In french we say “devoir conjugal” (marital duty). That’s leave the finances behind and go through to duty of honor…
- Status
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
And, by chance, his arguments are wrong. Either JPII has terribly misled the faithful, or a random heretical blogger who has predicted the end of the world and believes in a third coming of Christ is wrong. I know which one I choose.
Anyone can make the saints sound like they support some opinion. The Church teaches that sex is meant to be enjoyed and bring couples to unity. There are some saints who taught in opposition to this, and they were wrong. Saints are not infallible.
And was wrong to do so.
M
Miiiils
Guest
I’m sorry, but they are not wrong and also do not contradict any of JPII’s teachings.
If you would like to supply a contradiction, I would be interested to read!
If you would like to supply a contradiction, I would be interested to read!
You forget that it is not for a long time ago that infant mortality, the delaying of the death and the quality of life permits a more confortable life and hedonist thinking in developped areas of the world.Anicette:
And was wrong to do so.
Basically, in a traditional society, the necessity of procreation come before pleasure in a mariage and the surnatural concerns more prevalent than in our modern societies.
It’s normal that the Church adapted herself to these changing realities. An overamphasis on continence and does not mean that She was wrong on everything.
Last edited:
Perhaps “mutual rights” or “mutual privileges” would be a better way to put it in English.HomeschoolDad:
In french we say “devoir conjugal” (marital duty). That’s leave the finances behind and go through to duty of honor…
“Marital debt” sounds too much, to me anyway, like “oh, yes, you will — you’d better!”.
The word “debt” implies (again, to me, anyway) having to render something, whether you want to or not, like a contract that has to be honored, with penalties for not doing so.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
The burden of proof is on you.
But I see no point in continuing as I believe argument here is futile.
Peace.
But I see no point in continuing as I believe argument here is futile.
Peace.
M
Miiiils
Guest
I’m not the one suggesting there are contradictions, you are.
But if you would like to leave this one here, that’s no problem.
God bless you and yours!
Edit: you were not the one, wrong person sorry!
But if you would like to leave this one here, that’s no problem.
God bless you and yours!
Edit: you were not the one, wrong person sorry!
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
JPII taught that a man has responsibility to his wife to bring her to completion, even if necessary after his own, which is impossible by penetration alone, the only method acceptable to Conte.
Last edited:
It is exactly the way intimacy in mariage was presented in moral theology books.
A contract that should be honored in any circunstances. And we discuss the conditions of exemptionsof the duty and the exemptions of morality of the act in cassuistic.
And of course, at it is a sensible topic, not before the last year of seminary…(to not give them wrong ideas if they stopped their priestly formation…)
M
Miiiils
Guest
Please show me where JPII says this.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
Several posters here (myself included) have pointed to Love and Responsibility. Go check it out. Read it cover-to-cover. It’s a fantastic book!
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Yeah, what he said.
After his own?
the exact quote?
Many people say that, without any source. So it does mean nothing.
M
Miiiils
Guest
@Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman
@Phillip_Rolfes
Exactly the point. It’s not in there.
Please feel free to prove me wrong, but I’m telling you the document does not say that.
@Phillip_Rolfes
Exactly the point. It’s not in there.
Please feel free to prove me wrong, but I’m telling you the document does not say that.
I would never prevail upon my wife to honor this “debt” unless she wanted to as well.HomeschoolDad:
It is exactly the way intimacy in mariage was presented in moral theology books.
A contract that should be honored in any circunstances. And we discuss the conditions of exemptionsof the duty and the exemptions of morality of the act in cassuistic.
And of course, at it is a sensible topic, not before the last year of seminary…(to not give them wrong ideas if they stopped their priestly formation…)
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
I’ll get back to you in a few years when I read it to prepare for marriage. Until then, I’ll rely on the many others who have said it is in there.
M
Miiiils
Guest
Makes total sense, don’t read anything that would tempt you to impure thoughts. I commend you for knowing your limits!
But once the time comes, I hope that you do read it, because you will find that it does not say what people want to think it does.
Anyways, God bless you!
But once the time comes, I hope that you do read it, because you will find that it does not say what people want to think it does.
Anyways, God bless you!
Sorry but I have the book Love and responsability (french traduction) under my eyes.
You are not the first person who said me the same thing on CAF.
and until now nobody had success to point the quotation on this book for “after his own” idea.
Seems that it does not exist.
So either in another TOB text, or it may simply be an extrapolation of the thinking of, or the “spirit” of TOB and their interprets such as Mr. W…
Last edited:
Sometimes it may be tempting, but often probably don’t go to anywhere.
Certainely, if we are here, the marriage is not what he should be.
Ideally and morally, both should agree.
It really won’t ever matter in my case. My wife and I are divorced, and she has chosen, illicitly and invalidly, to “marry” another man. There is no annulment.HomeschoolDad:
Sometimes it may be tempting, but often probably don’t go to anywhere.
Certainely, if we are here, the marriage is not what he should be.
Ideally and morally, both should agree.
- Status