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.
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.
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:
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.Absolutely agreed!
.
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.
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."
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.
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).
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.
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’.
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.
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.
If there is a serious reason, poverty, medical, etc., the rhythm method may be used as taught by Pope Pius XII.
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?
"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::laugh1:
This makes the wife sound like a prostitute, rendering the debt in exchange for her "livelihood".
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.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.
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.That video is Dimond junk theology.
No.Then you are at odds with the Pope. I’ll listen and obey him, not you.
That video is Dimond junk theology.Yes, he didn't discuss marriage debt at all.
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.).
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.
Then you are at odds with the Pope. I’ll listen and obey him, not you.
That's legitimate grounds for annulment.Yes definitely.
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.That's because you're talking to men.
Matthew
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?
That's because you're talking to men.This is often because husbands lose their ability to perform, are embarrassed, and do not want to use viagra, etc.
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.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.
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)"!
That sort of impotence is the best indicator of heart disease. They don't need Viagra; they need to stop eating so muchFixed it for you.fatsugar and carbs.
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 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 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?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.
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.
Fixed it for you.
"Obey?" :laugh1:I never said I used NFP. You are rash in your assumptions about someone you have no knowledge about.
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.
I don’t learn my Faith by listening to the Dimonds, I learn from the Pope and believe him.
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.
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.
This is often because husbands lose their ability to perform, are embarrassed, and do not want to use viagra, etc.Instant online access to Pornography.
Could this decreased sex drive be due to our poor diet of processed foods? What has changed in the last 100 years?
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.
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.
Fixed it for you.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.
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.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.
It's a fundamental flaw in the person as well, more like a birth defect.Sodomites are not "born that way".
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.
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.
Abstain - yes - NFP is birth control and is sinful.Pope Pius XII says otherwise.
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.
No, they are not born that way, but heavy metal contamination such as lead and mercury can change people.Heavy metal contamination can not change people into homosevuals and neither can vaccination.
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.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.
Pope Pius XII says otherwise.
You sound like a Dimond. I’ll stick with the Pope.
Pope Pius XII NEVER gave a rambling speech.
The point is, he was not teaching authoritatively as the pope, but only as a private theologian, wherein he was fallible.
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.
Sorry, that’s not true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Human rights are an invention of the devil.Marriage gives spouses rights over each others' bodies:
§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.
There is no "right to have pleasure" as was said in the original comment.Is there no right to marry?
Is there no right to marry?
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.
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.
We're talking about rights given to human beings by God ... as explained in Canon Law.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: AnonymousIn 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.
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.
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 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 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.
The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children, not the sanctification of the spouses.
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.You're right.
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.You're wrong.
You're wrong.How so?
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.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.
.
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."
Lust should have no part in our Christian lives, for one can lust within marriage and be damned.
How so?
Disregard the latest papal encyclicals because Pius XII was wrong in so many ways. Papal encyclicals are not infallible.
The Church always taught from the time of Christ that the primary purpose of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is to sanctify our livesCan you quote where the Church has taught this is marriage's primary purpose?
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:
Ego enim dico, uti libidine non semper esse peccatum; quia malo bene uti non est peccatum.(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))
I hold that to use lust [libidine] is not always a sin, because to use evil well is not a sin.
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).It only contradicts it according to your own fallible judgement. The reality is that there is no contradiction.
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.
Can you quote where the Church has taught this is marriage's primary purpose?Geremia, you constantly put words into people's mouths.
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))
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."
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 spotI'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]
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
You seem to be mixing up sacraments generally, with the ordered ends of specific sacraments.A new one ... Another one .... Welcome
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.
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.Again, please learn to read.
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.
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.
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.
Nobody has argued against the ideal that sanctified parents are going to more easily pass on the Faith and raise sanctified children.It is glaringly obvious to me that you have never studied theology at the college level.
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.
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.
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?
It is glaringly obvious to me that you have never studied theology at the college level.
I have.
Read what I wrote again.
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/
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
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.
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)).
Please remove those from the list which were not married.St. Zedíslava Berkiana (1221-1252)