then he’s reneging on his prior promise. That’s all that’s going on here…

 

[1AugustSon7]

Consumation is not equivalent to “celebration”. Certainly, at least, not to the modern concept of celebration, which is simply a more-or-less licentious indulgence.

I suspect therefore that it is not Saint Thomas, but your thinking in regards to marriage, that is flawed here: The “wedding night” (as you refer to it) is not a “celebration”, because that solemn celebration has, presumably, already happened (viz., in the Sacrament of Matrimony and the usual traditions and customs associated with it. It would be utterly redundant to celebrate yet again a marriage that was just celebrated.) Again, the “wedding night”, as you call it, is necessary to effect the marriage: without consumation there is no marriage. There exists, therefor, a duty or a debt or an obliation or some pressing need that requires satisfaction for the marriage. That, perhaps, is rather more close to what the Scholastics and canonists mean when they make reference to the marriage debt.