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!
Yes, though I would say abstinence to avoid children is at least in line with nature, whereas artificial contraception goes against nature.
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.
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 legitimateMy 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.
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.
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).
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.
ggreg,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.
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 thespouse(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.
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).Let's drill down here.
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.
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.
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.You've just described the local head of the Latin Mass Society where I live.
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!
Does it make a difference to validity whether there is.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.
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).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.
3. Either of the above but in those 10 years she had 1 child and that is now "enough".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).
What ASPECT invalidates the marriage? If it is just intention then it is present in all of the above examples.
Sure, he is sinning, but they are validly married; at least on the basis of intention to procreate. Would you agree?
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.
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.
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.
How does God choose a spouse?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.
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.
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.
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.God "talks" to people in different ways - some through life circuмstances, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
I'd almost prefer a nightly demonic beat down than the hatred or even the indifference of a wife (or towards one).
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.
Same here.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.
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.
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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.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?
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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
Very sad.
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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.
Very sad.
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.
Did it ever occur to anyone that a couple's intimate life is not another's business?
I don’t see how ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity 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.
How many turn ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because they just have to be validated sɛҳuąƖly. 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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ act is homicidal.Not many.
If ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs 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.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.
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.
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.
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).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.
I would have to think that ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity qualifies.
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.
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.
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..
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 ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity qualifies.
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.
If the homo wants to get married so he can turn his life around, that's not malicious.
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?
What did people do in that case?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.
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.
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.
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.
It depends who, when where, how old etc.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.
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.
...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.)
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.
Greg said a married couple would only have sex 12-36 times a year (if they were lucky).Ggreg is speaking for himself...hahaha
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.
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.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.
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.
Ggreg is speaking for himself...hahahaI 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 sɛҳuąƖ 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
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 sɛҳuąƖ 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 emptiedFrom 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.
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 emptiedMaybe 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.
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.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.
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.
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 sɛҳuąƖ 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 emptiedAt 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.
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.
...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?
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?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.
I mean having 1-3 children when you're poor is one thing, but 4, 5, 6 and beyond?
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?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.
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.This.
Shouldn't you make sure you will be financially able to raise a large family before doing so?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.
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.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.
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.
12 Luke: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.[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.