So, I was thinking about an aspect of NFP that doesn't seem quite right if NFP is really acceptable. And, that is that it requires the agreement of both spouses for it not to be sinful. And, I find that interesting. I will give a number of thoughts or reasons why. First, it does not require the consent of both husband and wife for marital relations. If there is no impediment like grave sins against the 6th commandment, then each spouse has a right to the marital debt. So, this agreement of the spouses turned on its head, is not consistent. Because, it doesn't require consent of both spouses for the marital act to be lawful, in fact if one does not agree, it can easily be unlawful and sinful on the part of the denying spouse. That is interesting.
Is it a mortal sin to refuse one’s husband or wife the marital debt?Conjugal relations are rightly called the "marriage debt", which each spouse owes the other in justice the relations that are apt to engender children. It is this very particular right over one’s body that is given up to one’s spouse by marriage vows. Saint Paul is very explicit about this:QuoteLet the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. (I Cor. 7:3 & 4)
A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed. However, marriage relationships are a serious matter and of great importance. Furthermore, the refusal of the marriage debt may cause a danger of incontinence. Consequently, it is a mortal sin to deprive one’s spouse of these relationships. The typical example of this is when a wife feels that she is justified in withholding the marriage debt because her feelings are hurt, or she is not appreciated enough. However, there is no excuse for the husband to withhold the affection and care for his wife’s feelings, for is responsible for them as head of the family.However, it is possible for the couple to agree, by mutual consent, to abstain for a short period of time, for example for penance, during Lent. However, it must be by mutual consent, and on the understanding that either spouse can withdraw it at any time. Saint Paul speaks of this also:QuoteDefraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer (I Cor 7:5).
There can, however, be good reasons that excuse a husband or wife from rendering this marriage debt, such as adultery of the other spouse, or unreasonable demands (e.g. frequency, intoxication) or grave danger to health or life (e.g. by the possible communication of infectious diseases), or a husband who refuses to perform his duty of supporting his family (Jone, Moral Theology, pp. 557 & 558 ). There can also be special circuмstances that reduce the culpability of refusing the marriage debt, so that it is only a venial sin, for example "if the petitioner will readily renounce his right, or if rendering it is only briefly postponed, or when the use of the marriage right is frequent and its refusal is only rare" (ibid). [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
jaynek - it just doesn't make sense to you. Because, only within reason I am implying it. Thanks be to God grace is attached to the sacrament and extremes in marriage are not intended and therefore rare. But, it is surprising. And, that is because marriage is a mystery. Mystery translated means sacrament. So, to the point, it means that I am in no way advocating for spousal violence or whatever your wandering mind might be implying. So, we can get that out of the way right now. I guess you cannot be to blame when you/we are brought up in a culture where man and woman are not mentioned anymore, only individual(s).Thanks for clarifying. I was not sure what you meant. I understand the teaching on marital debt as saying that one consents because one knows there is an obligation. You seemed to be saying that there is no consent because there is an obligation. I suspect there is no real disagreement between us and it is just a problem with wording.
One's consent is given only once - at the altar rail, in front of God, where you consent to marry your spouse. Marriage is a giving of one's body to the other, as St Paul says. Once married, there is no more consent, because consent implies permission or agreement. Technically speaking, a spouse does not need permission/agreement, because the Church teaches it is a DUTY.I can see why you would want to say this in order to counter the secular culture's errors around the idea of consent. But I think it needs a bit of tweaking since "consent" is used concerning marital relations in Scripture (I Cor7:5):
In reality, one wants their spouse to fulfill their obligation with love, so a wise spouse will approach the topic with love and understanding, but this is not required. Though, if feelings/emotions are not taken into account, the marriage will suffer. So, it is a balance between the sexes, because none of us is perfect. However, my overall point is that to use the word 'consent' when describing such situations is wrong, for consent is given only once, with the 'I do', and it applies for the life of the marriage.
It would mean that one may force a spouse to have relations.
So, do you believe that it's possible for a husband to "rape" his wife ... as the modern feminist legal system now holds?No, this idea is not logical and is a legal novelty. I suspect that this is what Pax Vobis had in mind when making those comments about consent. But forcing a spouse to have relations would not be charitable.
The topic of marital sex pops up routinely and I have noticed that it is the men who are concerned about their own rights, and the wife’s obligations rather than the other way around.The marital debt is a mutual obligation, not just for wives. It is a widely misunderstood teaching of the Church and we should be concerned to see it better understood.
I think that all marriages would benefit if the husbands AND wives spent more time thinking about their own obligations and responsibilities within their marriage as a whole rather than about their rights between the sheets.
No, this idea is not logical and is a legal novelty. I suspect that this is what Pax Vobis had in mind when making those comments about consent. But forcing a spouse to have relations would not be charitable.
The topic of marital sex pops up routinely and I have noticed that it is the men who are concerned about their own rights, and the wife’s obligations rather than the other way around.
I think that all marriages would benefit if the husbands AND wives spent more time thinking about their own obligations and responsibilities within their marriage as a whole rather than about their rights between the sheets.
I can see why you would want to say this in order to counter the secular culture's errors around the idea of consent. But I think it needs a bit of tweaking since "consent" is used concerning marital relations in Scripture (I Cor7:5):
Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.
Agreed. Permitted in strict justice, but contrary to charity (in some cases).
Let's say, however, that a wife had been refusing the debt for a long time without sufficient justification. Could a husband, without a violation of charity even, forcibly collect on the debt as it were ... say, because, he felt himself being in danger of incontinence if the situation continued ... provided of course that the wife was not ill or otherwise greatly burdened to render the debt? I would think so.
Of course, there's a part of me that thinks that this debt should always be freely given ... at least ideally. Of course, in pronouncing the marriage vows, that consent had already been given and remains in force throughout the marriage. Yet there's something that seems just a little off about forcibly collecting the debt, almost as if you were trying to force someone to love you. Love by its nature seems that it could and should only be freely given ... and I view the debt similarly. Yet I would not accuse a husband of any sin for acting in the manner I described above.
In this hypothetical situation the wife is clearly committing a serious sin and damaging their relationship. If the husband were to force the wife this would further damage the relationship to a point that it might not be reparable. I can't see this being a good solution. He would probably be better off fighting the danger of incontinence. After all, single people do it all the time.
Yes, that's a prudential consideration. But take that out of the equation for the moment ... to get at the principle. I'm always more interested in the principles ... and then only later their concrete application to real-life situations ... because otherwise the two can get blurred together.Would you say this is a parallel situation involving the same or a similar principle:
Let's say I lent my snow shovel to my neighbour a couple of weeks ago (and he signed a rental contract and gave me a key to his house) and he is not returning it. I am expecting a big snowfall tonight and I am afraid my car is going to be stuck in the driveway if I can't shovel out. My neighbour is still refusing to give me my shovel when I tell him this. So I go over,Now it's a fair analogy.break down his door(enter the house with the key and contract in hand), and take it from him by force.
Would you say this is a parallel situation involving the same or a similar principle:
Let's say I lent my snow shovel to my neighbour a couple of weeks ago and he is not returning it. I am expecting a big snowfall tonight and I am afraid my car is going to be stuck in the driveway if I can't shovel out. My neighbour is still refusing to give me my shovel when I tell him this. So I go over, break down his door, and take it from him by force.
Not quite ... because I don't have rights over the neighbor's property. I can't trespass onto his property and take my shovel. But, obviously if I find it in a public place (say, on the sidewalk), I am entitled to take it back without consulting with him. After marriage, the husband has the rights over his wife's body (and vice versa).I get it. It helped to have Pax Vobis modify the analogy. That illustrated what you wrote here.
If consent of the spouses to avoid pregnancy with rythm method is morally goodYou have to put this in context. Pius XII stated that it is allowable "for a time" (to tie into St Paul's quote) IF the circuмstances are extreme. AND...with permission of the couple's priest. Very strict rules and circuмstances. My understanding was that the couple was not allowed to decide for themselves (contrary to NFP nowadays), but the priest gave permission, so that the decision was made "prudentially" as you put it.
pax vobis - I think st. paul when he said "for a time" was referring to spouses practicing continence, which means avoiding sex entirely. And, that it was not for spouses to "for a time" have sex with the intent of avoiding children with 99% accuracy.I agree. Wasn't arguing that, just pointing out that Pius XII's rhythm was not a lifestyle but a particular response to a very particular situation of short duration (i.e. "for a time). Not the best point; my apologies.
If it is true that "for a time" we can do this as pius xii says, then "for a time" unmarried catholics can fornicate. It is that simple. But, that is not the case. So, we can not "for a time" practice pius xii rythm.Not necessarily apples-apples comparison. Fornication is against the natural law; NFP would be against the natural law because it's a 'lifestyle'; the rhythm is not, in theory.
"Questions" like that are why you have a Reputation: +2846/-83.Philosophy indulges in questions, theology indulges in answers.
Fanny - perhaps if women would stop striving toward sensual deism, they might experience men not acting like animals around them. And, this might relieve them of many of the misconceptions they have about men.Not everything is woman's fault.
I have noticed the trend on CI of men being very concerned about their "rights" and also with blaming women for most of the problems in their marriages, home, family, and even the world.Not surprising considering the type of men I generally see in trad cath circles. Really sad.
I have not noticed a similar trend with the women blaming the men.
Fanny - perhaps if women would stop striving toward sensual deism, they might experience men not acting like animals around them. And, this might relieve them of many of the misconceptions they have about men.It is interesting to note that, at all the trad chapels I have been to, trad cath young men fall all over the liberally-dressed young ladies at church and then marry them, while the modest young ladies go unnoticed and unmarried.
Fanny - heribert jone is no authority. He taught that spousal sodomy was no sin at all. He is simply an agent of those "individuals" masquerading as married couples.
Father Heribert Jone OFMCap (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapuziner&usg=ALkJrhjl4W2kqfjEeISQE5TovqT3rQ6Tnw) (born January 30, (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/30._Januar&usg=ALkJrhiJYjOSnSNILMvne_9oIrs8IsK0HQ) 1885 (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1885&usg=ALkJrhgwKlPNuhhyYp6-8SO0proXFnQmWw) in Schelklingen (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelklingen&usg=ALkJrhgVdiD8q5XeWy0nOMqE5dYw_FloPg) , Wurttemberg (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%25C3%25BCrttemberg&usg=ALkJrhjihNwkxDbZkcaowWpC0MR30jAg7Q) , † December 25, (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/25._Dezember&usg=ALkJrhgXwY-53tEM_3WH6TA4pneTWCuv3w) 1967 (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967&usg=ALkJrhh7wA9GjraaobYInoaQDG7wIi65dA) in Stühlingen (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%25C3%25BChlingen&usg=ALkJrhhov-1jqI_lVB4zJja1_41sBESp4g) , Baden (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden_(Land)&usg=ALkJrhj-wNEx2wBGN8hN2mPJIjk9qTGgWQ) ) was a Catholic (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%25C3%25B6misch-katholische_Kirche&usg=ALkJrhhMJICgwcNgca-g08EyYKU9EGW9xA) priest (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priester_(Christentum)&usg=ALkJrhgU5W63YmwaTSu4gpExjZSJlHf0aQ) , church lawyer and moral theologian (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moraltheologie&usg=ALkJrhh-cXMBzqPl-cuF28sAk82nmNNizA) .
The son of a merchant and city treasurer joined in 1904 in the Capuchin Order (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapuziner&usg=ALkJrhjl4W2kqfjEeISQE5TovqT3rQ6Tnw) and completed his studies in philosophy and theology. In 1910 he was ordained a priest (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihesakrament&usg=ALkJrhj8Ozxkbpzl9VK-PzRFLDKUDBu2QQ#Presbyterat) in Cologne (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%25C3%25B6ln&usg=ALkJrhjkr_sbUhz5UTmmtIwdMMZDWPUncQ) . A year later, he began his studies in Canon Law at the Pontifical Gregorian (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregoriana&usg=ALkJrhhnYd_1vqpLWS5KmE0_ngQjrdyC2Q)University in Rome, but interrupted this, to act from 1913 to 1919 on the Carolines (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karolinen&usg=ALkJrhj6X2kzI_r8NxGxw16siSlpdZakYw) as a missionary. After his return he continued his studies and received his doctorate in 1922 to the doctor of canon law (Dr. iur. Can.). From 1924 to 1949 he then worked as a lecturer at the Order of the Capuchin Monastery (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophisch-Theologische_Hochschule_M%25C3%25BCnster&usg=ALkJrhgCWVkst7oOxoCV7K3oUeaoFkPf9g) in Münster (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%25C3%25BCnster&usg=ALkJrhhPe4ALF0KOIrOs6iQnA9E5oNcHpw) , where he was also synodal judge from 1925 at the marriage court.
His importance for Catholic teaching acquired Jone through his two major works, the Commentary to the Codex Iuris Canonici (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Iuris_Canonici&usg=ALkJrhgUE73vlTImB2OcUevuTml547UGVA) (CIC) of 1917 and the "Catholic Moral Theology (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moraltheologie&usg=ALkJrhh-cXMBzqPl-cuF28sAk82nmNNizA) " (1930, 18 editions to 1961 or 1964; Translations into French, Dutch, Italian, English , Portuguese, Arabic). His book on moral theology was standard work for the education and training of clerics and so widespread and well-known that it appears even in Graham Green's (https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&prev=search&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&sp=nmt4&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Greene&usg=ALkJrhgaXzcyI9Sj1h2KqV_sUSAWtOqIgw) novel Monsignor Quixote as a court of conscience "the Jone".
I have noticed the trend on CI of men being very concerned about their "rights" and also with blaming women for most of the problems in their marriages, home, family, and even the world.Try reading this:
I have not noticed a similar trend with the women blaming the men.
It is interesting to note that, at all the trad chapels I have been to, trad cath young men fall all over the liberally-dressed young ladies at church and then marry them, while the modest young ladies go unnoticed and unmarried.
Is it woman's fault men LOOK for loose women?
Furthermore, men expect women to have loads of children, homeschool them, perform duties of a housewife, tend the finances, perhaps have a job outside the home, stay in shape and be attractive to her husband at all times. While men have one job, do what they please around the house, get fat, and have their way with their wife as they please. Are you kidding me?!
But I think that it's probably a waste of time for non-professional lay people like us to dwell on this.https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/heribert-jone-and-denzinger-on-spousal-sodomy-warning/msg463272/#msg463272 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/heribert-jone-and-denzinger-on-spousal-sodomy-warning/msg463272/#msg463272)
Since many approved reputable theologians seem to hold this position, that it's not grave sin per se so long as the marital act reaches its completion in a natural way, a Catholic who does so while following the position of these theologians would certainly not be committing a grave sin (cf. St. Alphonsus' "probabilism" vis-à-vis moral theology). That's not to say that such Catholics would not sin at least venially (and perhaps even with relatively-serious venial sin) due to excessive indulgence in pleasure. That's not to say that such a thing would please God or would be compatible with seeking perfection. But it's only to say that it wouldn't constitute grave sin.
Try reading this:I was speaking tongue in cheek in the last paragraph. It is clear that went over your head.
I was speaking tongue in cheek in the last paragraph. It is clear that went over your head.Just about every post you have made in this thread has been a negative generalization about men and/or trad men. In this post you are misrepresenting their views. You come across as hostile and unhappy. I wish there were something I could do to help. Life is so much better when we have positive feelings about men.
I should have said:
Furthermore, according to most the men here, they expect wives to have loads of children, homeschool them, perform duties of a housewife, tend the finances, perhaps have a job outside the home, stay in shape and be attractive to her husband at all times. While men have one job, do what they please around the house, get fat, "punish" their wife, and have their way with their wife as they please.
It is interesting to note that, at all the trad chapels I have been to, trad cath young men fall all over the liberally-dressed young ladies at church and then marry them, while the modest young ladies go unnoticed and unmarried.
Is it woman's fault men LOOK for loose women?
Furthermore, men expect women to have loads of children, homeschool them, perform duties of a housewife, tend the finances, perhaps have a job outside the home, stay in shape and be attractive to her husband at all times. While men have one job, do what they please around the house, get fat, and have their way with their wife as they please. Are you kidding me?!
You have to put this in context. Pius XII stated that it is allowable "for a time" (to tie into St Paul's quote) IF the circuмstances are extreme. AND...with permission of the couple's priest. Very strict rules and circuмstances. My understanding was that the couple was not allowed to decide for themselves (contrary to NFP nowadays), but the priest gave permission, so that the decision was made "prudentially" as you put it.
NFP, in contrast to Pius XII's rhythm, is taught as a "lifestyle" which makes it extremely sinful. All of your points are good ones and apply to NFP and its errors.
for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life
It is interesting to note that, at all the trad chapels I have been to, trad cath young men fall all over the liberally-dressed young ladies at church and then marry them, while the modest young ladies go unnoticed and unmarried.
Is it woman's fault men LOOK for loose women?
Furthermore, men expect women to have loads of children, homeschool them, perform duties of a housewife, tend the finances, perhaps have a job outside the home, stay in shape and be attractive to her husband at all times. While men have one job, do what they please around the house, get fat, and have their way with their wife as they please. Are you kidding me?!
After long hours at work, I do not see anything wrong with him coming home to a fresh and healthy meal, clean and organized home, well adjusted children, and a pretty wife who takes care of her appearance, and yes, that means staying in shape to please your husband.
Wow. I've never heard that. Yes, Pius XII is off his rocker. How does one justify that idea. Totally wrong.Indeed. Read "Natural Family Planning and the Christian Moral Code," available from fatherwathen.com or ebay. Here's the blurb ----
It is interesting to note that, at all the trad chapels I have been to, trad cath young men fall all over the liberally-dressed young ladies at church and then marry them, while the modest young ladies go unnoticed and unmarried.Do you have a father to advise you about life? The men you describe are useless idiots, good riddance that one of them didn't pursue your affections.
Is it woman's fault men LOOK for loose women?
I was under the impression that this jeanne dvorak book was more recent. But, from what you post, with an archbishop supporting her, it sounds like something I should read.It has been out of print, but now there is this new, slightly updated reprint. However, on this subject in general, there will never be much novel to add beyond the basic moral and theological principle that birth control is wrong, and NFP/Rhythm is birth control.
It is interesting to note that, at all the trad chapels I have been to, trad cath young men fall all over the liberally-dressed young ladies at church and then marry them, while the modest young ladies go unnoticed and unmarried.Fanny,
Is it woman's fault men LOOK for loose women?
...
I just purchased that jeanne dvorak book from ebay. I am looking forward to reading it.You won't regret it.
Marian exploitation according to the method of louis de montfort is the cause of this. Mary is a creature. Creature worship is the hallmark of all false religions. It is the only immediate reason I can give for our immediate problems.Are you saying that Louis de Montfort encourages worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Unfortunately, Pius XII opened the door to evolution ... with disastrous consequences, opened the door to Catholic birth control ... with disastrous consequences, began the liturgical experimentations and appointed Bugnini to lead them ... with disastrous consequences, supported the Heresiarch Cushing against the defender of the faith Father Leonard Feeney ... with disastrous consequences, and appointed most of the modernist bishops who ended up bringing us the glories of Vatican II.And since Our Lady said on June 13, 1929 that the time had come for the Holy Father to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, we have to conclude that the burden to do this passed on to Pius XII, who did not get it done although liking to call himself "the Fatima Pope." If he had done it, there would have been no World War II.
Marian exploitation according to the method of louis de montfort is the cause of this. Mary is a creature. Creature worship is the hallmark of all false religions. It is the only immediate reason I can give for our immediate problems.I had two look twice- I can't believe I'm seeing such a thing on a Catholic forum. Sorry, but what you wrote is incredibly insulting towards Our Lady.
Are you saying that Louis de Montfort encourages worship of the Blessed Virgin Mary?Yes. But, it is fashioned in the same ways as vatican 2. Opposites are utilized in such ways only capable of I will say by the devil. So, unless you are for the most part none of these, or for the most part all of these, you will not pick up on it. It is mainly isolated to his book true devotion the the blessed virgin mary. However, it also extends to his book the secret of mary if memory serves me.
I read his book, and I did not get that impression at all. We are to follow her lead, and worship her Son and our God.
He clearly expressed that a temporal queen has the god given right and duty to own and take the life(murder) of her slaves as her pleasure sees fit,Can you give a quote from the book, please, PG?
Fanny,
Some of these trad cath young men do fall in love with beautiful attractive women, and as part of their engagement period, these same young trad catholics lovingly tell their fiancées to start dressing modestly.
Funny you should mention this.
When I was dating eligible young men, and when I mentioned the scarcity of eligible young Catholic men, my priest told me that he thought it was my goal in life to meet a good handsome Protestant man, help convert him, and then marry him.. The priest reminded me of the Epistle of St. James, which encourages us to lead others to the Holy Faith, and thus, save our souls and theirs in the process. This is indeed what happened. Read on.
In a true marriage, the couples should lead each other to Christ. In fact, not only is the marriage bed to be undefiled, but also the children are to be raised to be saints. In a true domestic church, all are called to sanctity with the husband taking the role as spiritual leader in his family, leading the prayers, and setting a good example for the children.
In a study done for his Master's of Divinity, a priest studied the effect a father has on his children. If the father regularly attended Mass and other services at the parish church, and faithfully led prayers in the home, his children became very devout and followed his example. If the father did not lead the prayers at home and made excuses not to attend church whenever possible, even if his wife was faithful in her prayer life and church duties, their children were not devout, and often did not remain Catholic.
My confessor also gave youth retreats and encouraged young men and women to seek beautiful spouses who needed to be enlightened by the Holy Faith. His reasoning: men are attracted to beautiful women and once these handsome men win the hand of a beautiful young maiden, she will listen to him and will start dressing more modestly, etc. Furthermore, beautiful women -- beautiful in heart, mind, body, and soul -- will attract good men. These men in turn will want to know the source of their inward beauty. This happened with me. My husband asked what church I attended, started attending that parish with me, and soon he became a catechumen. He was baptized, confirmed, and communed on St. Dominic's day, his patron saint, one month prior to our marriage. He said that it was the most awesome experience.
Can you give a quote from the book, please, PG?A sin against the 5th commandment is the foundation of his spirituality.
Nadir - Much of what de montfort says has to be pieced together like a puzzle, making it not so easy. But, this can be pieced together fairly easily.
76. Moreover, if, as I have said, the Blessed Virgin is the Queen and Sovereign of heaven and earth, does she not then have as many subjects and slaves as there are creatures? "All things, including Mary herself, are subject to the power of God. All things, God included, are subject to the Virgin's power", so we are told by St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine and St. Bonaventure. Is it not reasonable to find that among so many slaves there should be some slaves of love, who freely choose Mary as their Queen? Should men and demons have willing slaves, and Mary have none? A king makes it a point of honour that the queen, his consort, should have her own slaves, over whom she has right of life and death, for honour and power given to the queen is honour and power given to the king. Could we possibly believe that Jesus, the best of all sons, who shared his power with his Blessed Mother, would resent her having her own slaves? Has he less esteem and love for his Mother than Ahasuerus had for Esther, or Solomon for Bathsheba? Who could say or even think such a thing?
I said nothing about beauty, only about vanity.We need more priests with a missionary heart who can reach our youth.
I have not seen the fiancees change the way the young ladies dress. The young men actually encourage the ladies to flaunt it more.
Your confessor was, sadly, right to encourage you to seek outside the Church for a spouse. It is a sad state of affairs when proper young ladies must seek a spouse outside the Church.
Fanny,
Some of these trad cath young men do fall in love with beautiful attractive women, and as part of their engagement period, these same young trad catholics lovingly tell their fiancées to start dressing modestly.
Funny you should mention this.
When I was dating eligible young men, and when I mentioned the scarcity of eligible young Catholic men, my priest told me that he thought it was my goal in life to meet a good handsome Protestant man, help convert him, and then marry him.. The priest reminded me of the Epistle of St. James, which encourages us to lead others to the Holy Faith, and thus, save our souls and theirs in the process. This is indeed what happened. Read on.
In a true marriage, the couples should lead each other to Christ. In fact, not only is the marriage bed to be undefiled, but also the children are to be raised to be saints. In a true domestic church, all are called to sanctity with the husband taking the role as spiritual leader in his family, leading the prayers, and setting a good example for the children.
In a study done for his Master's of Divinity, a priest studied the effect a father has on his children. If the father regularly attended Mass and other services at the parish church, and faithfully led prayers in the home, his children became very devout and followed his example. If the father did not lead the prayers at home and made excuses not to attend church whenever possible, even if his wife was faithful in her prayer life and church duties, their children were not devout, and often did not remain Catholic.
My confessor also gave youth retreats and encouraged young men and women to seek beautiful spouses who needed to be enlightened by the Holy Faith. His reasoning: men are attracted to beautiful women and once these handsome men win the hand of a beautiful young maiden, she will listen to him and will start dressing more modestly, etc. Furthermore, beautiful women -- beautiful in heart, mind, body, and soul -- will attract good men. These men in turn will want to know the source of their inward beauty. This happened with me. My husband asked what church I attended, started attending that parish with me, and soon he became a catechumen. He was baptized, confirmed, and communed on St. Dominic's day, his patron saint, one month prior to our marriage. He said that it was the most awesome experience.
Marian exploitation according to the method of louis de montfort is the cause of this. Mary is a creature. Creature worship is the hallmark of all false religions. It is the only immediate reason I can give for our immediate problems.
I think this is a beautiful story and I am glad that it turned out so well for you. However, I would not encourage my children to look for spouses outside the Faith, not even with the zealous purpose of converting that person to bring him / her into the Church. Actually, the opposite is true, I insist vehemently in that the future spouse be a Traditional Catholic already and preferably born and raised in a Traditional Catholic family. Many times, what happens in this situation you describe is that the non-Catholic suitor, will pretend, under the effects of the initial infatuation, to convert to the Faith, but this is only temporarily so they can marry; but then he will lose interest in the Faith and may abandon it altogether.I agree, even though I personally have a "happy ending" story. When my husband started dating me I was Protestant. When we became engaged, I started attending Mass to see what it was like. I felt drawn by Our Lord in the Eucharist and became Catholic.
Fanny,What is most interesting about your post is how you equated "beautiful attractive women" with my comment of " liberally-dressed young ladies".
Some of these trad cath young men do fall in love with beautiful attractive women, and as part of their engagement period, these same young trad catholics lovingly tell their fiancées to start dressing modestly.
Funny you should mention this.
When I was dating eligible young men, and when I mentioned the scarcity of eligible young Catholic men, my priest told me that he thought it was my goal in life to meet a good handsome Protestant man, help convert him, and then marry him.. The priest reminded me of the Epistle of St. James, which encourages us to lead others to the Holy Faith, and thus, save our souls and theirs in the process. This is indeed what happened. Read on.
In a true marriage, the couples should lead each other to Christ. In fact, not only is the marriage bed to be undefiled, but also the children are to be raised to be saints. In a true domestic church, all are called to sanctity with the husband taking the role as spiritual leader in his family, leading the prayers, and setting a good example for the children.
In a study done for his Master's of Divinity, a priest studied the effect a father has on his children. If the father regularly attended Mass and other services at the parish church, and faithfully led prayers in the home, his children became very devout and followed his example. If the father did not lead the prayers at home and made excuses not to attend church whenever possible, even if his wife was faithful in her prayer life and church duties, their children were not devout, and often did not remain Catholic.
My confessor also gave youth retreats and encouraged young men and women to seek beautiful spouses who needed to be enlightened by the Holy Faith. His reasoning: men are attracted to beautiful women and once these handsome men win the hand of a beautiful young maiden, she will listen to him and will start dressing more modestly, etc. Furthermore, beautiful women -- beautiful in heart, mind, body, and soul -- will attract good men. These men in turn will want to know the source of their inward beauty. This happened with me. My husband asked what church I attended, started attending that parish with me, and soon he became a catechumen. He was baptized, confirmed, and communed on St. Dominic's day, his patron saint, one month prior to our marriage. He said that it was the most awesome experience.
It surprises me greatly that a confessor would advise this.Really?
Really?I have received some really bad advice from a few "traditional" priests in the past too. That's why I think it is so important to read pre-V2 books by the saints to really develop our Catholic "common" sense.
If this surprises you, you would be shocked at some of the things a confessor told me!
Unfortunately, Pius XII opened the door to evolution ... with disastrous consequences, opened the door to Catholic birth control ... with disastrous consequences, began the liturgical experimentations and appointed Bugnini to lead them ... with disastrous consequences, supported the Heresiarch Cushing against the defender of the faith Father Leonard Feeney ... with disastrous consequences, and appointed most of the modernist bishops who ended up bringing us the glories of Vatican II.Without doubt!
Yeah, the priest that's telling people to marry "beautiful" non-Catholics is giving completely garbage advice. For every ONE of these marriage conversions that turns out well, NINETY-NINE go bad. I know of several where the minute things got rocky, as happens in most marriages at some point, the "converted" spouse immediately reverted back to his/her former ways, sought divorce, and abandoned any practice of the Catholic faith. Especially suspect are the pre-marriage conversions, the one where a spouse converts prior to marriage. I would venture to say that 95% of these are bogus ... just done to get along and for social reasons. But these conversions rarely run deep. Now, I've seen a few where the spouse converts AFTER marriage, and these are more often genuine.
| Q. | Has the Church always forbidden mixed marriages? |
| A. | The Church has always forbidden mixed marriages and considers them unlawful and pernicious. |
| Q. | Does the Church sometimes permit mixed marriages? |
| A. | The Church sometimes permits mixed marriages granting a dispensation, for very grave reasons and under special conditions. |
Reading that part of De Montfort's book bothered me. I remember being told by my confessor to stop reading this book if it troubled me spiritually.God bless your confessor. What traditional group was he affiliated with(sspv,sspx,ecclesia dei)? Not a page goes by that does not trouble me in his book. I took notes on the book, and it became ridiculous. I was taking critical notes nearly every sentence. It is a complete package in my opinion. I do not recommend anyone read it.
Instead, my priest encouraged me to read and reread The Dialogues of St. Catherine of Siena. I learned much from St. Catherine, especially about discernment. This book on discernment helped me later on as I began to realize the harm done by Vatican II and all the "theology books" written extolling the spirit of Vatican II, which is diabolic, and definitely not the Holy Spirit.
XX. Don’t get involved in a friendship that may result in a mixed marriage, for married life is difficult enough without having a difference of religion and moral outlook as a cause for further trouble, such as the question of divorce, birth control, Catholic education.
The priest was plain wrong on that advice.You are absolutely wrong on this because you have no idea the circuмstances surrounding the couple.
In an ideal world Catholics would marry Catholics. But in these difficult times we live, and the lack of quality candidates, it sometimes would behoove a young man or a young lady to seek outside the Church, following the advice and guidance of his/her confessor and parents.Many of the protestants I know are WAY more open to the truth than novus ordo catholics. Our priest has a steady stream of non-catholics who want to convert and take classes. And many of them have married trads with no issues.
You are absolutely wrong on this because you have no idea the circuмstances surrounding the couple.
Even your own penny catechism quote proves you wrong:
The Church sometimes permits mixed marriages granting a dispensation, for very grave reasons and under special conditions.
In the end, it is on the soul of the officiating priest.
In an ideal world Catholics would marry Catholics. But in these difficult times we live, and the lack of quality candidates, it sometimes would behoove a young man or a young lady to seek outside the Church, following the advice and guidance of his/her confessor and parents.
So instead of focusing on fixing Catholic manhood (so we produce high - quality Catholic boys), then the priests of today are advising us to give off our daughters to Protestants?
I agree that this is a pathetic state of affairs.
Fixing takes time. The fine young ladies of today will be old maids before the fixing is complete, if ever it occurs.
It is absolutely better she marry a man with a strong character who will allow her to practice her religion and rear the children Catholic, who will provide well for the family and be good to her, than for her to marry a loser just because he claims to be a trad Catholic. In my experience, these men always convert in time.
So you don't think that these non-Catholics need a significant amount of "fixing" also? And that it won't take time? Sorry, but my experience is that they don't convert. Nobody's forcing you to marry a Trad man who doesn't live up to your standards, but if you think you'll be better off marrying a non-Catholic, you're sorely mistaken. And I'll be rather blunt. I would not be interested in someone who has your bitter and decidedly-feminist attitude. My guess is that you've taken a fancy to some good-looking non-Catholic guy ... and have mistaken that for some kind of virtue. Believe me that I've had women who told me that they made this mistake and sorely regretted it later.Calumny is a sin. Shame on you.
Calumny is a sin. Shame on you.
Do you even know the meaning of the word calumny?You are a bully, too.
Many of the protestants I know are WAY more open to the truth than novus ordo catholics. Our priest has a steady stream of non-catholics who want to convert and take classes. And many of them have married trads with no issues.Which is why it is so important for a young man or woman to have advice from his parents and a good confessor.
I've also seen may trad marriages fall apart as well as novus ordo 'converts' who didn't last. It really depends on the person, not the 'group' they came from.
How does a person who does not know something, know if a confessor is giving good advice?Confessor AND parents.
How does a person who does not know something, know if a confessor is giving good advice?This is why it is so important for parents to instill a good moral compass and a well formed conscience in their children.
I am sure that St. James in his Epistle, which "encourages us to lead others to the Holy Faith, and thus, save our souls and theirs in the process" was not talking about Marriage to non-Catholics as a means to convert them. He was just talking about the general zeal we should all have, of converting sinners and proclaiming the Gospel. That does not mean to marry them. The priest was plain wrong on that advice.I never said that a Catholic should marry a non-Catholic. I never said that my priest was encouraging people to marry Protestants. In fact, it was the opposite as he told me that if I had wanted to marry a Protestant, he would not have agreed to celebrate the marriage.
Addendum from the 1958 Penny Catechism
Q. Has the Church always forbidden mixed marriages? A. The Church has always forbidden mixed marriages and considers them unlawful and pernicious. Q. Does the Church sometimes permit mixed marriages? A. The Church sometimes permits mixed marriages granting a dispensation, for very grave reasons and under special conditions.
of five children of which I am the oldest, I am the only one left who is still a practicing Catholic. All the rest are now Protestant.Maybe you all were what you called "beautiful young ladies" and what I called "liberally dressed"?
Fanny,My guess is "B". She references parental advice / authority repeatedly here ... no teenagers are that insistent. : )
I asked you if you had a father to advise you. I received no response.
Now I ask, do you have any children, young men, young women?
My guess is "B". She references parental advice / authority repeatedly here ... no teenagers are that insistent. : )Or "c":
Maybe you all were what you called "beautiful young ladies" and what I called "liberally dressed"?There is a distinction.
There is a distinction.No kidding. That was my point to you.
This is interesting when it comes to what I said about how it NFP is not acceptable, then intended childless marriages must be acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTme6qAqdp8
Ladislaus - I thought it was interesting that akin stuck his neck out there to comment about miscarriages, when the caller probably meant that the child was conceived out of wedlock. Which, means a sin was involved, and that is why she went to confession. It was "long story short" he said.
I recall reading about how the early church did not encourage women to get married once they reached 60 years old. Here akin talks about how seemingly normal and valid it is for older people to get married who are past the age of conceiving a child. I think the current metapause number is like 55 years old. So, it is not far off, making the 60 year old age threshold of old still relevant and probably even accurate. But, the church no longer promotes widowhood, and instead it seems promotes marriage. But, that opens up the question about what is the primary end of marriage. And, it strengthens the liberals argument that the primary end of marriage is not the procreation and education of children. But, that it is instead about the comforting of even two old people.
Well, it wasn't uncommon for people to get married without the intention of having children. So, for instance, St. Joseph and Our Lady. But it was in cases where both intended to remain celibate even within marriage. Non-consummated marriages like that had a special status in that they could actually be dissolved. They were considered marriages "in potency". In those cases, cohabitation was not considered a scandal or occasion of sin because if the marriage were consummated by physical relations, it would not be a sin.Don't leave out an all important factor in the dissolution of non-consummated marriages. It could be dissolved if the spouse dissolving were doing so in order to enter religious life. "perfect divorce is possible in a marriage that is sanctioned only(not consummated), and is done especially by solemn profession(one entering religious life), and by pontifical dispensation("a father sins when he divorces/"kills" a wife by his own authority").
But that's not what Akin is talking about. He's talking about people that go in to marriage, intend to have sɛҳuąƖ relations, but not to have children.
Sometimes there's a tiny bit of blur between the ends of marriage and the ends of marital relations.
Akin also uses the Novus Ordo term of being "open to life" ... which basically means that if, despite all your efforts to prevent it, the wife happens to get pregnant, you would not have an abortion.
This is interesting. The index for denzinger only mentions one end of marriage. Denzinger # 695 from the council of florence doesn't mention two ends of marriage. It mentions only one end. "through matrimony corporeally increased."
#2229 is also mentioned for "the end" of matrimony. And I see no mention of comforting of the spouses in that paragraph.
Don't leave out an all important factor in the dissolution of non-consummated marriages. It could be dissolved if the spouse dissolving were doing so in order to enter religious life. "perfect divorce is possible in a marriage that is sanctioned only(not consummated), and is done especially by solemn profession(one entering religious life), and by pontifical dispensation("a father sins when he divorces/"kills" a wife by his own authority").
What is interesting with the reasons for separation, is that it mentions fornication rather than adultery. But, fornication would mean things like masturbation or onanism. But, that is awfully close to what is going on with NFP/Rythm, when the marital act is simply used to deal with lust. This "fornication" mentioned as a reason for a separation is simply lust. And, they did not mention adultery in denzinger, only fornication. So, that implies it is masterbation/onanism. #702 and # 978 denzinger.
Look at Pius XI's Casti Conubii about the secondary ends of marriage (and marital relations).I am aware of all that. I am just mentioning this to show how this has changed over the centuries, to our detriment. It just shows that the line is thin and red indeed. How quickly and easily it is crossed by ones who have a taste for blood.
I am aware of all that. I am just mentioning this to show how this has changed over the centuries, to our detriment. It just shows that the line is thin and red indeed. How quickly and easily it is crossed by ones who have a taste for blood.
Not changed. Refined.Like anyone who has eaten food knows, refined food is changed food.
Like anyone who has eaten food knows, refined food is changed food.
… But, with marriage, there are no negative consequences to NFP/Rythm abuse? Nonsense, there are negative consequences. It turns a potential mother into a feminist, and a potential father into a beast. NFP/rythm is like a gateway drug. What is to stop a couple from entering into worse behavior? Nothing." ....
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 59), Dec. 31, 1930: “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider SO LONG AS THEY ARE SUBORDINATED TO THE PRIMARY END and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”Yes, and there is a big difference between "not forbidding" the quieting of concupiscence, and encouraging it. And, why should comforting of spouses or quieting of concupiscence(which are ambiguous phrases I might add) refer solely to the sɛҳuąƖ act? It could very well apply to children taking care of parents in their old age. That is a comfort to elderly spouses. A beautiful newborn baby ought to quite concupiscence. Heck, even the wail of a baby ought to quiet concupiscence. A baby in general will do the job, all pointing to the importance of the primary end, and up until lets say 200 years ago, the only end of marriage.
Tobias 6:22 … thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.
Luke - I just quoted you because you had a nice quote I liked for responding to ladislaus, who replied to my comment that when one looks up marriage in the index of denzinger, there is no mention of two ends of marriage. It is only one end of marriage. And, when indexing basically what is referred to as the end of marriage without using the word end, the two sources cited for it did not mention a secondary end. It was simply the primary end. I find this interesting, because ever since a secondary end was introduced, not less than 40 years went by before the church decided the secondary end is actually the primary end. And all bets are off. I mentioned that this is worth noting, that there was only one end of marriage not too long ago(better days), and ladislaus presumed that means I all out reject the secondary, and am ready to burn it and the pope who first taught up in flames.Honestly, I don't think that it was a case of the secondary end being introduced out of no way, I think errors were cropping up again just like in the time of Tobias, perverting the one end of the marriage act, whereby Pope Pius XI had to further define the one end. The primary and the secondary are one and the same. This error is not new.
Unless one has a reason for why knowledge of rythm is not good for the church or mankind, it will not go away. I am simply throwing ideas out there and seeing what sticks. I think much of it sticks. Perhaps it is a case of a little here and a little there. I simply care about the end result. And, the end result is doing away with knowledge of rythm. And, certainly doing away with church approval of it for the gratifying of the flesh.
Ladislaus - if we cannot get pius XI for introducing a secondary end, how about we just get him for crucifying the cristeros. There was a change there. One day the cristeros were restoring central american cristendom in glorious fashion, and the next day they were not. They were hanging by the neck from wood poles with bullets in their heads. I would say there was a change there. "But pius xi was just being diplomatic". "Being diplomatic is not against the faith". "Being diplomatic is a development".
The true Catholic church does not approve of NFP.