Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 06:40:55 PM

Title: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 06:40:55 PM
What happens if one spouse thinks that there are serious reasons to abstain for a longer period (more than a year) and the other does not agree? Keeping in mind that one is radically opposed to nfp in all circuмstances, How is the matter resolved? Would it be sinful for the other to continuously deny the marriage debt?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 06:57:14 PM
BOTH spouses must agree to a prolonged period of abstinence.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 07:15:18 PM
Right, but believing that there is a very serious reason with serious consequences why they should not, does that not matter at all? Does the spouse with less self control always win in that case?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 07:25:50 PM
I know of spouses who are so much against who they call nfp, yet know nothing about it.  They see "nfp" like a 4 letter word.  Truth is, it is the teaching of God's design.  The anatomy and physiology.  In of itself, it is not evil.  What can be is the attitude of why we wait.  Serious reason, should be.  But even so, I have seen spouses who may accept to learn and still say no to it.  The 2 must come to discussion and decision.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 07:38:19 PM
Right, but believing that there is a very serious reason with serious consequences why they should not, does that not matter at all? Does the spouse with less self control always win in that case?
If it is the husband who believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, his say in the matter should carry a lot of weight but he is ultimately required to render the debt if his wife asks. Feel free to check with St. Thomas, but I believe she has the right to request the debt even against her husband's judgement.
.
If it is the wife who believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, she should yield to her husband's say in the matter because he is ultimately responsible for the family and working through any hardships a new pregnancy might present. A wife merits heaven through obedience to her husband.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 08:39:23 PM
Right, but believing that there is a very serious reason with serious consequences why they should not, does that not matter at all? Does the spouse with less self control always win in that case?
Yes, it has to be mutual. Even if the spouse with less self control as you put it wins out. That's why it's called the marital debt.
You lost your ownership over your body when you got married. Next time think about it before getting married. If the reason were as serious as you claim, your husband would agree with you. Also, don't trust doctors implicitly. They are often wrong.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 08:59:14 PM
I can tell it's a woman complaining about her husband... women always have more "self control" when it comes to sex because they have less testosterone.

Sorry, but it only takes one spouse wanting the marital debt for it to be necessary.

As another poster said, a woman is saved through childbearing and obedience to her husband.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 09:18:17 PM
There are a lot of women with very high sex drives and are turned down by men even though they need it. This stereotype needs to die out that women don’t want sex very much. This is a theoretical situation that you’re answering so stop making it personal. The spouse could have had three, five or nine children at this point.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 07, 2018, 09:20:43 PM
So it’s not a matter of they just shouldn’t have gotten married. Medical reasons can and do happen, poverty etc. The man does not always have the logic to see that it is a bad situation. It is amusing that everyone is blaming the woman already.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: MaterDominici on September 08, 2018, 12:55:33 AM
Right, but believing that there is a very serious reason with serious consequences why they should not, does that not matter at all?
There are a handful of reasons when a spouse is not obligated to render the marital debt:
The examples below are from Moral Theology by Fr. Jone:
- adultery
- non-support of wife and children
"If the husband squanders his income and compels his wife to provide for their livelihood, she need not render the marriage debt. But, if the family must live in poverty through no fault of the husband, there is no reason for refusing the debt; neither does the circuмstance that more children would necessitate greater restrictions on the family constitute such a reason."
- lack of use of reason on the part of the petitioner (includes complete intoxication)
- unreasonable demand
"This is principally the case when one party desires such frequent intercourse that the constitution of the other suffers greatly. Judgement should be passed by a conscientious physician."
- great danger to health or life
"Such a danger would be given in the case of gravely infectious diseases, of a very weak heart, etc -- The ordinary hardships of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, and care of children such as intense but brief pains, prolonged but mild headaches, etc., are not a sufficient excuse. Neither is the fear of a miscarriage or stillbirth, which the wife knows from experience will follow conception."
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 02:46:20 AM
If it is the husband who believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, his say in the matter should carry a lot of weight but he is ultimately required to render the debt if his wife asks. Feel free to check with St. Thomas, but I believe she has the right to request the debt even against her husband's judgement.
.
If it is the wife who believes there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, she should yield to her husband's say in the matter because he is ultimately responsible for the family and working through any hardships a new pregnancy might present. A wife merits heaven through obedience to her husband.
Absolutely agreed! 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 09:50:43 AM
I have two close family members, both Catholic women, and they say that their husbands have refused the marriage debt for fears of financial hardship. The husbands are the breadwinners, and the wives are at home with children. I know the women long for more children, so it seems that the husbands went into marriage with good intentions and then went all chicken when the bills stacked up. 
It takes a great faith and trust in God to raise a large family. The sacrifices are real. The rewards are so worth it though. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 09:59:22 AM
If there is a serious reason, poverty, medical, etc., the rhythm method may be used as taught by Pope Pius XII.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 10:15:34 AM

There are a handful of reasons when a spouse is not obligated to render the marital debt:
The examples below are from Moral Theology by Fr. Jone:
1. adultery
2. non-support of wife and children
"If the husband squanders his income and compels his wife to provide for their livelihood, she need not render the marriage debt. But, if the family must live in poverty through no fault of the husband, there is no reason for refusing the debt; neither does the circuмstance that more children would necessitate greater restrictions on the family constitute such a reason."
3. lack of use of reason on the part of the petitioner (includes complete intoxication)
4. unreasonable demand
"This is principally the case when one party desires such frequent intercourse that the constitution of the other suffers greatly. Judgement should be passed by a conscientious physician."
5. great danger to health or life
"Such a danger would be given in the case of gravely infectious diseases, of a very weak heart, etc -- The ordinary hardships of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, and care of children such as intense but brief pains, prolonged but mild headaches, etc., are not a sufficient excuse. Neither is the fear of a miscarriage or stillbirth, which the wife knows from experience will follow conception."



I can't help but notice how FEW Traditional Catholic marriages this would apply to...

1. Usually not. It's not only rare among Trads in general, it's non-existent among the cases I've seen (both IRL and online) where Trad couples struggle over this issue.

2. This is a BIG one, often used as an excuse. Unless the husband is a habitual drunk and keeps his whole paycheck (which he blows on drugs, alcohol, video games, movies, and other recreation) this reason would not apply. But if a husband was a man-child and spent his days playing video games or watching movies (I've heard this happens a lot!) and refused to work, this WOULD apply. But note that "a bad economy", "husband doesn't have an awesome career", "being in debt" or "poverty" is not a good enough excuse. Some individuals must accept poverty for their lot in life, as God's will. The Holy Family was poor.

3. How many Trad men/women refusing the Marriage Debt can resort to this reason? Virtually none. The men/women are asking for the debt quite sober.

4. Basically this means it is affecting the woman's health. I dare you to ask any licensed physician if it's healthy to have sex once every 2 days, or even once a day. Virtually all of them would say, "Yes! It's good for this and this and that reason..." Keep in mind also that modern man eats *very* well compared to the Old Days. How much meat is consumed by a poor family each week compared to a poor family 150 years ago? With modern farming methods, interstate roads and modern transportation, even poor people can buy fresh fruits and vegetables in the middle of winter. Everyone can afford lots of healthy food including meat, even if it has to come via Food Stamps. Nutrition is not an issue for modern Americans -- even the poor eat relatively well in a rich country like America. Compare the destitute poor in America (those who claim to not have enough food) with the poor in Africa. It's not even a contest. Just one brief piece of evidence: look at the poor people shopping at Wal-mart. Sometimes they need a motorized wheelchair to get around due to morbid obesity. So unless a spouse has been advised by a doctor to abstain, I'd say this reason would never apply otherwise.

5. Yes, "Not wanting to get pregnant again", or "I have a headache" is not an excuse. Unless one of the spouses is seriously ill, this reason wouldn't apply. Again, I doubt this is the case for most middle aged Trad couples being compelled (by one or the other spouse) to sleep in separate beds.

Matthew

P.S. I don't know of that many Trad families personally that are in this situation, but I do know of a couple. And having read this thread, it sounds like it's a real issue. I'm reminded of something I learned in the Seminary: that a priest will become extremely grateful that he's a priest once he's starts hearing confessions, and listens to the drama, struggles, and sufferings of married couples.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 10:57:38 AM
If there is a serious reason, poverty, medical, etc., the rhythm method may be used as taught by Pope Pius XII.  
Ah yes, Catholic birth control. Not recommended. 

I can say that in both cases of my family members husbands refusing the marriage debt, the financial circuмstances are not that of extreme poverty. More like, it would be too difficult to work extra hours or let go of entertainment like cable tv, movies and going out to dinner. Really sad when husbands consider that ‘hardship’. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 12:22:21 PM
There are a lot of women with very high sex drives and are turned down by men even though they need it. This stereotype needs to die out that women don’t want sex very much.
Yes, as St. Thomas wrote: husband and wife are equal with respect to the marriage debt (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A5THEP1).
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 12:27:11 PM
a priest will become extremely grateful that he's a priest once he's starts hearing confessions, and listens to the drama, struggles, and sufferings of married couples.
Dealing with married people has got to be one of priests' bigger crosses.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 12:42:14 PM
Ah yes, Catholic birth control. Not recommended.

I can say that in both cases of my family members husbands refusing the marriage debt, the financial circuмstances are not that of extreme poverty. More like, it would be too difficult to work extra hours or let go of entertainment like cable tv, movies and going out to dinner. Really sad when husbands consider that ‘hardship’.


Exactly what I'm talking about.

Pretty sad when a person chooses ONE LESS SOUL, one less human being, possibly going to heaven for eternity, so that they can have some restaurant crew cook them a meal once in a while. So gluttony is more important than having another child -- they'd rather tickle their palate with something tasty they can't make at home. Or watching TV? Which movies and shows is this sorry excuse for a Catholic watching? They're all produced by Jєωιѕн Hollywood, who individually and as a group fight against God and His Christ exactly like they did 2000 years ago.

There isn't a single TV show or movie not lousy with Feminism, and none of them give a true Catholic worldview. Whenever Catholics appear, it is always distorted. I always have to cringe. You never see true Catholic Saints (balanced, wise, holy, the type that would be canonized by the Church) on the big screen. EVER.

You know, it's these same reasons that get non-Catholic men to root for abortion. They make their girlfriends get abortions, strongly vote for it, etc. and they won't be blameless before God for it. But when the women want abortions, it's for the same reasons -- they want to be able to afford eating out, enjoying filthy Hollywood movies laced with countless errors, vain and immodest clothing, expensive chemicals to put on their face (also from vanity), etc.

When you see or read about how they rip babies apart in the womb -- just remember why people do it. Restaurant food. TV. Netflix. Going to the movies. That's why I have a special disdain for all such worldly activities, since so many have chosen this fluff over human life.

Long story short, gluttony, sloth and worldliness can be DEADLY as well. If they lead one to choose comfort, luxuries and pleasures over life -- to prevent another life or even kill a living baby in the womb -- they can't be too harmless.

Matthew
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 12:51:07 PM
Yes, as St. Thomas wrote: husband and wife are equal with respect to the marriage debt (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/XP/XP064.html#XPQ64A5THEP1).
True of course, but that's usually not an issue. From what I've read and heard in both Catholic and non-Catholic circles, it's usually the man that wants the debt as often as possible, and the woman who is the limiting factor.

So while the Church keeps things fair and says that both must render the debt, this usually has no practical effect on the men. Sure, there are some exceptions to the general rule. Some women have above-average sex drives.  Some women can also grow beards -- and probably for the same reason (testosterone). And some men are clinically Low-T. But the exception proves the rule, so...

Matthew
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 12:58:51 PM
I know of spouses who are so much against who they call nfp, yet know nothing about it.  They see "nfp" like a 4 letter word.  Truth is, it is the teaching of God's design.  The anatomy and physiology.  In of itself, it is not evil.  What can be is the attitude of why we wait.  Serious reason, should be.  But even so, I have seen spouses who may accept to learn and still say no to it.  The 2 must come to discussion and decision.

NFP is the Catholic version of birth control.  Stop spewing this nonsense.  Notice the euphemism.  If it's "natural" then it's "family planning", whereas it's "birth control" if it's "artificial".  In both cases the formal intent is the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFSQrKrrQqw
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 08, 2018, 01:01:06 PM
If there is a serious reason, poverty, medical, etc., the rhythm method may be used as taught by Pope Pius XII.  

No.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 08, 2018, 01:01:47 PM
What happens if one spouse thinks that there are serious reasons to abstain for a longer period (more than a year) and the other does not agree? Keeping in mind that one is radically opposed to nfp in all circuмstances, How is the matter resolved? Would it be sinful for the other to continuously deny the marriage debt?

Consult a Traditional Catholic priest to determine whether hypothetical circuмstance meets the requisite conditions.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 01:04:44 PM
"If the husband squanders his income and compels his wife to provide for their livelihood, she need not render the marriage debt. But, if the family must live in poverty through no fault of the husband, there is no reason for refusing the debt; neither does the circuмstance that more children would necessitate greater restrictions on the family constitute such a reason."

:laugh1:

This makes the wife sound like a prostitute, rendering the debt in exchange for her "livelihood".  So the husband makes a bad business deal and the wife can refuse to render the debt?  I'm not buying this one.  Marriage is for richer or for poorer, and I don't see any compelling reason that the debt isn't required even in a situation where the husband is positively derelict in his duty to provide.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 01:59:32 PM
:laugh1:

This makes the wife sound like a prostitute, rendering the debt in exchange for her "livelihood".  
:laugh1:
What a stupid comment.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: SusanneT on September 08, 2018, 05:56:30 PM
NFP is the Catholic version of birth control.  Stop spewing this nonsense.  Notice the euphemism.  If it's "natural" then it's "family planning", whereas it's "birth control" if it's "artificial".  In both cases the formal intent is the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFSQrKrrQqw
I agree the intent of NFP is to have sɛҳuąƖ relations without the inconvenience of conceiving a child, which is the Godly purpose of intimacy.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 06:23:26 PM
My sister had a husband who did not wish to be with her much.  Turned out he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who gave my sister herpes.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 06:53:46 PM
Your opinion is that it is not recommended.  It is only your opinion.  It is for the couple to decide, so long as they fall within the reasons that the practice is determined lawful by the Pope.  

Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 06:55:12 PM
I agree the intent of NFP is to have sɛҳuąƖ relations without the inconvenience of conceiving a child, which is the Godly purpose of intimacy.
That video is Dimond junk theology.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 08, 2018, 06:56:42 PM
No.
Then you are at odds with the Pope.  I’ll listen and obey him, not you.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 08, 2018, 11:52:43 PM
That video is Dimond junk theology. 
Yes, he didn't discuss marriage debt at all.
At 10:10 he says: "NFP is not abstinence; NFP is selective abstinence"! Seems like a contradiction, but maybe he means that abstinence to avoid children is sinful (is it?), but (à la 1 Cor. 7:5) abstinence to be able to devote oneself more to prayer is not.
I didn't know this Dimond bro. believes in "papal error" (@24:22).
I liked his criticism of Humanæ Vitæ, though (@46:00).

This Dimond bro. also seems to think natural marital relations without the intention to have children is a mortal sin, but it is at most only venial:
Quote from: St. Thomas
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.
(Summa suppl. q. 49 a. 5 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/XP/XP049.html#XPQ49A5THEP1) co.).
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 11:37:58 AM
My sister had a husband who did not wish to be with her much.  Turned out he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who gave my sister herpes.

That's legitimate grounds for annulment.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 11:39:01 AM
Then you are at odds with the Pope.  I’ll listen and obey him, not you.

"Obey?"  :laugh1:

No Pope ever said you must use NFP.

You only "obey" yourself, preferring to do what you want rather than what God wants.  Bottom line with 99% of NFPers.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 11:51:49 AM
That's legitimate grounds for annulment.

Yes definitely. 
First of all, I'm sure she didn't know that about him before she married him. And considering it's an important matter touching on the essence of the Sacrament of Matrimony, I'd say it's grounds for a claim of "fraud" or "misrepresentation".
Matthew

Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 12:17:30 PM
 From what I've read and heard in both Catholic and non-Catholic circles, it's usually the man that wants the debt as often as possible, and the woman who is the limiting factor.

Matthew
That's because you're talking to men.
Talk to women in their 70's & 80's and you'll see too many of them have been denied the debt for
35, 47, 28 YEARS  before their husbands died.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 09, 2018, 12:18:48 PM
That's legitimate grounds for annulment.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin, not a permanent state of a person (like impediments of perpetual impotence, etc.). What do his sins have to do with his sacramental intentionality to be open to children?

Presumably he married in the Church, which includes pre-marriage classes in which the priest can assess the couple's openness to children, and the priest must have thought he was open to life in marriage, else the priest could not have in good conscience married the couple.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 12:29:18 PM
That's because you're talking to men.
Talk to women in their 70's & 80's and you'll see too many of them have been denied the debt for
35, 47, 28 YEARS  before their husbands died.
This is often because husbands lose their ability to perform, are embarrassed, and do not want to use viagra, etc.
Yes, some of these men are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and only married as a cover for their perversity. Sometimes their wives do not find out about this until many many years later if at all. Hidden lies and broken lives.
Could this decreased sex drive be due to our poor diet of processed foods? What has changed in the last 100 years?
Title: Contraceptive vaccines!
Post by: Geremia on September 09, 2018, 01:43:59 PM
This is often because husbands lose their ability to perform, are embarrassed, and do not want to use viagra, etc.
That sort of impotence is the best indicator of heart disease. They don't need Viagra; they need to stop eating so much fat.

Could this decreased sex drive be due to our poor diet of processed foods? What has changed in the last 100 years?
Serm concentration has dramatically decreased.
From a recent study (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0960327117703690):
Quote
A time-dependent decline of sperm concentration (r = -0.307, p = 0.02) in the last 50 years and an overall 32.5% decrease in mean sperm concentration was noted.
I'm not sure how much is due to environmental factors or simply to effeminacy, but there are abilities to target sperm using antigens (same technology used in home sperm counters, but used as a spermacide). There are even patents on using these sperm antigens in "contraceptive vaccines (https://patents.google.com/?q=%22contraceptive+vaccine%22)"!
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 03:54:52 PM
That sort of impotence is the best indicator of heart disease. They don't need Viagra; they need to stop eating so much fat sugar and carbs.
Fixed it for you.

Fat doesn't necessarily make you fat. It makes you feel full, so you stop eating. Carbs and sugars make you crash and eat even more. Plus they put your body into an emergency mode to deal with blood sugar by converting it into fat. 

People need to skip the high fructose corn syrup-laden beverages, the bun and the french fries -- not the burger, the bacon, or the real cheese made with whole milk.

The proof is when people switch to low-carb diets they tend to lose weight, and they don't crash anymore and have more steady energy all day long. Of course, eventually you plateau because protein, carbs, and fat can all be converted to energy (and hence, fat). Calories are also an issue.

In the end, you have to take in less calories than you burn or you're going to gain weight. But regulating blood sugar (by avoiding foods with a high glycemic index) and avoiding blood glucose spikes certainly doesn't hurt.

Matthew
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 03:56:43 PM
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin, not a permanent state of a person (like impediments of perpetual impotence, etc.). What do his sins have to do with his sacramental intentionality to be open to children?

Presumably he married in the Church, which includes pre-marriage classes in which the priest can assess the couple's openness to children, and the priest must have thought he was open to life in marriage, else the priest could not have in good conscience married the couple.

I don't know about that.

It's a fundamental flaw in the person as well, more like a birth defect. A person doesn't just decide to be done with sodomy and move on. That is true with stealing or lying, for example. But you don't just plunge into sodomy and then swear it off completely. A perversion or psychological disorder -- especially one so closely touching on the matter of the Sacrament -- can very much be an impediment for a contract like marriage.

Is insanity an impediment? If various mental illnesses can make one unsuitable for marriage, I would suggest that the mental illness of same-sex attraction does as well.

Matthew
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 04:07:38 PM
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin, not a permanent state of a person (like impediments of perpetual impotence, etc.). What do his sins have to do with his sacramental intentionality to be open to children?

Presumably he married in the Church, which includes pre-marriage classes in which the priest can assess the couple's openness to children, and the priest must have thought he was open to life in marriage, else the priest could not have in good conscience married the couple.

Because the fraud involved vitiates the intention.  If he had told her of his "inclination", and they both agreed to go ahead with the marriage, that would be a different matter altogether.  I knew a specific case of exactly this, a closeted ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ man who came out only years later; marriage was annulled.  Both couples must consent to the marriage, and extensive fraud like this essentially means that the consent of the other party came through fraud.  Concealing STDs would also constitute fraudulently getting consent.

Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 04:12:25 PM
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a sin, not a permanent state of a person (like impediments of perpetual impotence, etc.). What do his sins have to do with his sacramental intentionality to be open to children?

Presumably he married in the Church, which includes pre-marriage classes in which the priest can assess the couple's openness to children, and the priest must have thought he was open to life in marriage, else the priest could not have in good conscience married the couple.
ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is both a sin and a semi-permanent state of person(by that I mean I think it can theoretically be cured, but it's not just like a cold or something that'll go away by itself in a short whole). Obviously there's the sin of sodomy that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs engage in, but one would never even want to sleep with another man if he was not already in the perverted state of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 04:16:02 PM
Fixed it for you.

This ^^^
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 04:45:34 PM
"Obey?"  :laugh1:

No Pope ever said you must use NFP.

You only "obey" yourself, preferring to do what you want rather than what God wants.  Bottom line with 99% of NFPers.
I never said I used NFP.  You are rash in your assumptions about someone you have no knowledge about.  
I obey the Pope by believing him, and if I and my spouse ever use the method approved by Pope Pius XII, not NFP, then that is our right to do so with a clear conscience.
I don’t learn my Faith by listening to the Dimonds, I learn from the Pope and believe him.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 04:57:15 PM
I never said I used NFP.  You are rash in your assumptions about someone you have no knowledge about.  
I obey the Pope by believing him, and if I and my spouse ever use the method approved by Pope Pius XII, not NFP, then that is our right to do so with a clear conscience.
I don’t learn my Faith by listening to the Dimonds, I learn from the Pope and believe him.  

So, are you R&R or a sedevacantist?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 04:59:59 PM
I don’t learn my Faith by listening to the Dimonds, I learn from the Pope and believe him.  

Then you need to read primarily the authoritative teaching of Pius XI on the subject, in an Encyclical letter issued to the entire Church, and not rely on the opining of Pius XII as a private doctor to a group of midwives.  This has nothing to do with the Dimonds; they simply lay out the evidence.  Pius XII did and said a lot of things that did much damage and led right into Vatican II.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 05:00:52 PM
It is for the husband to decide whether or not he believes that his family should be limited (for serious reasons like poverty etc) and he is perfectly entitled to abstain if he believes this to be the case.

If his wife wishes for sɛҳuąƖ intercourse because she desires more children that is perfectly morally acceptable, but she must accept her husband's wishes as head of the family and provider.

For a woman to wish her husband to 'honour the debt' purely and simply because she has a 'high sex drive' is in my view (as a woman) wholly unacceptable and demonstrates an un-natural, un-feminine and un-chaste mindset, rooted in sin and lust.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 05:01:14 PM
I never said I used NFP.  You are rash in your assumptions about someone you have no knowledge about.  
I obey the Pope by believing him, and if I and my spouse ever use the method approved by Pope Pius XII, not NFP, then that is our right to do so with a clear conscience.
I don’t learn my Faith by listening to the Dimonds, I learn from the Pope and believe him.  

That's the funny thing about consciences; people tend to "form" them in a way that appeals to their own pre-determined desires.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 05:02:38 PM
It is for the husband to decide whether or not he believes that his family should be limited (for serious reasons like poverty etc) and he is perfectly entitled to abstain if he believes this to be the case.

Abstain yes (and even that only under strict conditions).  NFP is not abstaining.  Sorry, but the wife has every bit as much much a right to have the marriage debt satisfied as you do.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 05:04:12 PM
Abstain - yes - NFP is birth control and is sinful.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 06:24:26 PM
This is often because husbands lose their ability to perform, are embarrassed, and do not want to use viagra, etc.

Could this decreased sex drive be due to our poor diet of processed foods? What has changed in the last 100 years?
Instant online access to Pornography. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 07:03:46 PM

Quote
For a woman to wish her husband to 'honour the debt' purely and simply because she has a 'high sex drive' is in my view (as a woman) wholly unacceptable and demonstrates an un-natural, un-feminine and un-chaste mindset, rooted in sin and lust. 
You added the phrase "purely and simply" which takes the argument to the extreme.  No one's actions are "purely and simply" for only 1 reason; human actions can have a variety of motivations.  Human love often has many motivations all mixed together.

The idea that a woman can't have a high libido not only misunderstands human nature but also implies that God made a mistake.  Your views are pretty puritanical.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 09, 2018, 07:34:36 PM
You added the phrase "purely and simply" which takes the argument to the extreme.  No one's actions are "purely and simply" for only 1 reason; human actions can have a variety of motivations.  Human love often has many motivations all mixed together.

The idea that a woman can't have a high libido not only misunderstands human nature but also implies that God made a mistake.  Your views are pretty puritanical.

Precisely.  Methinks that it's this poster who has an un-chaste mindset; most women think about sɛҳuąƖ relations as much more than the satisfaction of lust.  If you think sɛҳuąƖ intercourse is just about "sin and lust", it's you who have the problem.  So, yeah, this guy is a Puritan ... not unlike that guy Matthew banned some time ago for similar thinking.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Matto on September 09, 2018, 08:17:02 PM
Fixed it for you.

Fat doesn't necessarily make you fat. It makes you feel full, so you stop eating. Carbs and sugars make you crash and eat even more. Plus they put your body into an emergency mode to deal with blood sugar by converting it into fat.

People need to skip the high fructose corn syrup-laden beverages, the bun and the french fries -- not the burger, the bacon, or the real cheese made with whole milk.

The proof is when people switch to low-carb diets they tend to lose weight, and they don't crash anymore and have more steady energy all day long. Of course, eventually you plateau because protein, carbs, and fat can all be converted to energy (and hence, fat). Calories are also an issue.

In the end, you have to take in less calories than you burn or you're going to gain weight. But regulating blood sugar (by avoiding foods with a high glycemic index) and avoiding blood glucose spikes certainly doesn't hurt.

Matthew
Oh no! Atkins/ketogenic talking points spoken as dogma from another trad. I am saddened once again. If only more of us were on my side and ate lots of rice and bread and less meat and dairy and eggs. I only knew of me and PG and Croix but both of them were banned. I hope when they put us in the FEMA camps they only give us rice and bread and gruel. But with Trump winning they haven't been talking as much about the FEMA camps. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Maria Regina on September 09, 2018, 10:26:56 PM
Oh no! Atkins/ketogenic talking points spoken as dogma from another trad. I am saddened once again. If only more of us were on my side and ate lots of rice and bread and less meat and dairy and eggs. I only knew of me and PG and Croix but both of them were banned. I hope when they put us in the FEMA camps they only give us rice and bread and gruel. But with Trump winning they haven't been talking as much about the FEMA camps.
When my husband and I ate lots of rice and bread and less meat, dairy, and eggs, we gained a lot of weight. Now that we are more or less following a ketogenic diet, we have lost weight and our blood work for cholesterol and triglyceride is fantastic. Our doctor could not be happier.
If we were ever placed in a FEMA camp, we would refuse to eat their processed junk foods. In other words, we would go on a hunger strike.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 09, 2018, 10:27:50 PM
It's a fundamental flaw in the person as well, more like a birth defect.
Sodomites are not "born that way".
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 09, 2018, 10:33:50 PM
Sodomites are not "born that way".
No, they are not born that way, but heavy metal contamination such as lead and mercury can change people.
The lead used in plumbing contributed to the rise in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in Rome.
The mercury used in the increased yearly vaccination rates imposed on children is causing a lot of health problems and most likely increases the risk of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and autism.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 01:06:15 AM
That's the funny thing about consciences; people tend to "form" them in a way that appeals to their own pre-determined desires.
Yes, you are an example of this.  Rash judgment is a sin.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 01:07:04 AM
Abstain - yes - NFP is birth control and is sinful.
Pope Pius XII says otherwise. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 01:08:11 AM
Then you need to read primarily the authoritative teaching of Pius XI on the subject, in an Encyclical letter issued to the entire Church, and not rely on the opining of Pius XII as a private doctor to a group of midwives.  This has nothing to do with the Dimonds; they simply lay out the evidence.  Pius XII did and said a lot of things that did much damage and led right into Vatican II.
You sound like a Dimond.  I’ll stick with the Pope.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Nadir on September 10, 2018, 02:18:33 AM
No, they are not born that way, but heavy metal contamination such as lead and mercury can change people.
The lead used in plumbing contributed to the rise in ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in Rome.
The mercury used in the increased yearly vaccination rates imposed on children is causing a lot of health problems and most likely increases the risk of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and autism.
Heavy metal contamination can not change people into homosevuals and neither can vaccination. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 04:19:29 AM
Heavy metal contamination can not change people into homosevuals and neither can vaccination.
Heavy metal contamination and mercury poisoning cause adverse changes in the brain.This is why vaccinations are so dangerous. These metals are extremely toxic in small amounts and cause mental confusion, indecision, and lack of mental clarity, which can lead to perversity.
In my Catholic high school, we were taught in history that Rome fell largely because of the lead used in plumbing, which contributed to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and perversity.
Fluoride also causes changes in the brain as fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier. This is why Big Pharma changes drugs by adding fluoride so that these drugs will cross the blood brain barrier.
The pineal gland is fossilized by the addition of fluoride, and when this happens then the person will have difficulty communicating with God in prayer.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 10, 2018, 08:05:55 AM
Pope Pius XII says otherwise.

No, Eugenio Pacelli says otherwise ... in a lengthy rambling speech to a group of midwives.  Pius XI, on the other hand, taught the contrary in an Encyclical letter addressed to the Universal Church.  Pacelli said and did lots of things that were harmful to the Church ... opened the door to evolution, allowed the first Ecuмenical gatherings, set up Bugnini to begin his liturgical experimentation (serveral "Mass of the Future" experiments allowed during his reign), and appointed nearly every single Bishop who would end up bringing us Vatican II.

Answer the question:  Are you R&R or a sedevacantist?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 10, 2018, 08:06:26 AM
You sound like a Dimond.  I’ll stick with the Pope.  

Answer the question:  Are you a sedevacantist?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 04:37:02 PM
Pope Pius XII NEVER gave a rambling speech.  Your assertion is silly.  He was a brilliant theologian, and grasped the complex nuances to theology, something that can’t be said about those who attack him.  


If anyone needs to read this address of Pope Pius XII to the midwives: go to https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM)
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Pax Vobis on September 10, 2018, 06:17:38 PM
The point is, he was not teaching authoritatively as the pope, but only as a private theologian, wherein he was fallible.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 06:45:36 PM
Pope Pius XII NEVER gave a rambling speech. 

He was nearly as notorious as Karol Woytla with regard to extremely lengthy speeches ... and lack of conciseness.

Still won't answer my question about whether you're R&R or sedevacantist.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 10, 2018, 06:46:43 PM
The point is, he was not teaching authoritatively as the pope, but only as a private theologian, wherein he was fallible.  

Correct.  This speech is about as low as you can go where it comes to the degrees of papal authority.  There were several times in the speech where he clearly suggests that many of the topics under discussion were speculative, that these matters require further investigation and elaboration.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 10, 2018, 06:53:44 PM
Pius XII:

Quote
It is necessary first of all to consider two hypotheses. If the application of that theory implies that husband and wife may use their matrimonial right even during the days of natural sterility no objection can be made. In this case they do not hinder or jeopardize in any way the consummation of the natural act and its ulterior natural consequences. It is exactly in this that the application of the theory, of which We are speaking, differs essentially from the abuse already mentioned, which consists in the perversion of the act itself. If, instead, husband and wife go further, that is, limiting the conjugal act exclusively to those periods, then their conduct must be examined more closely.

Here again we are faced with two hypotheses. If, one of the parties contracted marriage with the intention of limiting the matrimonial right itself to the periods of sterility, and not only its use, in such a manner that during the other days the other party would not even have the right to ask for the debt, than this would imply an essential defect in the marriage consent, which would result in the marriage being invalid, because the right deriving from the marriage contract is a permanent, uninterrupted and continuous right of husband and wife with respect to each other.

Notice his use of the word "hypotheses" ... followed closely by the word "if" and, in the first passage, "theory" ... clearly suggesting speculation on his part rather than any kind of teaching.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 10, 2018, 10:03:07 PM
Sorry, that’s not true.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 11, 2018, 09:02:57 AM
Sorry, that’s not true.  

Uhm, what's not true?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 11, 2018, 09:11:59 AM
It is for the husband to decide whether or not he believes that his family should be limited (for serious reasons like poverty etc) and he is perfectly entitled to abstain if he believes this to be the case.

If his wife wishes for sɛҳuąƖ intercourse because she desires more children that is perfectly morally acceptable, but she must accept her husband's wishes as head of the family and provider.

For a woman to wish her husband to 'honour the debt' purely and simply because she has a 'high sex drive' is in my view (as a woman) wholly unacceptable and demonstrates an un-natural, un-feminine and un-chaste mindset, rooted in sin and lust.  

This is wrong on every level.  Every teaching from the Church about abstinence in marriage in clear that it must be a mutual decision between husband and wife, and that either party can essentially change their mind and demand the marriage debt whenever they want.  St. Thomas is clear that husband and wives are equal when it comes to rendering and demanding the marriage debt, and the notion that because the husband is the head of the family the wife cannot demand the debt, is specifically rejected.

Quote from:
[left
Summa Theologiae, Supplementum Tertiæ Partis, Question 64][/left]
Article 5. Whether husband and wife are equal in the marriage act?
 
Objection 1. It would seem that husband and wife are not equal in the marriage act. For according to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii) the agent is more noble than the patient. But in the marriage act the husband is as agent and the wife as patient. Therefore they are not equal in that act.
 
Objection 2. Further, the wife is not bound to pay her husband the debt without being asked; whereas he is so bound, as stated above (Articles 1 and 2). Therefore they are not equal in the marriage act.
 
Objection 3. Further, the woman was made on the man's account in reference to marriage according to Genesis 2:18, "Let us make him a help like unto himself." But that on account of which another thing is, is always the principal. Therefore, etc.
 
Objection 4. Further, marriage is chiefly directed to the marriage act. But in marriage "the husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23). Therefore they are not equal in the aforesaid act.
 
On the contrary, It is written (1 Corinthians 7:4): "The husband . . . hath not power of his own body," and the same is said of the wife. Therefore they are equal in the marriage act.
 
Further, Marriage is a relation of equiparence, since it is a kind of union, as stated above (Supplement:44:3). Therefore husband and wife are equal in the marriage act.
 
I answer that, Equality is twofold, of quantity and of proportion. Equality of quantity is that which is observed between two quantities of the same measure, for instance a thing two cubits long and another two cubits in length. But equality of proportion is that which is observed between two proportions of the same kind as double to double. Accordingly, speaking of the first equality, husband and wife are not equal in marriage; neither as regards the marriage act, wherein the more noble part is due to the husband, nor as regards the household management, wherein the wife is ruled and the husband rules. But with reference to the second kind of equality, they are equal in both matters, because just as in both the marriage act and in the management of the household the husband is bound to the wife in all things pertaining to the husband, so is the wife bound to the husband in all things pertaining to the wife. It is in this sense that it is stated in the text (Sent. iv, D, 32) that they are equal in paying and demanding the debt.
 
Reply to Objection 1. Although it is more noble to be active than passive, there is the same proportion between patient and passivity as between agent and activity; and accordingly there is equality of proportion between them.
 
Reply to Objection 2. This is accidental. For the husband having the more noble part in the marriage act, it is natural that he should be less ashamed than the wife to ask for the debt. Hence it is that the wife is not bound to pay the debt to her husband without being asked, whereas the husband is bound to pay it to the wife.
 
Reply to Objection 3. This proves that they are not equal absolutely, but not that they are not equal in proportion.
 
Reply to Objection 4. Although the head is the principal member, yet just as the members are bound to the head in their own respective capacities, so is the head in its own capacity bound to the members: and thus there is equality of proportion between them.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 11, 2018, 10:01:43 AM
Quote
Uhm, what's not true?
I was responding to the comment that since a pope's interview was published in the ACTA, then it's official church teaching.  This is not what the ACTA means.
But the comment I responded to has been deleted.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 11, 2018, 10:15:12 AM
I was responding to the comment that since a pope's interview was published in the ACTA, then it's official church teaching.  This is not what the ACTA means.
But the comment I responded to has been deleted.

Oh, OK.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 11, 2018, 10:31:51 AM
Yes, I deleted the comment that claimed that criticism of NFP, failure to use NFP, and/or being against NFP was a mortal sin, or some such nonsense.

This isn't the MHFM website -- it's not permitted to throw around "mortal sin" like it's candy, or confuse "mortal sin" with "disagreeing with me". They are not the same thing. I think some people essentially think they are God: How else can you explain it? They actually consider that being "against me" is being "against God", hence mortal sin.

Matthew
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 13, 2018, 08:16:13 PM
Wow...so women aren't even allowed to use marriage for concupiscence anymore. That's news to me. We should tell all the women in the world that they don't have a right to sɛҳuąƖ pleasure in marriage. I'm sure we'll have an increase in unions (note heavy sarcasm).

I am also heavily skeptical of the people who claim that only the man's opinion on abstinence matters as if you don't need mutual consent. I get that feminism was bad, folks, but we don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Please don't teach your young men these things.

You can safely ignore that ridiculous Puritanical opinion from the Anonymous poster.  It could very well be that Heimaten (sp?) guy whom Matthew banned a long time ago for Puritan/Jansenist heresy.

Yes, women too have an equal right with their husbands to the secondary ends of marital relations, one of which is the allaying of concupiscence (not to mention the strengthening of mutual affect, which marital relations do in fact bring about).

No need to spill too much virtual ink refuting that guy.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 13, 2018, 09:40:24 PM
so women aren't even allowed to use marriage for concupiscence anymore.
You mean "for the quieting of concupiscence"?
We should tell all the women in the world that they don't have a right to sɛҳuąƖ pleasure in marriage.
Concupiscence ≠ pleasure.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 13, 2018, 10:08:44 PM
Human rights are an invention of the devil.
Marriage gives spouses rights over each others' bodies:
1917 Canon 1081 (https://books.google.com/books?id=2XbtF6Y21LUC&pg=372):
Quote
§2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which each party gives and accepts perpetual and exclusive rights [ius] to the body, for those actions that are of themselves suitable for the generation of children.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 13, 2018, 11:13:23 PM
There is no "right to have pleasure" as was said in the original comment.
Is there no right to marry?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 13, 2018, 11:34:47 PM
Is there no right to marry?

No. If person X had a right to marry, then there had to be a person Y with the duty to marry X. Is there a duty to marry?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 14, 2018, 08:12:47 AM


That's not a "human right" as proposed by apologists of "human rights".

It is a right to do what one's duty is, and thus a right of God. God has the right that men don't prevent other men from doing what God wills them to do.

There is no "right to have pleasure" as was said in the original comment.

We're talking about rights given to human beings by God ... as explained in Canon Law.

What married couples have a right to is the primary and secondary ends of marital relations.  Among the secondary ends of marital relations are the increase of mutual affection and allaying of concupiscence.  Pleasure is a means to both those ends.  Since couples have a right to these ends, they also have a right to the means to these ends.  Consequently, they do in fact have a right to pleasure.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 14, 2018, 10:18:34 AM
Yes, we know that concupiscence does not mean sɛҳuąƖ pleasure. 

Can I just say that Ladislaus is consistently the most reliably unbiased, correct poster here? You're always really great! I'm sure lots of other people trust his opinions as well. Keep up the good work 👍
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 14, 2018, 05:47:10 PM
No. If person X had a right to marry, then there had to be a person Y with the duty to marry X. Is there a duty to marry?
If it's God's will.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 15, 2018, 07:52:52 AM
We're talking about rights given to human beings by God ... as explained in Canon Law.

Canon Law speaks about a duty, about matrimonial duty.

One has no right to have a spouse which does not sin against matrimonial duties. You must thank God if he or she doesn't.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 15, 2018, 07:57:18 AM
If it's God's will.
In general, God wills that we keep his commandments and leaves the details of how we do that up to us. One can choose this or that spouse or none at all.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 15, 2018, 03:55:32 PM
In general, God wills that we keep his commandments and leaves the details of how we do that up to us. One can choose this or that spouse or none at all.
But for some people to avoid sin, they must marry because they do not "contain themselves" and "it is better [for them] to marry than to be burnt" (1 Cor. 7:9 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=7&l=9-#x)) in sins of lust, fornication, etc.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Maria Regina on September 15, 2018, 04:26:46 PM
But for some people to avoid sin, they must marry because they do not "contain themselves" and "it is better [for them] to marry than to be burnt" (1 Cor. 7:9 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=7&l=9-#x)) in sins of lust, fornication, etc.
If a man or a woman marries only to satisfy the sins of the flesh, I pity their poor children. Instead, a couple who plans to marry should seek to purify themselves and live a life of purity and holiness so that together they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Marriage is to be a school of sanctity, a Domestic Church, where parents give of themselves unselfishly and lovingly to the raising of their children so that their children will become citizens of the Heavenly Kingdom.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 15, 2018, 09:23:45 PM
Quote from: Anonymous
In general, God wills that we keep his commandments and leaves the details of how we do that up to us. One can choose this or that spouse or none at all.
But for some people to avoid sin, they must marry because they do not "contain themselves" and "it is better [for them] to marry than to be burnt" (1 Cor. 7:9 (http://drbo.org/x/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=7&l=9-#x)) in sins of lust, fornication, etc.

St. Paul just recommends a way for some, which seems more appropriate for them, which makes it easier for them to keep the commands.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 15, 2018, 09:38:32 PM
It would be best if we all remained celibate and did not marry and let God raise up children of Abraham from the stones. :soapbox:
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 15, 2018, 10:11:35 PM
It would be best if we all remained celibate and did not marry and let God raise up children of Abraham from the stones. :soapbox:
It is de fide that celibacy and virginity are superior states, but that doesn't imply God wills everyone to those higher states.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 15, 2018, 10:22:30 PM
If a man or a woman marries only to satisfy the sins of the flesh, I pity their poor children.
The quieting of concupiscence (concupiscentiæ sedatio, as Pope Pius XI descriptively calls it in Casti Connubii (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)) is a secondary end of marriage.
Instead, a couple who plans to marry should seek to purify themselves and live a life of purity and holiness so that together they can enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
If that's their goal, then why marry? Such an end can be achieved safer and more readily in the religious than the married state.
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, not the sanctification of the spouses.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 15, 2018, 11:42:16 PM
The quieting of concupiscence (concupiscentiæ sedatio, as Pope Pius XI descriptively calls it in Casti Connubii (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)) is a secondary end of marriage.If that's their goal, then why marry? Such an end can be achieved safer and more readily in the religious than the married state.
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, not the sanctification of the spouses.
The Church always taught from the time of Christ that the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is to sanctify our lives and to raise our children in the Holy Faith so that they become saints.
.
Lust should have no part in our Christian lives, for one can lust within marriage and be damned.
.
Remember the Apostles asked Christ about marriage, and when Christ responded, then they said, "Then who can get married."
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 12:30:35 AM
The quieting of concupiscence (concupiscentiæ sedatio, as Pope Pius XI descriptively calls it in Casti Connubii (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)) is a secondary end of marriage.If that's their goal, then why marry? Such an end can be achieved safer and more readily in the religious than the married state.
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, not the sanctification of the spouses.
You're right.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 12:31:25 AM
The Church always taught from the time of Christ that the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is to sanctify our lives.
You're wrong. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 12:38:05 AM
You're wrong.
How so?
Disregard the latest papal encyclicals because Pius XII was wrong in so many ways. Papal encyclicals are not infallible.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 11:01:02 AM
Cafeteria Catholicism:  The Church through the Vicar of Christ teaches, you decide.  
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 11:47:41 AM
The Church always taught from the time of Christ that the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is to sanctify our lives and to raise our children in the Holy Faith so that they become saints.
.
Lust should have no part in our Christian lives, for one can lust within marriage and be damned.
.
Remember the Apostles asked Christ about marriage, and when Christ responded, then they said, "Then who can get married."
To raise your children through the Holy Faith you must first have children, which the Church teaches you must only do through marriage. Ergo the primary purpose of marriage is procreation. The primary purpose of Matrimony is not sanctification as that may be achieved through other means, in fact the Church teaches that perpetual virginity is more holy than Matrimony. What Matrimony does is sanctify relations between the couple, turning a sinful act into an unsinful one.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 16, 2018, 02:49:42 PM
Lust should have no part in our Christian lives, for one can lust within marriage and be damned.

What are you talking about?  Are you equating sɛҳuąƖ desire for your spouse as sinful lust?  I swear this must be that Heimaten (sp?) guy Matthew banned for similar Puritanism some time back.  There's no degree of sɛҳuąƖ desire for your spouse that is a mortal sin ... so long as it doesn't entail a desire to perform sinful activities.  If extremely excessive, it can be a venial sin, but in most cases rarely rises about the level of being an "imperfection".
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Ladislaus on September 16, 2018, 02:52:56 PM
How so?
Disregard the latest papal encyclicals because Pius XII was wrong in so many ways. Papal encyclicals are not infallible.

I disregard none of Pius XII's encyclicals (official teaching to the Universal Church) ... merely his allocation (long speech) to a group of midwives.  Why?  Because it contradicts the teaching of his predecessor Pius XI (in an encyclical).

In any case, this clown has refused to answer the question of whether he's R&R or a sedevacantist.  If you're R&R, you have disregarded all the V2 papal claimants, so it seems that you pick and choose which popes you want to follow.  If you're sedevacantist, then you're clearly one of these absolutely infallibilists who make a mockery of infallibility by holding that the pope is infallible every time he opens his mouth.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 16, 2018, 03:50:20 PM
The Church always taught from the time of Christ that the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is to sanctify our lives
Can you quote where the Church has taught this is marriage's primary purpose?

St. Thomas ranks Baptism as the most important sacrament. He ranks Matrimony last (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/st-thomas's-ordering-of-the-sacraments/msg603735/#msg603735) "because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the sacraments are ordained".

Thus, married Catholics are more sanctified by the top 5 sacraments (esp. Baptism and Eucharist) than by marriage.

(To enter marriage with the primary and sole purpose of sanctifying oneself and not to have children would render the marriage invalid.)

The post-Vatican II teachings that make mutual love of the spouses the primary end of marriage tend to glorify the sanctifying aspect of marriage to such an extent that they degrade the necessity of the other sacraments (which Paul VI bastardized anyways with his Modernist Novus Ordo new-sacraments). Sanctify-yourself-with-more-sex-and-fewer-sacraments is certainly more appealing to "modern man" than the Eucharist or Penance, so it makes sense why the cult of man Novus Ordo sect promotes abominations like "Theology of the Body".

and to raise our children in the Holy Faith so that they become saints.
Yes, that's marriage's primary end.

Lust should have no part in our Christian lives, for one can lust within marriage and be damned.
Sure, as in contraception, sodomitical acts, etc., but one can use the evil of concupiscence for a good purpose in marriage:
Contra Iulianum (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6797) 5.60:
Quote from: St. Augustine
Ego enim dico, uti libidine non semper esse peccatum; quia malo bene uti non est peccatum.
I hold that to use lust [libidine] is not always a sin, because to use evil well is not a sin.
(For more quotes along these lines, see §2. "Saint Augustine and 'Putting Bad to Good Use'" of this article (http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2006/2006 October/2006 Oct A Burke .htm))
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 04:17:03 PM
I disregard none of Pius XII's encyclicals (official teaching to the Universal Church) ... merely his allocation (long speech) to a group of midwives.  Why?  Because it contradicts the teaching of his predecessor Pius XI (in an encyclical).

In any case, this clown has refused to answer the question of whether he's R&R or a sedevacantist.  If you're R&R, you have disregarded all the V2 papal claimants, so it seems that you pick and choose which popes you want to follow.  If you're sedevacantist, then you're clearly one of these absolutely infallibilists who make a mockery of infallibility by holding that the pope is infallible every time he opens his mouth.
It only contradicts it according to your own fallible judgement.  The reality is that there is no contradiction.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 05:57:42 PM
Can you quote where the Church has taught this is marriage's primary purpose?

St. Thomas ranks Baptism as the most important sacrament. He ranks Matrimony last (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/st-thomas's-ordering-of-the-sacraments/msg603735/#msg603735) "because it has less participation in the nature of the spiritual life, to which the sacraments are ordained".

Thus, married Catholics are more sanctified by the top 5 sacraments (esp. Baptism and Eucharist) than by marriage.

(To enter marriage with the primary and sole purpose of sanctifying oneself and not to have children would render the marriage invalid.
)

The post-Vatican II teachings that make mutual love of the spouses the primary end of marriage tend to glorify the sanctifying aspect of marriage to such an extent that they degrade the necessity of the other sacraments (which Paul VI bastardized anyways with his Modernist Novus Ordo new-sacraments). Sanctify-yourself-with-more-sex-and-fewer-sacraments is certainly more appealing to "modern man" than the Eucharist or Penance, so it makes sense why the cult of man Novus Ordo sect promotes abominations like "Theology of the Body".
Yes, that's marriage's primary end.
Sure, as in contraception, sodomitical acts, etc., but one can use the evil of concupiscence for a good purpose in marriage:
Contra Iulianum (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=6797) 5.60:(For more quotes along these lines, see §2. "Saint Augustine and 'Putting Bad to Good Use'" of this article (http://www.thomist.org/jourl/2006/2006 October/2006 Oct A Burke .htm))
Geremia, you constantly put words into people's mouths.
t would help if you would learn to read. Take it slowly. Don't rush.

No person here, no poster here has ever suggested that they have entered marriage with the idea of not having any children. I know a lot of couples who are in the process of sanctifying themselves by prayer and by regularly partaking of the Holy Sacraments, and of sanctifying their children too. Our home is meant to be a domestic church.

We must raise our children in the faith by: 
(N/B: not in order of importance)
1. worshiping, praising, and glorifying our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ
2. honoring the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints.
3. praying daily with our children
4. practicing the Faith with our children
5. being good examples to our children and to each other
6. taking our children to church to receive the Holy Sacraments
7. practicing the Faith with our children
8. obeying the Ten Commandments and the Commandments of the Church
9. homeschooling our children
10. watching our children diligently and not leaving them alone with strangers who may harm them.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: DumbOx on September 16, 2018, 07:07:34 PM
The Church always taught from the time of Christ that the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is to sanctify our lives and to raise our children in the Holy Faith so that they become saints.
.
Lust should have no part in our Christian lives, for one can lust within marriage and be damned.
.
Remember the Apostles asked Christ about marriage, and when Christ responded, then they said, "Then who can get married."

You seem to be mixing up sacraments generally, with the ordered ends of specific sacraments.

Of course the purpose of all the sacraments is to confer grace. In that sense, matrimony will ordinarily result in the sanctification of both spouses (according to a correct disposition).

However, the ends God intended for each sacrament are more specific than the general conferring of the graces unique to them.

Summa Theologica (Supplement)

Chapter 41 (Matrimony)
Article 1

"...in this way matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways. First, in relation to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue...

Chapter 49 (Marriage Goods)
Article 2

"Offspring signifies not only the begetting of children, but also their education, to which as its end is directed the entire communion of works that exists between man and wife as united in marriage, since parents naturally “lay up” for their “children” (2 Cor.12:14); so that the offspring like a principal end includes another, as it were, secondary end."

St Thomas seems pretty clear that the procreation and rearing/education of children are the principal end of Marriage.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: sedevacantist3 on September 16, 2018, 07:28:17 PM
In my case wifey doesn’t want any more kids at 45 yrs of age. So I’m stuck having infrequent relations and when it happens i have to stop so as not to complete the act.  I confessed the sin (priest said not mortal) but i can see it happening again .  Obvuously abstinence is the safest way to go but it’s tough when the wife still wants the affection. I’m in a tough spot 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 07:31:30 PM
In my case wifey doesn’t want any more kids at 45 yrs of age. So I’m stuck having infrequent relations and when it happens i have to stop so as not to complete the act.  I confessed the sin (priest said not mortal) but i can see it happening again .  Obvuously abstinence is the safest way to go but it’s tough when the wife still wants the affection. I’m in a tough spot
I'd check with another priest.  Activities like that where one wilfully holds back on the natural completion are gravely sinful IMO.  [vs. being interrupted or something]

Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 07:32:33 PM
In my case wifey doesn’t want any more kids at 45 yrs of age. So I’m stuck having infrequent relations and when it happens i have to stop so as not to complete the act.  I confessed the sin (priest said not mortal) but i can see it happening again .  Obvuously abstinence is the safest way to go but it’s tough when the wife still wants the affection. I’m in a tough spot

Wifey seems to have a very un-Catholic attitude.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 08:39:23 PM
You seem to be mixing up sacraments generally, with the ordered ends of specific sacraments.

Of course the purpose of all the sacraments is to confer grace. In that sense, matrimony will ordinarily result in the sanctification of both spouses (according to a correct disposition).

However, the ends God intended for each sacrament are more specific than the general conferring of the graces unique to them.

Summa Theologica (Supplement)

Chapter 41 (Matrimony)
Article 1

"...in this way matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines thereto in two ways. First, in relation to the principal end of matrimony, namely the good of the offspring. For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue...

Chapter 49 (Marriage Goods)
Article 2

"Offspring signifies not only the begetting of children, but also their education,
to which as its end is directed the entire communion of works that exists between man and wife as united in marriage, since parents naturally “lay up” for their “children” (2 Cor.12:14); so that the offspring like a principal end includes another, as it were, secondary end."

St Thomas seems pretty clear that the procreation and rearing/education of children are the principal end of Marriage.
A new one  ...  Another one .... Welcome
But please learn to read.
In the citation from Chapter 41, St. Thomas says that that the principal end of matrimony is NOT ONLY the begetting of offspring, BUT ALSO reaching PERFECTION, or that STATE OF VIRTUE, in other words, we must be purified, illuminated, and sanctified through the Holy Sacraments.
We must cooperate with God so that we and our children will reach the state of perfection through the school (education) of penance, study,  daily chores, prayer, and union with God.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 08:55:11 PM
The Church has always taught that voluntary celibacy is the best state for sanctification, not Marriage. This is a hard teaching for many, but it is the truth.

That does not mean that if you are married, you can't be holy, of course, but Marriage has a specific purpose attached to it. The formation of a family. 

This is one of the main VII errors, displacing the primary means of marriage, from procreation of children, to "love" and companionship of the spouses. 
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 09:30:06 PM
The Church has always taught that voluntary celibacy is the best state for sanctification, not Marriage. This is a hard teaching for many, but it is the truth.

That does not mean that if you are married, you can't be holy, of course, but Marriage has a specific purpose attached to it. The formation of a family.

This is one of the main VII errors, displacing the primary means of marriage, from procreation of children, to "love" and companionship of the spouses.
Again, please learn to read.
We are all called to be citizens of heaven.
We are all called to raise our children to be saints, like the holy family of St. Therese of Liseaux and that of St. Basil the Great. All  the members of these two families were declared saints or blessed. Yes, not everyone follows the path to holiness as it is difficult, but this is our calling.
As a Dominican Tertiary, I have met many good families who live a devout life as husbands and wives, and their children are holy too.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 09:49:25 PM
Isn't it a sin to render to God the bare minimum? Shouldn't we be giving Him our all and thanking and praising Him for our very existence.

Aren't we to love the Lord our God with our whole body, our whole mind, our whole heart, and our whole soul, and our neighbor as ourselves? If we truly love our neighbor (and our spouse and children) as ourselves, then we will want them to be in heaven with us.

I have met guys who spend most of their days in lustful thoughts. They go to church on Sunday to pay their 30 minutes of respect to God, but the rest of the week is theirs.

This is not the straight and narrow pathway to heaven, but the very broad and comfortable road to Hell.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: DumbOx on September 16, 2018, 09:51:13 PM
A new one  ...  Another one .... Welcome
But please learn to read.
In the citation from Chapter 41, St. Thomas says that that the principal end of matrimony is NOT ONLY the begetting of offspring, BUT ALSO reaching PERFECTION, or that STATE OF VIRTUE, in other words, we must be purified, illuminated, and sanctified through the Holy Sacraments.
We must cooperate with God so that we and our children will reach the state of perfection through the school (education) of penance, study,  daily chores, prayer, and union with God.

Nobody has argued against the ideal that sanctified parents are going to more easily pass on the Faith and raise sanctified children.

The 'learn to read' quip can apply both  ways - St Thomas nowhere states the sanctification of the SPOUSES is the primary end of Marriage. He places the begetting of OFFSPRING and the OFFSPRING'S attainment of virtue as the primary end.

Again, to reiterate, holy parents will more easily rear virtue in their children. But you have to have children before they can attain virtue and reach Heaven.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 09:54:09 PM
As a Dominican Tertiary, I have met many good families who live a devout life as husbands and wives, and their children are holy too.

I know of not a single Dominican Tertiary declared and defined saint and example for the faithful.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 09:54:49 PM
Nobody has argued against the ideal that sanctified parents are going to more easily pass on the Faith and raise sanctified children.

The 'learn to read' quip can apply both  ways - St Thomas nowhere states the sanctification of the SPOUSES is the primary end of Marriage. He places the begetting of OFFSPRING and the OFFSPRING'S attainment of virtue as the primary end.

Again, to reiterate, holy parents will more easily rear virtue in their children. But you have to have children before they can attain virtue and reach Heaven.
It is glaringly obvious to me that you have never studied theology at the college level.
I have.
Read what I wrote again.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 09:56:37 PM
I know of not a single Dominican Tertiary declared and defined saint and example for the faithful.
Where have you been? There are many Dominican Saints. One of the most recent is a Spanish Dominican widow who was declared to be a saint not too long ago. St. Catherine of Siena is also a Dominican Tertiary.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 09:59:24 PM
Where have you been? There are many Dominican Saints. One of the most recent is a Spanish Dominican widow who was declared to be a saint not too long ago. St. Catherine of Siena is also a Dominican Tertiary.
Which other one beside St. Catherine of Siena, declared saint before Vat II?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 10:04:46 PM
It is glaringly obvious to me that you have never studied theology at the college level.
I have.
Read what I wrote again.

You claim authority of someone who studied theology at the college level.

Theologians do not have any authority in the Church. They may be called as advisors by those who have authority, but they don't have any. Authority is reserved to the magisterium of the Chruch. The magisterium has apostolic authority, provided by Our Lord. Didn't they teach that at your college?
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 10:08:32 PM
Another observation (a little sidetracked from the OP)...

I really believe that VII putting 'mutual love and support between spouses' on the same level as the 'begetting of children' (i.e. both considered primary ends) opened the door to the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ 'marriage' movement. ( maybe that was exactly the plan?)

This effectively destroyed the fundamental argument against sodomite 'marriage' - that regardless of any 'love', an inherently barren union cannot attain the fundamental end of Marriage: the begetting of children.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Nadir on September 16, 2018, 10:47:59 PM
I know of not a single Dominican Tertiary declared and defined saint and example for the faithful.
You need to read up on the saints. Try https://laydominicans.org/study/dominican-saints/
Don't have time to sort for you but you'll be better informed after studying the list
 
THE FRATERNITIES OF ST. DOMINIC SAINTS AND BLESSEDS (INCOMPLETE LIST)
ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA (1347-1380)
Italian, virgin, renowned mystic, stigmatist, diplomat, peacemaker, author of The Dialogue, second woman Doctor of the Church, Church appointed patroness of the Fraternities of Saint Dominic, co-patroness with St. Francis of Italy, patroness of Rome, nurses, fire prevention, canonized 1461.
St. Rose of Lima (1586-1617)
Peruvian, virgin, great ascetic, Church appointed patroness of South America, first canonized saint of New World 1671. Member of the Fraternities of Saint Dominic.
St. Louis de Montfort (1673-1700)
French, priest member of the Fraternities of Saint Dominic, brother of a Dominican priest, preacher of parish missions, author, founder of religious congregation of men and another of women, all to spread devotion to Mary and the Rosary as inspired by St. Dominic (May 24 and Aug.8).
St. Zedíslava Berkiana (1221-1252)
Lay Dominican and wife. Bohemian, she carefully raised four children and founded 2 Dominican priories, her charities, at times miraculously confirmed, abounded for the needy, the sick, and indigent families, she died in her husband’s arms. In 1989, through her intercession, a doctor was healed from a lengthy coma by a miracle. Canonized by John Paul II May 21, 1995, and established as a memorial, but unfortunately permanently supplanted in the U.S. by the memorial of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.
Bl. Margaret of Castello (1287-1320)
Italian, abandoned as a child because of blindness and severe, unsightly handicaps, and so patron of pro-life causes, virgin, mystic, instructor of children.
Bl. Pier-Giorgio Frassati (1901-1925)
Italian, as a Tertiary took the name Bro. Jerome after Fra Savonarola, whom he venerated as a saint, popular among his peers, ardent athlete, tireless servant of the poor, apostle to his fellow university students in Turin, he died after 6 days with polio.
Bl. Bartolo Longo (1841-1926)
Italian, lawyer, ex-priest of Satan, husband, widower, propagator of the Rosary, catechist, Dominican Fraternity member, founder of orphanage of congregation of Dominican sisters, and of the Shrine of O.L. of Pompeii.
Bl. Jane of Orvieto (1264-1306)
Italian, virgin, worker among the poor, Lay Dominican.
Bl. Villana de’ Botti (1332-1361)
Italian, wife and mother, contemplative, worker among the poor, Lay Dominican.
Bl. Columba of Rieti (1467-1501)
Italian, virgin, inspired by St. Catherine of Siena (April 29) to become a fraternity member, became a cloistered sister at the bishop’s request, prophetess, peacemaker.
Bl. Hosanna of Mantua (1449-1505)
Italian, virgin, celebrated mystic, author, adviser to lawmakers, Lay Dominican.
Bl. Adrian Fortescue (1476-1539)
English, husband and father, cousin of Anne Boleyn, martyred by Henry VIII, Lay Dominican.
Bl. Catherine of Racconigi (1486-1547)
Italian, virgin, ascetic, mystic.
Blessed Arnold Janssen (1837 – 1909)
Priest and Founder
Bl. Madeline Panattieri (1433-1503)
Italian, virgin, celebrated preacheress, adviser, Lay Dominican. The following is a list of Dominican Saints and Blesseds are from the First Order (friars) and Second Order (nuns).
OUR HOLY FATHER ST DOMINIC (1170-1221)
AKA “The Apostolic Father”, saint, Spanish, priest, scholar, ascetic, mystic, apologist, innovator, miracle-worker, laid foundation for the Rosary, founder of the Order of Preachers, eloquent preacher.
St. Hyacinth Odrowatz (1187-1257)
Polish, priest, brother of Bl. Ceslaus (July 17), one of first Dominicans, founder of the Polish Province, missionary to Slavs and Nordics, Church appointed patron of Poland, canonized 1594.
St. Albert The Great (1206-1280)
German, Bishop of Ratisbon, now known as Regensburg, in S. Germany, theologian of renown, philosopher, scientist, diplomat, teacher, inventor, teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas, called great already in his lifetime, criss-crossed his diocese on foot and so nicknamed “Doctor Boots” by his contemporaries, “Universal Doctor” of the Church, Church appointed patron of scientists, medical technicians, proclaimed Doctor and thus equivalently canonized 1931.
St. Raymond of Peñafort (1175-1275)
Spanish, priest, canonist, diplomat, Third Master of the Order, Church appointed patron of canonists, canonized in 1601.
St. Margaret of Hungary (1242-1270)
Hungarian, virgin, royal princess, nun, mystic, canonized 1943.
St. Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419)
Spanish, priest, celebrated itinerant preacher and ascetic, Church appointed patron of builders, canonized 1455.
St. Pius V (1504-1572)
Italian, inquisitor, pope (1566-1572, 3rd Dominican pope), reformer, diplomat, great promoter of the rosary, canonized 1712.
St. Louis Bertrand (1526-1581)
Spanish, priest, ascetic, novice master, missionary to South America, Church appointed patron of Colombia and of Dominican novice masters.
St. Martin de Porres (1579-1639)
Peruvian, first a Lay Dominican then a Cooperator Brother; infirmarian, barber, worker among the poor, remarkable wonder-worker, Church appointed patron of social justice, cooperator brothers, and hair dressers, canonized 1962.
Bl. Henry Suso (Seuse) (+1366)
German, priest, renowned mystic and author.
Bl. Jordan of Saxony (1185-1237)
German, priest, renowned preacher, diplomat, “the first university chaplain”, successor of St. Dominic as Master of the Order, effective promoter of Dominican vocations, patron of Dominican vocation work.
Bl. Innocent V (1224-1276)
AKA “Peter of Tarentaise”, French, pope (1276, first Dominican pope), scholar, administrator, Archbishop of Lyons.
Bl. Benedict XI (1240-1304)
AKA “Nicholas Boccasini”, Italian, pope (1303- 1304, second Dominican pope), 9th Master of the Order, Bishop of Ostia, diplomat.
Bl. Reginald of Orleans (1180-1220) French, priest, teacher, preacher, early Dominican, friend of St. Dominic, effective promoter of Dominican vocations.
The 117 Martyrs of Vietnam Saints: Ignatius Delgado, Spanish, (+1838)
and 5 other Dominican bishops; Vincent Liem, Vietnamese, and 15 other Dominican priests (+1773); 3 priests of the Third Order; Dominic An-Kham, Vietnamese, (+1859) and 9 other Lay Dominicans; 24 parishioners of Dominican missions; and 58 others not associated with the Order, canonized 1988.
The 16 Martyrs of Nagasaki
Saints: Lorenzo Ruiz, husband and father, Protomartyr of the Philippines, member of the Rosary Confraternity (+1637); Dominic Ibañez de Erquicia, Spanish (+1633), and James Kyushei Tomonaga, Japanese, and 7 other Dominican priests; 2 Dominican Cooperator Brothers; 2 Lay Dominicans; 2 parishioners of Dominican missions, canonized 1987.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 16, 2018, 10:52:01 PM
Please remove those from the list which were not married.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Nadir on September 16, 2018, 11:11:08 PM
Please remove those from the list which were not married.
Don't have time to sort for you but you'll be better informed after studying the list
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Geremia on September 17, 2018, 06:53:40 PM
Isn't it a sin to render to God the bare minimum?
Not necessarily. We must obey the precepts, but we are not obliged to put the counsels into action, and we should not be opposed to the spirit of the counsels.

St. Thomas's commentary on Mt. 19:12 (https://aquinas.cc/184/186/~1641) ("He that can take, let him take it."):
Quote
But why is this? Is not a man obliged to do the greater good? I say that one must distinguish the greater good in regard to the actual performance or in regard to the desire. One is not held to the greater good in regard to their actual performance, but to the desire to do them, because every rule and every action is determined to something defined and certain : but if one is bound to do every action that is better, one is bound to something uncertain. Hence, in regard to exterior actions, because one is not bound to do something uncertain, one is not bound to do the greater good; but in regard to the desire, one is held to desire the greater good. Hence, he who does not always wish to be better, cannot wish without contempt [of doing the greater good].5

5. “There is a way of fulfilling this precept, so as to avoid sin, namely, if one do what one can as required by the conditions of one’s state of life: provided there be no contempt of doing better things, which contempt sets the mind against spiritual progress” (II II, q. 186, a. 2 ad 2um (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS186.html#SSQ186A2THEP1)).
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 17, 2018, 07:30:23 PM
Bl. Bartolo Longo (1841-1926)
Italian, lawyer, ex-priest of Satan, husband, widower, propagator of the Rosary, catechist, Dominican Fraternity member, founder of orphanage of congregation of Dominican sisters, and of the Shrine of O.L. of Pompeii.

Wow! This MARRIED Dominican Lay Tertiary was an ex-priest of Satan.
Title: Re: Marriage debt
Post by: Änσnymσus on September 19, 2018, 11:40:16 AM
Please remove those from the list which were not married.
St. Zedíslava Berkiana (1221-1252)
Lay Dominican and wife. Bohemian, she carefully raised four children and founded 2 Dominican priories, her charities, at times miraculously confirmed, abounded for the needy, the sick, and indigent families, she died in her husband’s arms. In 1989, through her intercession, a doctor was healed from a lengthy coma by a miracle. Canonized by John Paul II May 21, 1995, and established as a memorial, but unfortunately permanently supplanted in the U.S. by the memorial of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton.

Bl. Bartolo Longo (1841-1926)
Italian, lawyer, ex-priest of Satan, husband, widower, propagator of the Rosary, catechist, Dominican Fraternity member, founder of orphanage of congregation of Dominican sisters, and of the Shrine of O.L. of Pompeii.