Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 06:23:59 AM

Title: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 06:23:59 AM
This is a difficult topic for discussion, but a recent revelation from a forum member and a number of in-depth observations and conversations with Trad stalwarts, over the years, strongly suggests to me that this is a problem, somewhat swept under the carpet in the wider Trad world.  The more I have raised it with stalwarts the more I have found that everyone knew of at least one couple like this (and no, they were not the same couple).  From Washington, to London and Santander to Sydney I've seen and heard this.  But you have to ask, it is never volunteered.  People feel like it is not their place to discuss it (kind of like the child abuse scandal that was kept quiet for decades).

It is a hard topic to investigate or discuss because there are exceptions, you cannot reach a judgement about any particular couple, unless they reveal the inner workings of their marital life, (which they rarely do), but the population as a whole shows a statistically significant number families with low numbers of children.  And it is in no way apparent to me how this can be the case without either contraception or avoiding sex.

A Catholic married couple is required to have some amount of sexual intercourse.  How much will depend on the couple and their mutual appetites but a wholly sexless marriage is not a valid marriage.  Marriage is both unitive and procreative.  How much sex is not enough?



Most people, most of the time desire sex with their married partner.  If this were not true there would be almost no desire or need to contracept within marriage.  Contraception an small family sizes are proof that sex is desired more than babies are.

So let's describe some real life scenarios all applied to couples where both are practicing Catholics at the time of the wedding and the wedding was conducted by a Trad priest.  These are marked actual and hypothetical depending on whether I have first hand evidence from the man/women or not.  If they are anecdotal I put them as hypothetical.

1.  ACTUAL - Couple marry have two children, born two years apart, and then stop because the woman does not 'feel' she can deal with more. Women is 31 had children at 25 and 27. The husband is not desirous for a large family either so they call it quits at 2 children and have separate beds.   As I understand it this is morally legitimate but often not very wise is as much as there is a natural sexual desire with most people most of the time.  It is much like going on a very harsh diet which will be hard to stick to.  In certain, rare, circumstances it COULD be a neutral or even a virtuous thing but a spiritual director would tread very carefully and make sure that both the man and woman were up to the task.

2.  Actual -  The same case as the above, but the couple share their marital bed and engage in foreplay, cuddles, kissing.  The woman does not want sex and the man is prepared to go along with that over a period of years.  He wants children but he is too weak to dominate his wife into having them.   Is this legitimate?  It would seem to me it was a flawed state and kinda sorta an abuse of the natural order to make a habit (consistent practice) out of it.  On the other hand, lots of married couples who have large families do this on some days because the one or other isn't up to it that night or the wife wants to give her womb a break of 9months.  So if it is wrong to "pet" then it must be the long term practice of it, rather than the occasional incident.  And the difference here is intention.  By making a habit of it you are saying petting is enough and sexual intercourse is off the cards.

3.  Actual - The same case as 2 above but after 10 years after their wedding the couple has no children.  Husband states that they have never had sex or had sex so rarely (let's say once every 2 years when she thinks she is on a safe period) that there is no procreation.  In this particular case an SSPX priest has been involved and tried to council the wife but to no avail.  Husband appears to think it is his duty to just put up with this and support a wife who refuses to have his children.  I am not sure this is right and since there a no children from this union I would think he had a VERY good cause to apply for and get an annulment.

As I understand it, this would invalidate a marriage if a women refuses her husband sex because she does not want children.

4. Hypothetical - Couple marry young, woman is fertile and has 10 children by the age of 35.  A some point the husband who has a blue collar job is worked ragged providing for them all and just says, "no more".  Since they are not going to abuse NFP the only thing they can do is stop having sex.  However the wife still wants to have sex and is open to having more children and making the triple bunk beds into quadruple bunk beds like a submarine.  At what points can the husband lay down the law and say we HAVE to stop.

---

What I am after here is the principles, the exceptions, things that are absolutely non-negotiable, things that are nuanced and why they are nuanced.  In short how such things should be navigated to make the best of a bad lot.

I'd also be interested in hearing in your own experience (anecdotal) how many of these arrangements are mutual and not without other problems such as fornicating with others, masturbation, porn use etc.  How many marriages have you heard of breaking down, or annulments being applied for, on the basis of one or other of the partners not wanting children and therefore refusing to have sex.  I personally know of 7 such cases in the UK and USA.  I knew one, or both, parties while they were married and thereafter and they told me the reasons they were granted an annulment.

If one is in one of these non-mutual sexless 'marriages', is there a duty, obligation or merely a right to remove oneself from it and how long does one give the witholding partner?  1 perhaps 2 years would seem reasonable.  10 years seems an insane amount of time to put up with it and suggests to me that the motivation of the husband is something else or that he is a massive weakling and can't face life on his own. In effect his wife is his live in girlfriend and he gets company but no sex.

Finally, is there a material difference whether sex is withheld at zero, one, two........12 children.  Seems to me practically and morally there is.  Partly because of the child(ren) involved who need a stable upbringing (their needs outweigh other factors) and partly because while the contract has been defaulted on - it has been part delivered.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 07:21:20 AM
I'm not a Trad priest and neither are > 99% of the CathInfo members. So you really need to take anything you read here with a grain of salt.

Unless someone was at the seminary for MORE than 4 or 5 years, but didn't get ordained... let's put it this way: theology and canon law are taught LAST. Those men who spent "a few years" at the seminary only made it through Philosophy. I know "the upper years" spent a lot of time on Divine/Church rules on marriage matters in detail.

1. If one or both spouses didn't intend to have children, that is a reason for annulment. It goes against the very basic matter of the marriage contract.

2. As far as sex/no sex goes, it gets much more dicey once the marriage is consummated.

3. There is no mandated minimum frequency for requesting the marriage debt from one's spouse. The rule is that EITHER spouse can request it at any time within reason. One spouse can't be morally browbeated into not requesting it, either. If the couple abstains for X weeks, it must be because BOTH spouses WEREN'T INTERESTED (i.e., it was the will of both of them. So this includes not being interested because they were pursuing spiritual growth).

4. The Church rules for abstinence within marriage are taken RIGHT from St. Paul's guidelines in Scripture: it must be A) for a time, B) by mutual consent, C) can be withdrawn by EITHER party at ANY time, and D) for spiritual reasons -- not because you don't want to get pregnant, are fearful you can't support more kids, etc.

5. I'm sure there are as many situations as there are couples. Human beings have an infinite variety to them. But in many cases, sexual conflict is a symptom of another problem: psychological problems, emotional problems, porn and/or masturbation use/addiction, one spouse ignoring the other, various degrees of infidelity, etc. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are plenty of strained marriages where porn, self-abuse, and infidelity don't enter into the picture at all.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 07:59:22 AM
How does one post facto determine intent?

It is reasonable to assume that a women or man who refuses to have sex in the first few years of a marriage (10 years in the case above) did not intend to have children?

After all children come about because of the sexual act.  You cannot wish them into existence.  So if you intended to have children then you intended to have sex.

- - -

Consummation is a single act of intercourse.  If that validates a marriage it would mean that a person with no intent could marry a Traditionalist, have sex once, and trap them into an otherwise sexless marriage.  Is it like "you broke it you own it"?

- - -

Let's suppose further than the woman begrudgingly has sex once every six months just after her period, calculating that her chances or getting pregnant are very low.  Would this behaviour demonstrate intent to not have children.

- - -

Does having 1 child and then refusing sex until her menopause mean that she cannot be accused of not intending to have children?  She had one.

- - -


The Church rules for abstinence within marriage are taken RIGHT from St. Paul's guidelines in Scripture: it must be A) for a time, B) by mutual consent, C) can be withdrawn by EITHER party at ANY time, and D) for spiritual reasons -- not because you don't want to get pregnant, are fearful you can't support more kids, etc.

So that means that using abstinence to limit your family size to 2 or 3 is wrong under many, if not most, scenarios in first world countries such as UK, USA, Australia.  None of us are living in mud-huts.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 08:08:38 AM
Yes, none of us are living in mud huts, yet plenty of First World-ers dare complain about "economic hardship".

It's interesting that those who have traveled the world have a more objective grasp (their horizons have been broadened) as to the objective wealth of virtually all Americans. Even the homeless here are surrounded by abundance, such that it's pretty easy to get food and not starve if that's what you're truly after. The homeless get to push their carts on nice paved roads, and people won't abuse or murder them because we have law and order. There are well-funded charities and shelters all over the place -- you just can't be violent and/or high or you might get kicked out. (But let's face it: drug abuse and violence are CHOICES that we can and SHOULD hold against people!) Americans take so much for granted.

I haven't traveled much at all physically, but I have traveled mentally via books, listening to others, the Internet, etc.

It's amazing how much people think they NEED, but most of it can be forgone.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 08:11:02 AM
Also, you have to distinguish between

Failed marriage
Bad marriage
Marriage with major issues

and

No Marriage


Because yes, if you're foolish and marry poorly, you ARE going to have to suck it up and pay the price. Don't be foolish when choosing a spouse! The Church -- or any one else, for that matter -- doesn't force you to marry any particular individual -- or get married at all! But when you take your destiny into your hands, the consequences are on YOU.

Think with the right head, gentlemen!
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 08:13:11 AM
Since most people contracept the above scenarios will usually involve a spouse who is anti-sex (sees sex as dirty or sinful), or does not want children, or bizarrely wants to obey the churches teaching on contraception, but not honour their marriage vows/debt.  And I've seen this very thing happen.

Since Catholics aren't supposed to be fornicating before marriage, what signs are there, in your experience, that your fiancee might be disinclined?

What happens if a woman marries a homosexual, for example, and he consummates the marriage and then spends the rest of the evenings on his work or hobbies?  I know a Polish woman with one daughter that this happened to.

I guess a woman should be looking for a man she has to push away and set limits but who equally has the self-control to be pushed away and respects her for it.  What does a man look for in a woman and how does he know the difference between a frigid ice-maiden and a well brought up Catholic lady?

Once you marry and find you have made a mistake you are in for a world of hurt.

So how does one avoid mistakes?
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 08:54:42 AM
Sounds basic, but maybe bring it up in conversation?

Maybe that's the problem -- Sex is such a taboo in some circles, that even engaged couples don't bring up the topic.

For our marriage we had a very good priest (Fr. Timothy Pfeiffer -- not to be confused with his brother, Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer!) and he really did his job in this area as well. You could tell he wasn't comfortable talking about such things (e.g., describing what is licit within marriage and what is not), but there's nothing that man wouldn't do to execute his priestly duties faithfully and well. I still admire him for it. He is a zealous apostle. We were blessed to have him as our priest for 1 year.

He also had us read a good pre-Vatican II book, "The Catholic Marriage Manual" which covered a lot of subjects that trip up many couples and destroy many marriages: sex, in-laws, money, discipline, you name it.

It gave us, while engaged, some useful profitable topics to talk about. Fortunately, we were on the same page in these areas. But it's not quite that simple. We also learned a thing or two. To this day, I still have a healthy caution for "in-law interference in a marriage" since reading that book. It's good to know where the dangers lie, so you can be cautious.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 23, 2019, 09:04:23 AM
IMO, complete abstinence for the sake of avoiding children would be wrong.  St. John Vianney spoke of the women who would go to hell for not having the children that God intended for them to have.  Now, it's always been allowed ... for NOBLE motives, e.g. to do penance or seek perfection, by mutual consent ... but simply to avoid having more children?  I doubt that's legit.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 09:17:28 AM
IMO, complete abstinence for the sake of avoiding children would be wrong.  St. John Vianney spoke of the women who would go to hell for not having the children that God intended for them to have.  Now, it's always been allowed ... for NOBLE motives, e.g. to do penance or seek perfection, by mutual consent ... but simply to avoid having more children?  I doubt that's legit.

Yes, though I would say abstinence to avoid children is at least in line with nature, whereas artificial contraception goes against nature. So the person would have a more comfortable place in Hell. But it's still Hell!

St. John Vianney is absolutely right, too. "Women shall be saved through childbearing." What of the woman who willfully decides not to have children, even though she is married and God (through His providence) has made NO suggestion that she shouldn't have children? Such a one is lost.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 09:21:09 AM
This is why men AND women BOTH must be taught discipline: a.k.a. mortification, how to work, how to do that which you don't want to do, etc.

After "loving and fearing God", if there's one other thing I want to make sure to teach my children, it's that. All virtue and goodness hinges on that.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 23, 2019, 09:31:12 AM
Yes, though I would say abstinence to avoid children is at least in line with nature, whereas artificial contraception goes against nature.

Agreed.  Well, at least it's not contrary to nature.  Nature tends to impel people to procreate.

And, of course, this goes for men too when they want to abstain to avoid having children.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 09:40:23 AM
This is a somewhat different problem.  Though it has at its root the same misunderstanding and misuse of sex.

Sounds basic, but maybe bring it up in conversation?

Not sure how effective that is unless it is really thrashed through over multiple conversations.  Bad women/men are deceptive and the kind of woman you want to marry has no practical experience of sex within marriage since she has not been married before and neither have you.  How can she say what her appetite is likely to be and how much is too much.  Women's appetites change by the time of the month, let alone from year to year.  After babies the hormones are all over the place and after a really difficult birth they can be thrown for six.

The hope is that as you age you can keep each other happy in the bedroom.  A happy relationship, with the woman respecting the husband, normally leads to this, not guaranteed.  If there is a big mismatch that is a problem.

Also once people are engaged to be married they are not likely to make this a make or break issue.  Has taken a lot of effort to get to that point.  Takes a lot of confidence and wisdom and bravery to walk away.

Yet... you are unlikely to bring it up as a topic on the second and third dates.

- - -

A more practical method might be to observe the kinds of media she reads, watches.  The marriages of her older sisters, her parent's marriage.

I am a big believer in the old adage, if you want to know what your wife is going to be like in 30 years look at her mother.  This is USUALLY true.

A technique you can use early on is to discuss and dissect OTHER people's relationships, real or fictional.  People are far more likely to expose their true feelings about things if they are not the subject of the discussion and this holds for dishonest and deceptive people as well as honest people.

Skilled salespeople use this technique all the time to get senior managers in one business unit in the company to expose the losses, screw-ups, money wasted in another part of the company.  Then armed with that knowledge they approach that unit and sell to a known point of pain.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 10:19:50 AM
Yes, though I would say abstinence to avoid children is at least in line with nature, whereas artificial contraception goes against nature.
I am not sure I agree with this completely.
I'd reckon that it was more in line with nature to have 5 children and contracept so they were spread 2-3 years apart, than to have 2 and stop having sex from the age of 30 in order to not have more (assuming the reasons are facile).  The second one seems to me to LESS of an openness to life than the first.  It is certainly pretty unnatural not to want sex with your spouse.
As an example, I know a number of rich families in New York and Moscow who plan when they are going have children, the women comes off the pill at some convenient point to their lifestyle and then goes back on.  I've joked that I just leave it to God/fate to decide and they think I am crazy, like not turning air-conditioning on in my car in a hot day.  They plan everything, when and where their kids are going to school, pensions, who flies coach or business class and what they are eating at the weekend.
But they still have 5 children, because they like children and they see a large family as a good healthy thing that makes their marriage meaningful.  They don't want 2 because they have more of everything and they have tons of energy.
There is the very good argument that it depends HOW you contracept.  Some contraception is abortifacient.  That is clearly not more in line with nature.
The ancients must have contracepted as soon as they understood the natural cycles of a woman (which the Greeks and Romans understood), but they all had reasonably large families.
I guess I am having a hard time picturing Trad men who really want to get married and scrape and save for it, having sex one or two dozen times in their marriage (which is all it would take to have two kids) and then living on the memories of that for the last 50 years of their life.
What a miserable existence.
Why not go on Spring Break, go to confession afterwards, and remain single, or adopt an orphan?  Frankly, you'd probably have better memories.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 10:34:48 AM
I agree with Ladislaus' clarification of my wording.

I didn't mean that abstaining from marital relations for years on end was "natural" for human beings, from a psychological or emotional point of view -- I only meant it in this way:

marital relations = nature says you might have kids
abstain, no marital relations = nature says you WON'T have any kids

THIS is natural.

engaging in marital relations, but artificially frustrating conception = NOT natural.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 10:42:43 AM
ggreg,

I'm surprised you haven't brought up a related issue:

how often is "too often"?

After all, Catholic doctrine talks about when the spouses must render the debt, and the expression "reasonable" is thrown in there. But obviously, what is reasonable for one might seem like nymphomania for another. To a large degree, it is completely subjective. I've certainly seen lots of discussion and debate on this point, in pagan, Catholic, and Trad Catholic circles, both online and IRL.

Where do you draw the line between "healthy, having lots of energy" and "nymphomania"? When, on the grounds of frequency, can the spouse (let's just be realistic here -- usually the WIFE) lawfully reject her husband's advances because he is "unreasonable" about his request? Let's assume they're at home, around bedtime, the kids are asleep, etc. so there are no propriety issues there.

The Church is quite vague on this topic, and it seems to tie right in to the topic of this thread.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this is a more widespread -- and therefore important -- issue than "sexless marriages" per se.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 10:46:24 AM
OK I am with the above logic.  Makes sense.

So what of a marriage where they marry and have no sex and therefore no children.

Is this a marriage assuming they consumated it on their wedding night?

Or does it depend on the mutual agreement of the spouses to abstinence?

Would the Church traditionally speaking simply say to the tricked wife or husband, bad luck suck it up?
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 10:57:42 AM
Quote
1.  ACTUAL - Couple marry have two children, born two years apart, and then stop because the woman does not 'feel' she can deal with more. Women is 31 had children at 25 and 27. The husband is not desirous for a large family either so they call it quits at 2 children and have separate beds.   As I understand it this is morally legitimate
My opinion is that this agreement wouldn't involve sin, since both parties agreed to abstinence.  However, if one/both can't follow the agreement without sinning, then this situation is immoral, since it's an occassion to sin.  If the abstinence continues between them, though only one sins against impurity in other ways, then both are guilty for the sins committed by the partner.

Quote
2.  Actual -  The same case as the above, but the couple share their marital bed and engage in foreplay, cuddles, kissing.  The woman does not want sex and the man is prepared to go along with that over a period of years.  He wants children but he is too weak to dominate his wife into having them.   Is this legitimate?
Marriage was created by God in the garden of eden and he ordered Adam/Eve to "increase and multiply", therefore there is an obligation to have children.  In the above scenario, the woman sins for not providing the marriage debt (in some capacity).  She also sins (internally) if her intent is to avoid children, since she made a vow to get married, which includes children and raising a family.

Quote
3.  Actual - The same case as 2 above but after 10 years after their wedding the couple has no children.  Husband states that they have never had sex or had sex so rarely (let's say once every 2 years when she thinks she is on a safe period) that there is no procreation.  In this particular case an SSPX priest has been involved and tried to council the wife but to no avail.  Husband appears to think it is his duty to just put up with this and support a wife who refuses to have his children.  I am not sure this is right and since there a no children from this union I would think he had a VERY good cause to apply for and get an annulment.
Probably not a valid marriage.  If it is, the wife is sinning gravely against her vows, both to her husband and to God, for not having children (or trying).

Quote
4. Hypothetical - Couple marry young, woman is fertile and has 10 children by the age of 35.  A some point the husband who has a blue collar job is worked ragged providing for them all and just says, "no more".  Since they are not going to abuse NFP the only thing they can do is stop having sex.  However the wife still wants to have sex and is open to having more children and making the triple bunk beds into quadruple bunk beds like a submarine.  At what points can the husband lay down the law and say we HAVE to stop.
The husband would sin by not fulfilling the marriage debt to his wife.  The husband cannot command that there be no more children; the wife must freely commit and agree to a period of abstinence.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 11:00:21 AM
ggreg,

I'm surprised you haven't brought up a related issue:

how often is "too often"?

After all, Catholic doctrine talks about when the spouses must render the debt, and the expression "reasonable" is thrown in there. But obviously, what is reasonable for one might seem like nymphomania for another. To a large degree, it is completely subjective. I've certainly seen lots of discussion and debate on this point, in pagan, Catholic, and Trad Catholic circles, both online and IRL.

Where do you draw the line between "healthy, having lots of energy" and "nymphomania"? When, on the grounds of frequency, can the spouse (let's just be realistic here -- usually the WIFE) lawfully reject her husband's advances because he is "unreasonable" about his request? Let's assume they're at home, around bedtime, the kids are asleep, etc. so there are no propriety issues there.

The Church is quite vague on this topic, and it seems to tie right in to the topic of this thread.

And I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this is a more widespread -- and therefore important -- issue than "sexless marriages" per se.
I've never heard anyone complain about a husband or wife who was a sex maniac in Trad circles.  Such men would tend to get sucked into porn; I would think.  Would be unlikely that a man who could stay away from porn addiction, couldn't be satiated with having sex twice or three times per week.
The sheer practicalities of raising a family and getting enough shut-eye, washing and shaving make having sex tricky to accomplish more than twice a week.
This stuff is much talked about as it sells magazine, but I only know one married couple in life and they are not Catholics.  He is a German atheist and she is a Russian Jew.  He is a sex everyday man.  They have been married 18 years.  She disliked it at first but got used to it (so my wife tells me).

I agree that it is completely subjective.  The issue is that unlike how one brushes my teeth the subjective view of the other person has a material impact on one's emotional state.  It is like money.  How much does a man need to earn before he can backpedal and go fishing for a week?  For some women enough to stock the larder and fill the gas tank.  For others enough to get the children through private school and change her car every 3 years.

The difference is that the Church has never said that money was elemental to marriage.  It has said that sex is.

So how much and how little are kinda sort important questions to leave unaddressed.




Thanks for the above answers Pax Vobis
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 11:13:35 AM
Probably not a valid marriage.  If it is, the wife is sinning gravely against her vows, both to her husband and to God, for not having children (or trying).
The husband would sin by not fulfilling the marriage debt to his wife.  The husband cannot command that there be no more children; the wife must freely commit and agree to a period of abstinence.
Let's drill down here.
Does it make a difference to validity whether there is.
1.  Almost no sex (let's assume on his birthday once per year she gifts him sex as a "present").
2.  No sex after the honeymoon.  If other words some at the very beginning and then none, like for example she tried sex didn't like it and was completely turned off the idea (I know of this exact example and they are both Trads living in Spain).
3.  Either of the above but in those 10 years she had 1 child and that is now "enough".
What ASPECT invalidates the marriage?  If it is just intention then it is present in all of the above examples.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 11:13:57 AM
I agree this is a very relevant issue for so many Trad Catholics. Much more relevant than, say, the current juridical status of Pope Francis.

It is also more complex (and should I say, "interesting?") than the easy-to-describe and easy-to-comprehend case of the small family of the convert to Tradition. I have mentioned before the classic meme of the Baby Boomer who is a huge volunteer and pillar of the chapel, makes big donations, but:

* His extended family/kids are never seen at the chapel.
* He and his wife only have 2 or 3 children - they left childbearing years before finding the Catholic Faith and/or Tradition, so they are "off the hook" so to speak
* They are therefore materially well off -- nothing they can do about it now
* They have plenty of time too, since they are well off and/or retired, and don't have many kids or grandkids to occupy them

I say: those people BETTER volunteer and get out their checkbooks; it's the least they can do to show God their good will. I'll go one further: they should be grateful (rather than condescending) to the large, usually poor, young Trad families around them, who can only manage to donate $20/week to the collection, and little of their free time, because they are busy raising a bunch of little Catholics for the future. Something that (even though they are technically guiltless) THEY THEMSELVES objectively failed to do, to a large degree.

Don't get me wrong: hooray for these converts. God bless them. Let's face it: what else can they do now? Exactly what they're doing: Volunteer, be generous with all that extra money. But as part of their penance, they should be willing to understand and be charitable to those young families struggling to raise large Catholic families in 2019, which is almost a heroic feat. Even if they had 5 or 6 children back in the day, 2019 is NOT 1980. The dollar has been that much more devalued, inflation has done its thing, and certain things like college and health care have skyrocketed over the past 30 years.

Someone has to make more Catholics, altar boys, future priests and religious, etc. And that is hard, long, expensive work. Much harder than simply cutting a $2,000 check every month for the collection, I dare say!
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 11:18:14 AM
Quote
4. Hypothetical - Couple marry young, woman is fertile and has 10 children by the age of 35.  A some point the husband who has a blue collar job is worked ragged providing for them all and just says, "no more".  Since they are not going to abuse NFP the only thing they can do is stop having sex.  However the wife still wants to have sex and is open to having more children and making the triple bunk beds into quadruple bunk beds like a submarine.  At what points can the husband lay down the law and say we HAVE to stop.


Quote
The husband would sin by not fulfilling the marriage debt to his wife.  The husband cannot command that there be no more children; the wife must freely commit and agree to a period of abstinence.




Clearly in the example the idea of the wife applying for getting an annulment would be insane.  He clearly had an intention to have children when he married because he had 10.  There is no stipulation that for the marriage to remain valid he has to retain that intention all the way to her menopause.

Sure, he is sinning, but they are validly married; at least on the basis of intention to procreate.  Would you agree?

Intention to have children, therefore has to be judged post-facto by the behavior in the first few years of the marriage.   Is this correct ?

You cannot prove what the intention was before the wedding day or on it.  You only have two witnesses and they are both biased.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 11:21:05 AM
I agree this is a very relevant issue for so many Trad Catholics. Much more relevant than, say, the current juridical status of Pope Francis.

It is also more complex (and should I say, "interesting?") than the easy-to-describe and easy-to-comprehend case of the small family of the convert to Tradition. I have mentioned before the classic meme of the Baby Boomer who is a huge volunteer and pillar of the chapel, makes big donations, but:

* His extended family/kids are never seen at the chapel.
* He and his wife only have 2 or 3 children - they left childbearing years before finding the Catholic Faith and/or Tradition, so they are "off the hook" so to speak
* They are therefore materially well off -- nothing they can do about it now
* They have plenty of time too, since they are well off and/or retired, and don't have many kids or grandkids to occupy them

I say: those people BETTER volunteer and get out their checkbooks. I'll go one further: they should be grateful (rather than condescending) to the large, young Trad families around them, who can only manage to donate $20/week to the collection, and little of their free time, because they are busy raising more Catholics for the future. Something that (even though they are technically guiltless) THEY THEMSELVES objectively failed to do!

Don't get me wrong: hooray for these converts. God bless them. Let's face it: what else can they do now? Exactly what they're doing: Volunteer, be generous with all that extra money. But as part of their penance, they should be willing to understand and be charitable to those young families struggling to raise large Catholic families in 2019, which is almost a heroic feat. Even if they had 5 or 6 children back in the day, 2019 is NOT 1980. The dollar has been that much more devalued, inflation has done its thing, and certain things like college and health care have skyrocketed over the past 30 years.

Someone has to make more Catholics, altar boys, future priests and religious, etc. And that is hard, long, expensive work. Much harder than simply cutting a $2,000 check every month for the collection, I dare say!
You've just described the local head of the Latin Mass Society where I live.
I read the workers in the vineyard parable and wonder.   :farmer:
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 11:26:07 AM
Quote
Does it make a difference to validity whether there is.
1.  Almost no sex (let's assume on his birthday once per year she gifts him sex as a "present").
If the wife doesn't intend to have children, then there would be no marriage.  Even if she intends to have children, in this case she is sinning againt her vow, repeatedly, monthly, yearly, every single time the husband reasonably requests relations.

How one judges the intent to have children?  I have no idea.  The Church probably rules this is a valid marriage but the wife is a habitual/continual vow-violator.


Quote
2.  No sex after the honeymoon.  If other words some at the very beginning and then none, like for example she tried sex didn't like it and was completely turned off the idea (I know of this exact example and they are both Trads living in Spain).
There is still the obligation to have children, which if not attempted violates the vow.  Does this nullify the marriage?  I have no idea, but I would think that it could be annulled if it is proven that the wife is done "trying", especially after only a short time in the attempt.  As above, even if it is valid, she is a repeated/continual vow-violator and is in grave sin.


Quote
3.  Either of the above but in those 10 years she had 1 child and that is now "enough".
What ASPECT invalidates the marriage?  If it is just intention then it is present in all of the above examples.
Valid marriage but the wife lives in a constant state of sin for her lack of providing the marriage debt and (probable) intention to avoid children (without husband's agreement).
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 11:28:12 AM

Quote
Sure, he is sinning, but they are validly married; at least on the basis of intention to procreate.  Would you agree?

Yes, valid marriage.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 11:53:49 AM
Quote
I have mentioned before the classic meme of the Baby Boomer who is a huge volunteer but has a small family.  I say: those people BETTER volunteer and get out their checkbooks; it's the least they can do to show God their good will....Someone has to make more Catholics, altar boys, future priests and religious, etc. And that is hard, long, expensive work. Much harder than simply cutting a $2,000 check every month for the collection, I dare say!
Absolutely agree.  Since you're married, your vocation is to help the Church.  If you didn't have as many children as you could've, then you have more time to help the Church directly (instead of indirectly, through children).  Everyone has to make amends for their past sins.  You either do that here or in purgatory. 
Quote
Once you marry and find you have made a mistake you are in for a world of hurt.  So how does one avoid mistakes?
This is related to the above.  You have to view marriage as a calling, as a vocation as a true path from God, ESPECIALLY when it comes to who you choose to marry.  My gut tells me that most who marry have a marriage vocation but some marry the wrong person (or not the best person) because they are too impatient and don't let God guide their life sufficiently.  Since we have free will, God allows us to choose our partner but if we let Him decide, it will be the best decision.  I SUPREMELY doubt that one would have these type of problems if they allowed God to choose their spouse.  More than likely, such situations arise because people used worldly wisdom to choose a spouse instead of Divine wisdom, prayer and penance.  God can see the future; we cannot.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 12:09:29 PM
How does God choose a spouse?

It appears to me that one can pray to God, listen, consult, think consider, but in the end one decides to pop the question and ultimately chooses.  Does one flip a coin and let God decide whether heads means you leave and tails means you pop the question?  Or if she turns up wearing make-up you will take that as a sign from God that she is not the woman for you?  These things would be pure superstition.  How then does God communicate His choice for you.

If all goes well in you marriage you might consider that God chose for you.  But you don't have a note or any evidence to that effect, unless you heard a voice.  It is purely a faith that God guided you.  If it goes terribly, the sort of person who thinks God guided them usually does not come to the conclusion that God got it wrong.  Since that is impossible.

The process of thinking about it in a rational way and being considerate of other factors than say beauty or youth or her outward piousness, might, I agree, be a sober and mature way to make a better decision about who to marry, (which is a good reason to involve God in the choice) but I can't see how God's actual input can ever be tested, other than if the marriage goes bad then clearly it "wasn't God's choice" or you didn't listen hard enough.  'God' in a sense is a loose approximation to 'fate'.

I've never really got this 'listen to God" thing myself.  I've been a Catholic for 50 years and never heard so much as peep back when I have prayed.  I'd like to.  I think it would be really exciting to hear voices from the other side.  I know lots of people who claim they have.  But I think they probably imagined it or told themselves they heard something.  After all plenty of people have seen UFOs too.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 12:11:34 PM
My gut tells me that most who marry have a marriage vocation but some marry the wrong person (or not the best person) because they are too impatient and don't let God guide their life sufficiently.  Since we have free will, God allows us to choose our partner but if we let Him decide, it will be the best decision.  I SUPREMELY doubt that one would have these type of problems if they allowed God to choose their spouse.  More than likely, such situations arise because people used worldly wisdom to choose a spouse instead of Divine wisdom, prayer and penance.  God can see the future; we cannot.

This is my feeling as well.

People use too many worldly criteria in choosing their spouse -- if not outright "thinking with the wrong head". Marrying a non-Catholic (or shallow Novus Ordo Catholic) is certainly an example of the latter. There is nothing of "reason" or "prudence" in yoking yourself to an unbeliever.
You can see if your future spouse is able to give of himself. Do they possess any degree of mortification? Are they selfish, or able to do things for a higher cause? You might choose to ignore this or that action or trait you observe...but you do so at your own peril.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 12:13:05 PM
If we're sharing stories, I know of a Trad married couple who separated (let's all pray they reconcile) due to one of spouses calling the other a heretic related to flat earth.  I also know of a Trad couple who was dating but it fell apart because the woman said she didn't like the word "submit" and couldn't agree with St Paul.  ...it's a crazy, crazy world out there and it's not getting any saner.  Just because they are "Trad" doesn't mean much anymore, from a philosophical standpoint.  For anyone that is in the dating world - don't. assume. ANYTHING.  Talk about ALL topics.  And pray your heart out to God for mercy and wisdom.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 12:15:37 PM
How does God choose a spouse?

It appears to me that one can pray to God, listen, consult, think consider, but in the end one decides to pop the question and ultimately chooses.

If all goes well you might consider that God chose for you.  But you don't have a note or any evidence to that effect.  It is purely a faith that God guided you.  If it goes terribly, the sort of person who thinks God guided them usually does not come to the conclusion that God got it wrong.

The process of thinking about it in a rational way and being considerate of other factors than say beauty or youth or her outward piousness, might, I agree, be a sober and mature way to make a better decision about who to marry, but I can't see how God's actual input can ever be tested, other than if the marriage goes bad then clearly it "wasn't God's choice" or you didn't listen hard enough.

I've never really got this 'listen to God" thing myself.  I've been a Catholic for 50 years and never heard so much as peep back when I have prayed.  I'd like to.  I think it would be really exciting to hear voices from the other side.
God's call or presence in our lives is not in the thunder of Mt. Sinai, but in the quiet of our heart -- if we ever let it be quiet.
Seeing God's will is more about being objective and using reason than "going with your heart". God =/= emotion
I have some personal stories that really show God's guidance in my life, and in hindsight you can really see His providence.

I kind of understand what you're saying, but your post above sounds like the words of an unbeliever.

This is not about doing your due diligence, putting God first, and then end up being wrong and blaming God. If you have *moral certitude* that your spouse is a good Catholic, you will probably be fine. 

With most failed marriages, there were clear signs that could have -- and should have -- been outed much earlier, had the couple seriously talked with each other instead of "dating" in a superficial manner. And like you yourself said: be a wise man. Follow the wise sayings. "Look at her family" and what not. If you do those things, you will likely be OK.

You have to do your best, and then trust in God for the rest (including the outcome and final results).

But doing your best needs to be a good faith effort, and only YOU know if you're putting in 100% effort on that...or letting a few things slip because "she's so darn hot".
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 12:20:53 PM
That's fair enough.  A good explanation.  The best I have ever heard.

So basically it is a sort of being brutally honest with yourself process and asking yourself "What would God think about this?"

Because you know that God knows your bad and good, dirty and clean motivations as well or better than you know them yourself.

Am I dating this woman because she is hot and flatters my ego or is she really a good Catholic?

That is what my father did and he has 104 offspring and clocking them up at 6 per year.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 12:28:54 PM
So, can we make a risk management checklist for men who are trying to find a wife.

1.  Talk about everything and anything by date 4 and try to discuss other relationships rather than direct questioning the other person.  Because they are more likely to give their true thoughts if it is not about them and they don't feel put on the spot.

2.  Pray and soul-search about the real reason you like Teresa or Patrick and ask would God think that a sensible, just, holy reason to like a person.

3.  Look at their older siblings and their mum and dad.  Apple rarely falls far from the tree.  It is a rare woman who grows up middle class and is going to happy living on 50% of the income her parents had.  It can happen, but it is rare.  It's rare that a slut has two chaste sisters and if they do they tend to overreact and be a super slut which is always obvious.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 12:30:33 PM
As with other things, "winners make their own luck" in marriage and you as a successful man should understand this. (FYI, I'm not implying you don't understand this.)

I wasn't scared to marry my wife because I had *moral* certitude I'd be OK. She was the volunteering sort, responsible, intelligent, chaste, modest, a good Catholic, still had her purity, etc. Even in the looks department, she had the traits I was after. But note that my taste in women wasn't formed by the porn industry or Hollywood. She wasn't the prom queen or a cheerleader, but she was the valedictorian. But I was also very comfortable around her. I just knew it was right. Our personalities were a good match. And we talked a lot about important topics (the faith, children, the modern world, etc.), and the comfort level just went up from there.

Her mom was also a lot like my mom, very German. Culture/background/upbringing is very important in having shared values -- hence fewer disagreements. My wife and I also had the same socio-economic background. I think that also helped in our success (so far).

I would definitely say I married well. But it wasn't an accident. A blessing, but not an accident.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 12:31:13 PM
Quote
The process of thinking about it in a rational way and being considerate of other factors than say beauty or youth or her outward piousness, might, I agree, be a sober and mature way to make a better decision about who to marry, but I can't see how God's actual input can ever be tested, other than if the marriage goes bad then clearly it "wasn't God's choice" or you didn't listen hard enough.
It depends what you mean by the marriage "going bad".  I would categorize our current topic (intent for children/marital relations) as being MAJOR, foundational problems.  I think this type of thing can be avoided if God is allowed in our lives.  Vocations are a spiritual decision; God will surely show us what He feels about such choices.  God wants marriages to be happy and loving because that is a reflection of the Holy Trinity.

However, just because 2 people don't have many personal issues doesn't mean married life won't be without challenges - low finances, sick children, handicap/medical issues, infertility, exterior persecutions, etc, etc.  Everyone has these types of challenges, whether married or not.  These are not foundational marriage problems, but just life.  But, i'd say that a blessing from God is that you have a spouse to help you through these challenges, as one of the secondary purposes of marriage is "mutual consolation". 

Quote
If all goes well you might consider that God chose for you.  But you don't have a note or any evidence to that effect.  It is purely a faith that God guided you.  If it goes terribly, the sort of person who thinks God guided them usually does not come to the conclusion that God got it wrong.
It appears to me that one can pray to God, listen, consult, think consider, but in the end one decides to pop the question and ultimately chooses.

I've never really got this 'listen to God" thing myself.  I've been a Catholic for 50 years and never heard so much as peep back when I have prayed.  I'd like to.  I think it would be really exciting to hear voices from the other side.
God "talks" to people in different ways - some through life circumstances, some through "coincidences", some through their parents/superiors, some through actual words.  I know of multiple stories where God answered a VERY specific prayer for people so that they would know that path A was better than path B.  Most of the time, God speaks through situations or people, but sometimes He does enlighten us directly through our angels by inspiration or by talking - as God spoke to Moses or St Paul.  It's infallible that God will give us His wisdom, since all prayers are infallibly answered.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 01:00:35 PM
Yes, valid marriage.
So, based on an intention that can only be displayed/shown after the marriage is underway then a Tribunal would decide, due to behaviours of either spouse, whether the intention on the day was real, correctly understood etc.  There is an underlying belief that a person with a good intention on the day of the wedding didn't do an about face and change their intention within the first few months of the marriage.
So, if a man finds himself in a sexless marriage, at what point and with what force of will, does he decide to separate divorce and try to obtain an annulment?
The clock is kinda ticking.  It is not unlike getting your money back for a pair of shoes that go wrong.  You better get back to the shop early and complain because with every week that passes and they split a little more, the shop is going to say fair wear and tear.
From your answers above it appears that a child (or I would assume a pregnancy, even if the child is lost) lessens his case for the marriage being invalid.  If children are conceived there was enough sex, even if that amounted to once per year.
So let's say for the first 6 months he is super patient and very kind and loving (people tend to be) and then from month 7 to 12 he starts ratcheting up the pressure.  In month 13 she has sex with him on his birthday and then it is back to her normal frigid self.  He is playing a dicey game as the months and years tick by because the chances of his advocate demonstrating lack of intent to procreate go down.  At some point, he has to make a decision to force it to a head and say, "have sex with me once a week or I am leaving, divorcing you and applying for an annulment", OR carry on hoping that things will magically turn around.
Not unlike working for a venture capital firm in fact.  I sit in meeting all the time where we ruthlessly thrash through which firms to love and which firms to bankrupt or fire the senior management.  It's all roses and hopium until the dreaded day that someone like me spells out why their sales forecast is dogshit and they are going to need to be put down. 


I realise that is a very cold way to look at things, but it is a REALISTIC way to look at things too, given the fact that a long marriage with one child has a much lower chance of getting an annulment than a short marriage with no children.
If the man wants a normal healthy marriage and a family in the future, then he really needs to force things to a head one way or another.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 01:09:12 PM
As with other things, "winners make their own luck" in marriage and you as a successful man should understand this.
Winners also have checklists.  They apply rules and experience.  They call this "gut feel" but in reality it is experience.  I can actually "smell" good clients.  I know the noise they make when they are going to buy, sell or pay me big bucks for consulting.  I also can spot the time wasters and tyre-kickers in the opening two minutes of a phone conversation.

Experience, however, is the one thing that young men tend to lack.  As a 21 year old I chased a lot of stupid business deals.

In a very real and true sense, young men would be better off saying to Greg or Matthew, "you know me you choose for me".  Because we'd pick more suitable women and lower the risks.

Firstly we have done it already.  Experience is the best teacher.

Secondly we don't want to sleep with their potential spouse, so we'd put her good looks into perspective.  We also know how women age.  Some like fine wine, most like potatoes.  We'd probably take a long hard look at the young ladies mother, as well.  Is she a miserable old bag or a nice middle age lady?

It would not be riskless but it would be much lower risk.

Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 01:17:17 PM
It depends what you mean by the marriage "going bad".  I think this type of thing can be avoided if God is allowed in our lives.
But I can think of many examples where very outwardly religious people split up.  In 1992/1993 when I lived there, they used to joke about the number or annulments in St. Mary's Kansas.  These were mostly Catholics who had allowed God into their lives so much that they moved across the country to be in an SSPX dominated town.
Other than outward signs of piety there is no way to tell whether the person has allowed God into their lives.
Mel Gibson made The Passion of the Christ and built his own church.  Had he allowed God into his life at that point?  Most people thought so at the time.

How's that assessment looking now?
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 01:47:53 PM
Quote
In a very real and true sense, young men would be better off saying to Greg or Matthew, "you know me you choose for me".  Because we'd pick more suitable women and lower the risks.
It's why there used to be "arranged" marriages.  Or why young adults USED TO have their date hang around the family a lot (i.e. courtship).  As they say, "love is blind".
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 01:57:07 PM
Lots of Trads don't have families to hang around.

Distance is a problem.  We are not in the same village.

I suspect the BIGGEST factor is the social pressure that existed in the past and no longer exists.  People in the village knew what you had done and reminded you every day.

Even when I was young in the 1980s being a single mother had a stigma attached to it.  In the last 20 years it has completely disappeared.

Same for prison.  When I was a nipper if you went to jail your life was over.  Nobody would employ you and your reputation was mud.  Today it gets you half a million extra Facebook followers.

It is a common thing in Russia for women to remain with abusive, lazy, workshy, drunken husbands because they are completely embarrassed and ashamed to be divorced.  This is especially true in the villages.  Provided the man doesn't cheat on them in a public way they tend to stick around.  In the bigger cities they divorce because of no social stigma.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 02:10:39 PM
Quote
So, if a man finds himself in a sexless marriage, at what point and with what force of will, does he decide to separate divorce and try to obtain an annulment?  ...The clock is kinda ticking. 
Yes, I agree.  I don't know how the Church views this type of situation.  I'd bet that, in orthodox times, the answer would likely be "Nothing we can do; this is a valid marriage."  Annulments were extremely rare pre-V2.

Quote
From your answers above it appears that a child (or I would assume a pregnancy, even if the child is lost) lessens his case for the marriage being invalid.  If children are conceived there was enough sex, even if that amounted to once per year.
I don't think marital relations are the litmus test (assuming it's happened once).  The test would be related to the intention and if there were impediments to entering the marital contract.  Such judgements did not happen often in times past (annulments were rare).  The Church relied upon the "process" of the marriage to assume it's validity, in most cases.  That is:

1.  The parish priest knew both families (as most marriages were from people from the same diocese or parish).
2.  If the priest didn't know one of the partners, he inquired with the other parish priest as to their reputation, history, etc.
3.  Assuming all that checked out, and both parties were valid catholics (with documents to prove reception of the sacraments and schooling, etc), then the couple would proceed with marriage classes, provided by the parish.
4.  The classes would cover the basics of the sacrament, the impediments, the responsibilities and duties.
5.  If after all of this, there was a marriage, then the Church would assume validity (assuming the marriage was consumated).

Hard to argue with the Church and cry "foul" or "annulment" when all the externals match up.  If one of the spouses goes "crazy" after marriage, then the only option that the "normal" spouse has is prayer and fasting - that God would sort things out.

Outside of this, I'd fear that the "normal" spouse is in a very difficult situation from which there is no solution, except death.  As the jews asked Christ, after He reiterated that divorce was wrong, "If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry." (Matt 19:10) 

Christ responded:  Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 (https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-12.htm)For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it(Matt 19:11-12) 
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 02:18:35 PM
I am beginning to have more sympathy for MGTOW monks when I hear some of these horror stories.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 02:53:49 PM
I think the biggest problem of our day is that females (including Trads) have been corrupted into either 1) a Disney-land fantasy view of marriage where they can't deal with any hardships or hard work, 2) wanting a career and a marriage both, which leads to chaos, 3) not truly grasping the challenges of motherhood and (maybe) not wanting those challenges (see #1 and #2 above).

I'm not saying that modern marriages are falling apart JUST because of women.  I'm saying that, in the grand scheme of things, the woman usually holds a marriage together (in the early stages) during rough patches, until the man finally "wakes up" and becomes a man.  Men have always been more immature, selfish and commitment-phobic in all times of history.  This is nothing new and the solutions are known because the problem has been around for so long.

But the realities of immature, selfish and lazy women - who aren't really "all in" on the marriage or motherhood - this is not normal, not easy to deal with and far, far more destructive than such qualities in men.  If women are corrupted, so goes society, because a woman who is corrupted affects an entire family, and eventually a nation.  A man that is corrupted usually only affects himself, or others to a lesser degree than women, because man, by nature, is more independent, so his errors are more isolated.  
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 03:09:29 PM
The biggest problem is that they can get away with the above at least from the age of 16-40.

Once their looks go they are cast into the outer darkness.  As older women often complain they are invisible (worthless).

The social stigma was a huge factor in controlling behavior of men and women.  Most people care SO MUCH about what people think of them.  Hence Facebook likes, subscribers and twitter "followers".

That has not changed a jot and never will.  The parameters of what is socially and morally acceptable have done a 180.

Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Croixalist on January 23, 2019, 03:10:33 PM
Would it be fair to assume that if married couples really start thinking of sex as a "debt", things might already be a tad shaky? 
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 23, 2019, 03:17:01 PM
Would it be fair to assume that if married couples really start thinking of sex as a "debt", things might already be a tad shaky?

Indeed.  I would assume that most people would be unsatisfied and hurt if their spouse were merely reluctantly rendering said "debt" out of a sense of duty.  Of course, theologians use the term to indicate that there is a moral obligation, but IMO the obligation goes beyond simply doing the physical act.  At that point, however, it becomes rather subjective, so moral theologians stay away from subjective stuff that cannot be expressed in the form of a syllogism.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 23, 2019, 03:17:32 PM
Would it be fair to assume that if married couples really start thinking of sex as a "debt", things might already be a tad shaky?
That's the technical term used by the Church. It's called the marriage debt. Either spouse can demand the debt at any time. It's part of the marriage contract.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Croixalist on January 23, 2019, 03:30:50 PM
That's the technical term used by the Church. It's called the marriage debt. Either spouse can demand the debt at any time. It's part of the marriage contract.

Yeah, I know. I'm just thinking along the lines of what Ladislaus was talking about. It is a technical term, but it is kinda rough if it ever really gets to that point of rendering an obligation. Yes, you would be fulfilling your part of the marital duty, but ideally it wouldn't get so bad that the minimum is barely tolerated.

My fear is always a siamese twin-induced slow but fully cognisant death.

There's always nightmare scenarios out there where you really get stuck with someone you have grown to dislike for variously good or bad reasons. Even if the significant other doesn't have valid reasons, it's one of the more difficult and depressing things to have to go through I'm sure. I'd almost prefer a nightly demonic beat down than the hatred or even the indifference of a wife (or towards one).  
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 23, 2019, 03:36:09 PM
I'd almost prefer a nightly demonic beat down than the hatred or even the indifference of a wife (or towards one).  

Same here.

If a couple view marriage as MERELY a contract (and indeed it is a contract), it's just a couple steps away from sacramentalized prostitution; your obligation (part of the deal) is to provide for the family, and in return I render the debt.  :)  Exchange of services.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 03:41:43 PM
Would it be fair to assume that if married couples really start thinking of sex as a "debt", things might already be a tad shaky?
I'd say so.
If you've ever forced a toddler to eat their breakfast and had 1/3 of it spat back in your face and dribbled down their bib, well, that would be a good approximation for how much pleasure you'd get out of it.
Once things go south you've got a serious problem.  Remember when you were really keen on a girl and she wasn't keen on you.  Well, now you are married to her for the rest of your life.
It's a terrible predicament to be in.  Hence the need to educate and lessen the risks.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 03:55:21 PM
Same here.

If a couple view marriage as MERELY a contract (and indeed it is a contract), it's just a couple steps away from sacramentalized prostitution; your obligation (part of the deal) is to provide for the family, and in return I render the debt.  :)  Exchange of services.
This was true of Royal Marriages in the past, where the bride was chosen to give an heir or two and then pensioned off to a country house while the King carried on with various young whores.
Did the Church ever condemn the Royal Houses of Europe for this practice?
Pretty sure that marriage itself has morphed over the ages.  The idea of romantic love being the driver for it is only a couple of 100 years old.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 04:16:27 PM
I once stayed with a Trad Catholic family in Montana, they had a 3000 acre ranch (lumber) near to Kalispell and a while I was there I read their family history which they had laboriously compiled from memories and old documents.  The great great grandfather had planted a flag in the ground and done a series of other things to get his first plot of land.

His first wife had dropped dead from disease and a month later he "sent east" to a brother in law to find him and send him a new wife.  As I recall they sent some 14 year old girl from a workhouse or orphanage type situation.  She hung around for a few years, then disappeared into the night and then he lived with a squaw.  It was very sordid stuff and I was surprised they showed me it.

I'm not so sure that the "good old days" were all that good.  I think people simply put up with their lot in life as women do in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia today.  They are often married to piggish lazy men and there ain't a whole lot they can do about it.  So they live "married" and die "married" for better or worse.



I had a work colleague in London, clever woman same age as me, who got to 29 and married an Egyptian man who was a waiter on a Nile Cruise.  Moved to Egypt and married him.  Had two children, really liked his mother and father who are very kind to her and the kids but he is a typical Islamic pig.  Lazy, sits around with friend all day smoking and playing cards.  She works as an English Teacher and owns a couple of homes in London which she rents out so they are wealthy by Cairo standards.

10 or so years ago she called me up for chat and admitted her marriage was miserable and asked me my advice.  Everyone else said had said "leave him", I said "stay put".  She asked why and I told her, "look you are no oil painting any longer", so, realistically, it is being a single mother back in Britain, (assuming you can escape with the kids which she probably could because she is clever) or stay in Egypt and have a reasonable life with your sister in law (who is like a best friend to her), mother and father in law, who are lovely people and very involved grandparents, I met them.  And your children don't get messed up as a result.  All things considered there is more upside than downside in staying and more downside than upside in returning back to Britain.

She's still in Egypt and occasionally when we speak over Skype she thanks me for my "cold blooded logic".
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 04:31:21 PM
True, Royal Marriages were fixed but not all of them were disasters.  Many times the king/queen were brought together at a young age, and grew up together as they were both prepped to rule the country.  Many times they grew to love each other.  The Europeans just didn’t throw people together and tell them “ok, go make an heir.”  That’s just anti-Catholic lies about the “dark ages” of history.  

If both were good Catholics, as happened a lot, then I’m sure their marriage was enjoyable.  (God knows from all eternity who will be married, so even in the event that it is “fixed” beyond your control, good can come from bad or there might not be any bad at all.). Even Henry VIII and Catherine’s marriage was good for a while, until he couldn’t  have a son and went off the deep end.    
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: songbird on January 23, 2019, 04:50:15 PM
I don't want to get off the subject, I won't.  My sister married and for 10 years could not figure out why her husband did not like having time with her.  They had a son, then the 2nd son, my sister had a c-section.  She had herpes.  She thought nothing of it.  Her doctor told her herpes was common!  When I found out about this and said to her sister, herpes is a SID.  She screamed at me saying that I should think of such things against her or her husband.  She finally found out that her husband was homosexual.

Then she found out that the priest who married them had no sympathy and she found 4 other couples in the New Order church, in the same boat, only the women had nothing to say about the arrangement.

My sister got an annulment for her husband keeping a lie, "before" the marriage.  His parents testified that they knew he was a homosexual.

Very sad.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: songbird on January 23, 2019, 04:50:44 PM
SID is supposed to be STD. Excuse me.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 05:00:31 PM
I don't want to get off the subject, I won't.  My sister married and for 10 years could not figure out why her husband did not like having time with her.  They had a son, then the 2nd son, my sister had a c-section.  She had herpes.  She thought nothing of it.  Her doctor told her herpes was common!  When I found out about this and said to her sister, herpes is a SID.  She screamed at me saying that I should think of such things against her or her husband.  She finally found out that her husband was homosexual.

Then she found out that the priest who married them had no sympathy and she found 4 other couples in the New Order church, in the same boat, only the women had nothing to say about the arrangement.

My sister got an annulment for her husband keeping a lie, "before" the marriage.  His parents testified that they knew he was a homosexual.

Very sad.
You must have met the man before her wedding, I guess, since she is your sister.  Did you have any indication he was a homo? 
Was there anyway your sister could have known or was she completely hoodwinked in your opinion.
To Pax Vobis I would ask this.  This marriage was consummated and produced two children.  Would it have been annulled in the past?  Since annulments were very rare I can only assume no.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Croixalist on January 23, 2019, 05:07:40 PM
I don't want to get off the subject, I won't.  My sister married and for 10 years could not figure out why her husband did not like having time with her.  They had a son, then the 2nd son, my sister had a c-section.  She had herpes.  She thought nothing of it.  Her doctor told her herpes was common!  When I found out about this and said to her sister, herpes is a STD.  She screamed at me saying that I should think of such things against her or her husband.  She finally found out that her husband was homosexual.

Then she found out that the priest who married them had no sympathy and she found 4 other couples in the New Order church, in the same boat, only the women had nothing to say about the arrangement.

My sister got an annulment for her husband keeping a lie, "before" the marriage.  His parents testified that they knew he was a homosexual.

Very sad.

That's the worst, especially for the kids! But again, treating homosexuality as some sacred cow of permanent desire is wrong too. How many turn homosexual because they just have to be validated sexually. It's like "well, I don't really enjoy grilling chicken, but I like fire so I think I must be called to burn houses down." Every homosexual act is homicidal.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Seraphina on January 23, 2019, 05:10:34 PM
Did it ever occur to anyone that a couple's intimate life is not another's business?   
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 05:12:19 PM
I don’t see how homosexuality is grounds for annulment.  There were no social, physical or moral impediments to marry and they had children.  Another reason to avoid the new church - homos in hiding and lying priests.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 05:18:23 PM
Did it ever occur to anyone that a couple's intimate life is not another's business?  
The trouble is that it IS our business.
Our children have to work with, live next to, potentially marry and pay taxes to funded the welfare of such people.  Divorce has an ENORMOUS cost on society.  Into the trillions of dollars per year.
You could equally argue that the sexual inclinations of a seminarian candidate are not anyone's business.  But history has shown otherwise.
We are not asking anyone to reveal identifying details or name anyone.  We are discussing what healthy, productive, normal and unhealthy look like in a marriage in order to, one, measure the problem and, two, try to give some understanding of how to reduce the risks for people considering marriage.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Croixalist on January 23, 2019, 05:22:21 PM
Did it ever occur to anyone that a couple's intimate life is not another's business?  

Are you referring to the aforementioned divorce-annulment or speaking about these things in general?

In general, I really don't see a problem with discussing a given problem, provided it is described without anyone's name attached to it or without any lurid details.

If it's about the annulment, I think it's useful to dissect these public scandals and to try to understand what went wrong, how to rectify it if possible, and what could prevent something like it from happening again.

Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 05:33:37 PM
I don’t see how homosexuality is grounds for annulment.  There were no social, physical or moral impediments to marry and they had children.  Another reason to avoid the new church - homos in hiding and lying priests.
There are homos in Tradland.  Every part of it.
If homosexuals are unsuitable to be priests, then how are they suitable to be husbands and fathers of children?
I would imagine, if it is grounds, it would be based on hiding a material fact from the spouse which is critical to the primary purpose of marriage.  Much like a man who lied about being a baptised Catholic got married on that basis and then later admitted he was a fraud.
Let's imagine a man was a convicted paedophile got out of jail and hid that from his future wife.  Surely that would be ground for an annulment.  He hoodwinked her.  As I understand it you cannot hoodwink a person into marriage.

Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 05:46:05 PM
Can.  1098 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/3/8Z.HTM) A person (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/Y.HTM) contracts (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/F2.HTM) invalidly (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/PU.HTM) who enters (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/4Z.HTM) into a marriage (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1X.HTM) deceived by malice (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OB.HTM)perpetrated to obtain (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/FG.HTM) consent (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/3T.HTM)concerning (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/5Z.HTM) some quality (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/PJ.HTM) of the other partner (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/K4.HTM) which by its very nature (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/7P.HTM) can gravely (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OJ.HTM) disturb the partnership (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/Q7.HTM) of conjugal (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/NM.HTM) life (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/21.HTM).


I would have to think that homosexuality qualifies.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 05:57:22 PM
How many turn homosexual because they just have to be validated sexually. It's like "well, I don't really enjoy grilling chicken, but I like fire so I think I must be called to burn houses down." Every homosexual act is homicidal.
Not many.
I think most normal men find the idea of any sort of sexual activity with another man disgusting.
I'd no sooner have an inclination to be "validated" by a man than by a dog.
What might happen is that people get their brains wired up wrong in youth.  The onslaught of media today is relentless.  Then there are perverts and some people seem to just have a preference for being evil.  They want to be evil.
Frankly, it is a completely mystery to me.  It's like cooking a nice steak and marinating it in poop.  What on earth is the point?
I see homosexuality like I see modern art as a deliberate rebellion against what is beautiful and good just for the sake of pride and stabbing at good.
The new mass is the same thing.  It's deliberately shitty and stupid and banal.  If the new mass was all there was I would lapse.  It's just utter turgid cobblers.


You see this at kids parties sometimes.  20 kids are having a great time and one kid just comes in and wrecks the game for the delight of being evil and different and rebellious.

Diabolical disorientation.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 05:58:21 PM
Quote
If homosexuals are unsuitable to be priests, then how are they suitable to be husbands and fathers of children?

It depends if they were an outright, practicing homo or just someone with inclinations and effeminacy.  These types of people, either way, are unsuitable for both priesthood and marriage, but...someone who has just "inclinations" is not necessarily prohibited from these sacraments.  What I mean is that such inclinations/temptations aren't impediments, sacramentally speaking.  Though we all know, in practice, these traits are a disaster.  That's why you prepare in seminary for 6 years and why you date - to be on the lookout for timebombs.

Quote
I would imagine, if it is grounds, it would be based on hiding a material fact from the spouse which is critical to the primary purpose of marriage. 
If he were a practicing homo before and after marriage, then probably grounds since he didn't have any intention to be faithful.  But if he did want to stay faithful, but she just found out about his inclinations later, even if he had cheated on her, then I don't see how it could be annulled.  A seminarian in the same situation would be a valid priest, it's just that in former days, were his inclinations to be found out, he'd be "retired" to either an ecclesiastical prison or a monastery on some island.


Quote
 Much like a man who lied about being a baptised Catholic got married on that basis and then later admitted he was a fraud.
That's different, because it's a noted impediment to marriage.


Quote
Let's imagine a man was a convicted paedophile got out of jail and hid that from his future wife.  Surely that would be ground for an annulment.  He hoodwinked her.  As I understand it you cannot hoodwink a person into marriage.
As bad as that is, immorality isn't an impediment to marriage.  Prayer and due diligence would have these items surface before marriage, as God has promised.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 06:04:15 PM

Quote
Can.  1098 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/3/8Z.HTM) A person (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/Y.HTM) contracts (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/F2.HTM) invalidly (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/PU.HTM) who enters (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/4Z.HTM) into a marriage (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1X.HTM) deceived by malice (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OB.HTM)perpetrated to obtain (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/FG.HTM) consent (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/3T.HTM)concerning (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/5Z.HTM) some quality (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/PJ.HTM) of the other partner (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/K4.HTM) which by its very nature (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/7P.HTM) can gravely (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OJ.HTM) disturb the partnership (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/Q7.HTM) of conjugal (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/NM.HTM) life (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/21.HTM).


I would have to think that homosexuality qualifies.
Yes, agree, if the person had no intentions of halting his disordered life.  "Malice" is the key word.  If the homo wants to get married so he can turn his life around, that's not malicious.  It might be a poor plan of action, or hopeful thinking with no realistic chance of happening, but I wouldn't say it's deceitful.  But most people who are impure often lie, so maybe deceit is part of it?  It's uber-complicated.  Malice would have to be proven somehow.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 06:05:06 PM
Due diligence?

Who here ran their spouse through the criminal records bureau for a check before marrying them?

My wife told me she was doing a PhD and working for LukOil.   I believed her.

If she was a skilled con-artist she could easily have hoodwinked me.

People get conned all the time, because we operate on trust.  We only check people out when we have good reasons to be suspicious.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 06:06:44 PM
In the above case his parents knew he was a homo.

So he must have known too.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 06:09:33 PM
Due diligence would mean, for marriage, to have all kinds of discussions while dating about all types of topics, meeting their family, friends, etc (as we've discussed previously).  Then there's spiritual due diligence where you pray and ask God to show you why this person is/isn't for you.  Most people let their emotions control the show, as Elvis sang "...Only fools rush in..."
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 23, 2019, 06:18:35 PM
If a skilled deceiver wants to deceive you then the chances are they can.  Pre-internet it was even easier.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 23, 2019, 06:28:53 PM

Quote
In the above case his parents knew he was a homo...So he must have known too.
Sorry, I missed this part.  Certainly this would make a compelling case for annulment.  


Quote
If a skilled deceiver wants to deceive you then the chances are they can.  Pre-internet it was even easier.
I agree with you, on the natural level, which is why you pray.  I firmly believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that if one approaches dating with an open heart to God's will, with prayer and patience, and a desire to find a spouse that will help you to get to heaven, God will answer you.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: MaterDominici on January 24, 2019, 01:14:26 AM
From your answers above it appears that a child (or I would assume a pregnancy, even if the child is lost) lessens his case for the marriage being invalid.  If children are conceived there was enough sex, even if that amounted to once per year.
.
I usually try to read to the end of a thread before replying, but it seems you all had too much free time today. : )
.
Regarding the quote above, that first child isn't so much a sign of "enough sex must be happening", but rather is a reason in and of himself to not annul the marriage. Even one child deserves and father and a mother, and once that child is born, the intention of one of the spouses to procreate becomes a lesser concern. The departing spouse's argument would essentially be, "I wish to abandon this child so that I might possibly have more with someone else."
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 03:15:51 AM
As I understand it, you were either validly married on the day or not.  If not, you are no more married than an unmarried person.  The tribunal looks at the circumstances and behavior in your marriage to determine the likely state of mind up to and on the day of your wedding.  They cannot ever know for certain they just work on the balance of probabilites like any legal judgement.

A man could have a child or many children with a live in girlfriend of 10 years and be free to marry if he leaves her.  A woman could have illegitemate children from many different men and be free to marry.

A priest who had abandonned his vocation could have a wedding have 7 children and would not be married.  That is the nature of the sacramental bond. It either exists or it does not.

The marriage is determined to have never been real in the first place.  Therefore pragmatic considerations such as the welfare of children should not be part of that decisioning process or if they are, ONLY, in the sense that they give evidence to the state of mind up to and on the wedding day.

This is why it is ridiculous for Mel Gibson or Bud MacFarlane Jr to apply for or consider an annulment.  Because their married life suggests they were completely married.

Someone in a sexless marriage, however, suggests they (one or both) have no clue what marriage is about, its PRIMARY purpose.  One child being born because his wife agreed to sex for one night, and then went back to refusing sex would demonstrate a completely perverted understanding of the duties of marriage.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 03:36:02 AM
Imagine this case.

A man an a women marry sacramentally, have a wedding process,  in the Novus Ordo church.  He is a porn addict and has hidden this from her.  He cannot maintain an erection with normal intercourse.  Porn use, has this effect on some men as it messes up your neurotransmitters like cocaine does.  On one occasion using porn in the bedroom as a stimulus he has sex with his wife.

She gets pregnant and has a child.

12 months after the baby is born she is appealling to a Tribunal for an annulment.  You are on the tribunal panel of judges.

What you need to consider is whether a porn addicted male understood and consented to the primary duties of marriage.  If he did they are married, for better or worse.  If he didn't, they are no more married than if she didn't get pregnant.  It is not within your remit to consider the child.  You are a judge, not a social worker.

If the welfare of children made a marriage a marriage then the Church would have insisted on shot gun weddings long long ago.



Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 03:57:25 AM
I wonder what would happen if the Church banned annulments.  Simply said, approach marriage with extreme caution and if it all goes horribly wrong there is no safety net.

Plenty of people would of course just civilly marry outside the Church.  I know lots of Trads who came back to the Church age 60+ after their glory days were behind them or their partner dies.  Matthew discusses such a couple above.

People would probably get married a lot later.

Would there be a lot more engagements broken off?

There is no safety net for Hell after all.  You find yourself there and you are burning for all eternity.

The past had very different social mores and stigmas.  Life was harder in general and people probably thought about their illnesses, death of friends or whether they would make it through the winter.  Wives regularly died and men who could afford to support another didn't find it difficult to find someone who needed a roof over their head.  Much the same in some poor countries today.  Just saw a documentary about poor Chinese farmers importing Indonesian peasant women to marry.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2019, 08:01:58 AM
Can.  1098 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/3/8Z.HTM) A person (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/Y.HTM) contracts (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/F2.HTM) invalidly (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/PU.HTM) who enters (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/4Z.HTM) into a marriage (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1X.HTM) deceived by malice (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OB.HTM), perpetrated to obtain (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/FG.HTM) consent (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/3T.HTM), concerning (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/5Z.HTM) some quality (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/PJ.HTM) of the other partner (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/2/K4.HTM) which by its very nature (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/7P.HTM) can gravely (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/OJ.HTM) disturb the partnership (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/1/Q7.HTM) of conjugal (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/NM.HTM) life (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/21.HTM).


I would have to think that homosexuality qualifies.

Absolutely; there's no question about that.  Also, if he knew he had an STD (and concealed that fact), that too would qualify for deceit that would "gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life".

And you are also correct about your other statement.  What matters is the intention at the time that the marriage was contracted.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2019, 08:11:08 AM
I wonder what would happen if the Church banned annulments.  Simply said, approach marriage with extreme caution and if it all goes horribly wrong there is no safety net.

Well, they effectively WERE banned before Vatican II.  What, were there maybe a small handful of annulments granted every year worldwide ... apart from the cut-and-dry cases where it was found that the person had been in a prior marriage or something?  This nonsense about psychological impediments and "immaturity", etc. was not even entertained.  That's what the priest did in marriage preparation, made sure that the couple knew exactly what they were getting into so that by the time they said their vows they knew full well what it entailed.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 08:43:15 AM

Quote
If the homo wants to get married so he can turn his life around, that's not malicious.

If he told her he suspected he was a homo, or inclined that way, and wanted to turn his life around and she still married him - then I'd annul it based on her being insane.

If he doesn't tell her then that is malicious.  He cannot just co-opt another person into a contract on the basis that it might help cure him, even if he sincerely hopes it will.  Because if it does not, then that woman is trapped married to a homosexual.  You cannot play fast and loose with people's lives like that.  It is completely evil.  It's akin to kidnapping them.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 08:55:20 AM
Well, they effectively WERE banned before Vatican II.  What, were there maybe a small handful of annulments granted every year worldwide ... apart from the cut-and-dry cases where it was found that the person had been in a prior marriage or something?  This nonsense about psychological impediments and "immaturity", etc. was not even entertained.  That's what the priest did in marriage preparation, made sure that the couple knew exactly what they were getting into so that by the time they said their vows they knew full well what it entailed.
What did people do in that case?
It must have varied by country.  I assume Uganda and West Africa were very different than Portugal or Ireland in that the Africans have always had mistresses etc
I assume economic reality (women could not work and earn enough to fed and house themselves), meant that since divorce was practically impossible there was little demand for annulments.
Talking to very, very old people years ago I think such people went to live on the outside of the village, moved to a larger town or city where they could be anonymous and just kept their mouth shut about their domestic arrangements.  There was a sort of don't ask don't tell policy.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: forlorn on January 24, 2019, 10:28:11 AM
What did people do in that case?
It must have varied by country.  I assume Uganda and West Africa were very different than Portugal or Ireland in that the Africans have always had mistresses etc
I assume economic reality (women could not work and earn enough to fed and house themselves), meant that since divorce was practically impossible there was little demand for annulments.
Talking to very, very old people years ago I think such people went to live on the outside of the village, moved to a larger town or city where they could be anonymous and just kept their mouth shut about their domestic arrangements.  There was a sort of don't ask don't tell policy.
Well in Ireland divorce was only legalised in the 1990s and before that it worked sort of like you said, where they'd remain legally married(and therefore be unable to remarry) but one of them would go off and live across the country. Although those situations were still very rare, people got separated back then far more rarely than people get divorced today. Because back then they were faithful Catholics who didn't have dozens of "partners" before getting married. 
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 01:21:57 PM
Because yes, if you're foolish and marry poorly, you ARE going to have to suck it up and pay the price.
Let's examine what foolish means.
To some degree marriage is a lottery.  There is an element of luck in it and an element of skill, like playing blackjack.  Unless you are an amazingly skillful blackjack player and can remember which cards have come up then luck is going to play a part in winning and losing.  You simply cannot control and "due-diligence" every factor.  Your wife could slip bang her head and end up mentally ill or develop tourettes or whatever.  She could hide stuff from you.  Trusting anyone is risky.
Luck plays a part in business success too.  We simply don't see the Jeff Bezos' and Bill Gates' rivals who failed so we imagine the Bezos had some sort of secret sauce or recipe for success.  He did, but he also had luck, how much we could debate forever.  

Trad communities are fractured and the number of choices are small.  ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE RESISTANCE.  We see people trying Catholic match, marrying women from the Philippines (which has its own risks because they are a pretty different culture) and we see men like Tele and others complaining (and I am sure that some of his complaints are real, because I have heard most of them from others) that the more attractive Catholic women in their early 20s don't want to date Trad men.  I actually know of women myself like this.  I grew up with them in London.  In their late teens and 20s they were dating non-Catholic men, some even lived with them in sin in some sort of perverted hope of converting and marrying them and now they are 46 and washed up.  I even had one around to dinner recently and she asked me if I knew any nice single men?

(None that I dislike that much I thought to myself)   ;D

Seriously, I know of nobody who is 50 and single and would want to marry a 46 year old woman.


I was always super confident and had a skin like a rhinoceros, did a lot of sport, took women on outrageous dates, asked anyone out without fear.  I had a reputation for it at the SSPX.

But even I only properly dated 14 women in my life.  Meaning I went on several dates and there was a clear mutual attraction and the next step was (or would have been) to get serious and start talking marriage (before they bailed or I bailed), i.e. take them home to meet your mother (she was dead but you get my point).  Several of them did meet my father.

I am not including single dates where I determined "thanks but no thanks".  10 of the 14 dumped me - too intense, just couldn't cope with my driven personality, everyday was like hard work when what they wanted was a pizza and chill on the couch.  They always dumped me for the same reason, which was useful because I knew then they were telling the truth.

My brothers dated maybe 2 women before they got married to the second or third woman they had dated (they are married today with 12 and 10 kids each).  Not because they did not want to date more women but because they took ages to build up the confidence to ask them out.  Between girlfriends I am going to reckon there was a 18 month gap for them.  For me...7 to 30 days.  It wasn't that I had women waiting in the wings, as such, but I just kept prospecting and turning up opportunities and giving it a go.  That is one advantage of being relentless, you are relentless.

Now, sure, I accept that if you take either of us with our 50 year old brains and put us in 25 year old bodies we could probably make super low risk choices and marry well again and again and again.  Because we know what good looks like.

How does a typical Trad man know that in his early 20s?

What "foolish" things does a Trad Catholic do that they could realistically avoid doing without knowing what foolish is?

Should they listen to MGTOW and MRA pundits?  No doubt those MGTOW guys have some idea of the problems and how to avoid bad women but do they know how to hunt down a good one?


These are my top tips.

Discount looks.  If you think you deserve an 8 out of 10 then drop down 2 just for the sake of experiment and be prepared to date a 6.   Don't avoid 8s or even a cheeky 9, but widen your scope.   I can tell you that the best looking women at the SSPX in London (1984-1994) are not the best looking middle age women now (sorry ladies!).  Some of the 6s have matured into attractive slim middle aged women.  Some of the 9s are landwhales today.  You just never can tell what 30 years will do to a woman.

You'll only have sex 12-36 times per year (if you're lucky).  You have to live with this woman the other 99.9% of the time.  A pretty women with zero personality or a nasty bitchy character is FAR harder to live with than a nice happier character who is somewhat plain looking.  People cannot help their looks after all.  As real love develops you find that person sexually attractive because it is true what they say about the brain being the biggest sexual organ.  It really is all in the mind.

God loves us after all and we are hideous compared to him.

Develop your own personality beyond just your religious life.  Learn to sing, ballroom dance, or some other performance skill.  If you are witty, develop and sharpen your wit.  Pick up some power tools, fix, paint.  If women don't like you as you are, or what you are developing into, run a mile.  There are plenty more fish in the sea, you just have to get a bigger net or superior bait.

Develop a thick skin.  In 30 years nobody is going to care that a woman said "no" to a date with you.  Smile, say, "well I had to ask, otherwise I would have forever regretted it", and move on to the next opportunity.  Turn over rocks and learn what you don't like so that you will be ready to pot commit to Mrs. Right when she comes along.  That is important.  Not letting the good woman slip though your fingers.  If she is good she will be snapped up by the competition pretty darned fast.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Ladislaus on January 24, 2019, 02:11:15 PM
If I think about the way I drive now I am MUCH more cautious and considerate of other road users.  I used to drive like a nutter when I was younger.  I never had a serious accident but I took some risks.  I was a much better driver too.  Now my reactions are slow and my night vision is worse and I need to drive like an old grandad.  I saw a lot of road accidents over the years and it dawned on me how suddenly you can be dead.  I get absolutely ZERO thrill from speeding today.

I could have written this paragraph.  I also used to ride motorcycles (like an idiot) without a helmet.  When I got married and realized that I couldn't let myself be killed (due to my obligation to support them) ... I stopped.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matto on January 24, 2019, 03:25:43 PM
Greg said a married couple would only have sex 12-36 times a year (if they were lucky).

Is it really true that a married couple would be lucky to have sex so few times? I was never married so I wouldn't know and I have never asked.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 05:25:59 PM
It depends who, when where, how old etc.

But let's put it this way as the testosterone depletes and the days get busier there is a lot of other stuff to get done.  By the time you have cooked the dinner got 6 kids to bed, done some physics and chemistry homework read your little kids "The Gruffalo" for the umpteenth time you are normally not thinking "let's go to bed and have sex" because you are tired and want to sleep.

Think of it like cooking.  When you are first married or engaged and have all the time in the world to cook Lobster Thermidor or travel into the city to see Hamlet or A Midsummer Night's Dream.

When you have 4 children under 8 or 2 under 5, forget about it.  You have neither the time nor the inclination.

36 times per year is once a week basically, figuring on pregnancies, post pregnancy, illness, business trips away, late night conference calls, sick kids waking up, one sick spouse, you haven't shaved, you haven't washed for 5 days, she's on the rag, you have a sore back from gardening. lifting, lying under the car.

Less than 12 and you've probably got problems, (in my experience of what constitutes normal) but who can tell because people often lie about this stuff.  There's no hard and fast rule, people vary and they establish different normals that they are content with.  Water sort of finds its own level.  Suffice it to say that as the years pass I've come to the conclusion that quality is better than quantity because if you ain't going to make an effort and light some candles and change the bedding, then frankly you kind of wonder why you bothered.  You wake up the next morning and feel the same as if you didn't have sex, so what was the point?  There's got to be more intimacy that an Orthodox Jew who cuts a hole in the sheet or there's no pleasure in it for either party.

What I do now, is when I am going to a conference or a business trip in Northern Europe or London I bring my wife along or she flies in sees the town while I am working and stays in the hotel with me.  Then we have no kids and no distractions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RktwEMS0u28



I'm taking my wife to a karaoke night for charity on Saturday so that's a definite (since I will also wash and shave before we leave).  She loves it when I sing.  Russian women are massive romantic fools.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 24, 2019, 06:48:49 PM
The "if they were lucky" line was a joke from the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue7wM0QC5LE
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: MaterDominici on January 25, 2019, 12:30:16 AM
It depends who, when where, how old etc.

But let's put it this way as the testosterone depletes and the days get busier there is a lot of other stuff to get done.  By the time you have cooked the dinner got 6 kids to bed, done some physics and chemistry homework read your little kids "The Gruffalo" for the umpteenth time you are normally not thinking "let's go to bed and have sex" because you are tired and want to sleep.

Think of it like cooking.  When you are first married or engaged and have all the time in the world to cook Lobster Thermidor or travel into the city to see Hamlet or A Midsummer Night's Dream.

When you have 4 children under 8 or 2 under 5, forget about it.  You have neither the time nor the inclination.

36 times per year is once a week basically, figuring on pregnancies, post pregnancy, illness, business trips away, late night conference calls, sick kids waking up, one sick spouse, you haven't shaved, you haven't washed for 5 days, she's on the rag, you have a sore back from gardening. lifting, lying under the car.
If everything you said here is what the husband is choosing to do, then fine, his wife probably isn't going to mind in many cases. But, if the husband isn't satisfied with this sort of "too busy, too tired" paradigm, you can easily double or triple your estimates with a little word called priorities.
.
Plenty of couples with "4 under 8" or "2 under 5" manage to have numbers 5 & 3 in a timely manner that suggests they weren't interested in forgetting about it. (Unless you were referring to lobster & Hamlet which are things they probably can't afford at that point anyhow.)
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: MaterDominici on January 25, 2019, 12:36:54 AM
...and we see men like Tele and others complaining (and I am sure that some of his complaints are real, because I have heard most of them from others) that the more attractive Catholic women in their early 20s don't want to date Trad men.  I actually know of women myself like this.  I grew up with them in London.  In their late teens and 20s they were dating non-Catholic men, some even lived with them in sin in some sort of perverted hope of converting and marrying them and now they are 46 and washed up.  I even had one around to dinner recently and she asked me if I knew any nice single men?
I don't think this was exactly his problem. He wasn't being pushed away because he was Trad, he was being pushed away because he was 10+ years older than the girl in question. Some people have no problem with this, others have a HUGE problem with it. His interest happened to fall toward a family who had a problem with it. (And then there's the unemployed at age 30 element ... I doubt that was working in his favor.)
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 25, 2019, 02:51:14 AM
If I remember it was a fairly constant refrain of his that far too many SSPX ladies were pious on Sundays and sluts the rest of the week, and if you couldnt get one by 21 she was very likely rotten fruit and in effect a stepford wife playing an act of piety.  He spoke of it in the present tense not the past and gave other anecdotes.

That was the motivation for the PR girl if I recall.  I think he openly admitted it.  "Get them young before they are spoilt by the world", (i am paraphrasing).

He had it blown out of all proportion but there was a kernel of truth there.  I know of some very screwed up situations, blown opportunities, open goals missed.  Women think they have all the time in the world, they dont.

When I was at Uni I used to go to car auctions and buy second hand cars to sell.  The trick was to bid on everything you remotely wanted and bid low and therefore get yourself in the running and auctioneer looking at you.   But if you were buying one car bid always bid towards the end, car were cheaper, because demand dropped.  I never went home empty handed because I focused on the fact that I only needed to buy one car and took them one at a time.  Other people procrastinated on the Audi hoping they would get a bargain on the BMW coming next, then were so distracted by the fact it made 25% above book that they missed the Ford or were not confident to bid on it because they had not heard the engine start up.

Some Trad men make the same mistake of worrying about the health of the wood and a few diseased trees, when all they need to do is cut down one healthy tree.

Tele sank enough emotional and intellectual effort in to marry 10 women.  But he only needed to marry 1.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 25, 2019, 03:17:18 AM
Every three days would be good going.  Like the size of anglers' fish we will never know the truth.

I don't think frequency has a great deal to do with how many children you have so cannot be implied.  There are so many other factors involved including the man and woman's fertility that two couples having sex every three days versus every three weeks could end up with the same number of children.  The only thing you can say for sure is that a large number of families with 2 or 3 children after 15 years shows something is amiss in that population.

My 6 siblings have 52 between them.  I asked and so I am pretty sure I am right.   One thing about me, I collect data.

Anyway, suffice it to say Matto that it ranges from "a lot" to "sweet fanny adams".   Think of it like a scratchcard at the 7 to 11.

Totally different to what I expected as a young turk, but nice all the same.  On my deathbed, I reckon I will be thinking about my daughter winning her school's cross country race, my son's first boxing fight and how I rebuilt the house with my own two hands.  The kids and family unit are the best part of marriage for me by far.  Seeing them grow and thrive is the jewel in the crown.  If I had to get married again using a time machine that is what i would enjoy the most bringing up the children.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 25, 2019, 08:03:18 AM
Every three days would be good going.  Like the size of anglers' fish we will never know the truth.

I don't think frequency has a great deal to do with how many children you have so cannot be implied.  There are so many other factors involved including the man and woman's fertility that two couples having sex every three days versus every three weeks could end up with the same number of children.  The only thing you can say for sure is that a large number of families with 2 or 3 children after 15 years shows something is amiss in that population.

I was just going to say that you're giving a bit too much information about your life there, Greg. Hahaha

As always, there are some elements of your post that I agree with. For example, the ridiculous assertion of hedonistic worldlings that if you have a large family, you must have an above-average amount of sex. Do they not understand how conception happens? The hedonistic modern world is sex-obsessed. And in this case, it doesn't even make sense. 

But on the other hand, I'd like to point out that some couples are different from you and your wife, and some Catholic families are nothing like yours.

Our family doesn't EVER deal with late night conference calls or business trips, for example.

Testosterone (and energy level in general) depends a lot on one's genetics, diet, and habits. Some men have real issues with T even their early 20's (just look at the crew at Buzzfeed. Talk about a bunch of soy-boy low T beta males!) but some men have no issues at all in their 40's or older.

Testosterone requires cholesterol (read: MEAT) and strenuous use of muscles causes men to produce more of it. Also, obesity KILLS men in this department.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 25, 2019, 09:51:51 AM
Greg said a married couple would only have sex 12-36 times a year (if they were lucky).

Is it really true that a married couple would be lucky to have sex so few times? I was never married so I wouldn't know and I have never asked.
Ggreg is speaking for himself...hahaha
Don't let him scare you away from marriage. 
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 25, 2019, 09:54:44 AM
My 6 siblings have 52 between them.  I asked and so I am pretty sure I am right.   One thing about me, I collect data.

Anyway, suffice it to say Matto that it ranges from "a lot" to "sweet fanny adams".   Think of it like a scratchcard at the 7 to 11.
Actually, you should realize the flaws in your scientific methodology. You and your brothers/sisters all have the same genetics. Probably the same energy level, aging pattern, testosterone level, etc. At least very similar. You not only have the same nature, but the same nurture as well. Not a good statistical cross-section from which to draw broad conclusions.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 25, 2019, 10:02:55 AM
I didnt say they were the only ones I spoke to.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matto on January 25, 2019, 10:31:46 AM
Ggreg is speaking for himself...hahaha
Don't let him scare you away from marriage.
I am not afraid of the idea of marriage. There is nothing I would like more in this world than to have a decent wife. However I know this is not likely to happen for me. So I am alone. But I thought the 12-36 times a year number was very interesting. I have a skewed perspective about sex because I was never married but had two long-term sexual relationships with women between the ages of 21 and 25 (I converted at the age of 26) and we had more sex than greg's number. A lot more. Perhaps both of my girlfriends were nymphomaniacs or maybe all young people are like that. People often say that in marriages the amount of sex declines drastically with time and often after a while married couples have no sex at all. I heard one man tell an old parable about sex and marriage. Imagine you are married. For the first year of your marriage you put a jelly-bean in a jar after every time you have sex. And after the first year of your marriage you take a jelly bean out of the same jar after every time you have sex. Your jar of jelly beans, no matter how long you are married, will never be emptied
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Jaynek on January 25, 2019, 11:16:25 AM
I am not afraid of the idea of marriage. There is nothing I would like more in this world than to have a decent wife. However I know this is not likely to happen for me. So I am alone. But I thought the 12-36 times a year number was very interesting. I have a skewed perspective about sex because I was never married but had two long-term sexual relationships with women between the ages of 21 and 25 (I converted at the age of 26) and we had more sex than greg's number. A lot more. Perhaps both of my girlfriends were nymphomaniacs or maybe all young people are like that. People often say that in marriages the amount of sex declines drastically with time and often after a while married couples have no sex at all. I heard one man tell an old parable about sex and marriage. Imagine you are married. For the first year of your marriage you put a jelly-bean in a jar after every time you have sex. And after the first year of your marriage you take a jelly bean out of the same jar after every time you have sex. Your jar of jelly beans, no matter how long you are married, will never be emptied
From what I have read, frequency of sex among cohabiting/fornicating couples is typically much higher than that of married couples, even of the same age.  Something about being married makes people have sex less.  Perhaps marriage means that people don't try as hard to please their spouse.  Or maybe it's something in the wedding cake.

In my experience of 39 years of marriage, I have not seen a drastic decline in frequency with time.  There was a noticeable drop in frequency after the first child, not due to lack of interest but because of lack of time and energy.  This was even more pronounced 18 months later after the birth of the second child.  We summed up the situation with a joke:

Q.  Why did they put a clock in the leaning Tower of Pisa?
A.  Because there is no use having the inclination if you don't have the time.

The pattern that I noticed over the years while having seven children was that frequency would increase again once the youngest child got into a better night-time routine, after a year or so.  Age of children was definitely the factor with the most influence for us.  There would have been times when the frequency was in the 12-36 times a year range.

I have always found my husband extremely attractive and am normally interested in physical intimacy with him.  I still feel that way at 60 years of age.  We would have run out of jelly beans a long time ago.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on January 25, 2019, 11:26:55 AM
People often say that in marriages the amount of sex declines drastically with time and often after a while married couples have no sex at all. I heard one man tell an old parable about sex and marriage. Imagine you are married. For the first year of your marriage you put a jelly-bean in a jar after every time you have sex. And after the first year of your marriage you take a jelly bean out of the same jar after every time you have sex. Your jar of jelly beans, no matter how long you are married, will never be emptied
Maybe it's just me, but I'm more of a "slow and steady wins the race" type, rather than a flash-in-the-pan, prone-to-burnout type.
I guess I'm just very stable in general -- not prone to wild swings in any department.
In terms of strength, energy, money, piety, fitness, you name it -- in most ways, I'm the same or better than I was at 20. Maybe it's because I started off more or less below average back then, but still. I have no riches-to-rags or rags-to-riches stories to tell. Not much drama there.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: forlorn on January 25, 2019, 11:30:55 AM
Maybe it's just me, but I'm more of a "slow and steady wins the race" type, rather than a flash-in-the-pan, prone-to-burnout type.
I guess I'm just very stable in general -- not prone to wild swings in any department.
In terms of strength, energy, money, piety, fitness, you name it -- in most ways, I'm the same or better than I was at 20. Maybe it's because I started off more or less below average back then, but still. I have no riches-to-rags or rags-to-riches stories to tell. Not much drama there.
That's probably a good way to be. Some(not all though) people who peak young try to chase their glory days their whole lives. Nostalgia can be nice and all, but not when you're in a permanent sense of it for almost your entire adult life. 
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: ggreg on January 25, 2019, 12:31:03 PM
I am not afraid of the idea of marriage. There is nothing I would like more in this world than to have a decent wife. However I know this is not likely to happen for me. So I am alone. But I thought the 12-36 times a year number was very interesting. I have a skewed perspective about sex because I was never married but had two long-term sexual relationships with women between the ages of 21 and 25 (I converted at the age of 26) and we had more sex than greg's number. A lot more. Perhaps both of my girlfriends were nymphomaniacs or maybe all young people are like that. People often say that in marriages the amount of sex declines drastically with time and often after a while married couples have no sex at all. I heard one man tell an old parable about sex and marriage. Imagine you are married. For the first year of your marriage you put a jelly-bean in a jar after every time you have sex. And after the first year of your marriage you take a jelly bean out of the same jar after every time you have sex. Your jar of jelly beans, no matter how long you are married, will never be emptied
At 21 to 26 people have the drive and the time.  It is all novel and exciting.  Most people at that age coukd have sex every other day.
I very much doubt that many 70 year old married couples are at it 3 times a week.
The jokes are funny and make people laugh because people can relate to them.  If most of the audience was having sex far more then they wouldnt laugh.
At 13- 21 I ran 30 to 100 miles per week.  And ran 2.25:17 for the marathon and sub 30min for 10k on track.  Now 30 years later I rarely run at all.  Some people still run after all those years, most don't.
People are liars too; remember that.  Lots of people lie to themselves.  They think of their best month and multiply it by 12.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: SusanneT on January 30, 2019, 03:08:40 AM
As a woman I think that your desire for intimacy is naturally and rightly related to your fertility, your menstrual cycle  and where you are in the cycle of trying - pregnancy - nursing and trying.  

I married at 26 and was very desperate for a baby. But as a nursing mother with young children clearly things are very different.  
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: King Wenceslas on January 30, 2019, 01:10:10 PM

Of course there is the very rare exception of seeking sainthood with companionship.

Quote
St. Cunigunde was one of eleven children born to Siegfried I of Luxembourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_I_of_Luxembourg) (922 – 15 August 998) and Hedwig of Nordgau (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedwig_of_Nordgau) (c. 935 – 992). She was a seventh-generation descendant of Charlemagne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne). She married St. King Henry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Emperor_Henry_II) in 999.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunigunde_of_Luxembourg#cite_note-2) It is said that she had long wanted to be a nun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nun),[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunigunde_of_Luxembourg#cite_note-calendar-3) and that her marriage to St. Henry II was a spiritual one (also called a "white marriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariage_blanc)"); that is, they married for companionship alone, and by mutual agreement did not consummate their relationship. It has been claimed that Cunigunde made a vow of virginity with Henry's consent prior to their marriage.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Disputaciones on February 10, 2019, 02:28:02 AM
...large, usually poor, young Trad families around them, who can only manage to donate $20/week to the collection, and little of their free time, because they are busy raising a bunch of little Catholics for the future... young families struggling to raise large Catholic families in 2019, which is almost a heroic feat.
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Nadir on February 10, 2019, 03:35:38 AM
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?
One who is not financially able or willing to raise the children God gives him, should not consider marriage. Do you not consider that God knows your abilities and your limits better than you do? It is through the Sacrament of Marriage that the graces comes to bear and raise children.

Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it. [1 Corinthians 10:13 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=10&l=13#x)]
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: forlorn on February 10, 2019, 05:39:39 AM
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?
It's not like his kids are going hungry. Not being able to donate large sums of money to the chapel is not the same as being financially unable to raise kids. 
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on February 10, 2019, 09:36:17 AM
It's not like his kids are going hungry. Not being able to donate large sums of money to the chapel is not the same as being financially unable to raise kids.
This.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Matthew on February 10, 2019, 09:39:20 AM
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?

I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?
Seriously, if struggling and lots of effort meant "you are too poor to have a family" and everyone followed that advice, it would literally be THE END at least in America and Europe.
Open your eyes and do some research about the value of the dollar (and other fiat currencies) over the past 100 years, home prices, the price of college, wages, etc. It will horrify you.
I'll give you a hint: those poor and unemployed people aren't all to be blamed. They aren't all a bunch of lazy bums.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: St Paul on February 10, 2019, 10:03:20 AM
12 Luke:

 [22] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=22-#x) And he said to his disciples: Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat; nor for your body, what you shall put on. [23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=23-#x) The life is more than the meat, and the body is more than the raiment. [24] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=24-#x) Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? [25] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=25-#x) And which of you, by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit?
[26] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=26-#x) If then ye be not able to do so much as the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest?[27] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=27-#x) Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=27-27&q=1#x) [28] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=28-#x) Now if God clothe in this manner the grass that is today in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more you, O ye of little faith? [29] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=29-#x)And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high.[30] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=30-#x) For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.
[31] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=31-#x) But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Disputaciones on February 10, 2019, 10:57:53 AM
Seriously, if struggling and lots of effort meant "you are too poor to have a family" and everyone followed that advice, it would literally be THE END at least in America and Europe.
Open your eyes and do some research about the value of the dollar (and other fiat currencies) over the past 100 years, home prices, the price of college, wages, etc. It will horrify you.
I'll give you a hint: those poor and unemployed people aren't all to be blamed. They aren't all a bunch of lazy bums.
I am fully aware of all the problems that you mentioned, having gone to college “because it was the logical next step” and acquiring debt.
Struggling and effort are not the same thing as being poor.
Title: Re: Sexless marriages and very small families
Post by: Disputaciones on February 10, 2019, 11:02:53 AM
12 Luke:

[22] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=22-#x) And he said to his disciples: Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat; nor for your body, what you shall put on. [23] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=23-#x) The life is more than the meat, and the body is more than the raiment. [24] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=24-#x) Consider the ravens, for they sow not, neither do they reap, neither have they storehouse nor barn, and God feedeth them. How much are you more valuable than they? [25] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=25-#x) And which of you, by taking thought, can add to his stature one cubit?
[26] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=26-#x) If then ye be not able to do so much as the least thing, why are you solicitous for the rest?[27] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=27-#x) Consider the lilies, how they grow: they labour not, neither do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these. (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=27-27&q=1#x) [28] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=28-#x) Now if God clothe in this manner the grass that is today in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more you, O ye of little faith? [29] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=29-#x)And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high.[30] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=30-#x) For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.
[31] (http://www.drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=12&l=31-#x) But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.
When I was younger I used to believe that this meant that you could just do whatever you wanted and “God would provide,” whether I actually did the best that I could and took steps to do this and that etc.