Skip to comments.
A Brief Catechism for Adults - Lesson 32: How to have a Happy Marriage (no obscene posts)
OLRL ^
| Fr. William J. Cogan
Posted on 08/19/2007 2:13:50 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
To: NYer
21
posted on
08/20/2007 10:50:52 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
To: ArrogantBustard
Yes, but this passage does not mean that each spouse is bound, under the penalty of mortal sin, to agree to every request of the other to have relations. That would be ridiculous. And it is not what the Church teaches.
To: steadfastconservative
You’re right. The Church teaches that the spouses are no longer two but one. And therefore cannot with hold themselves for selfish reasons. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to tell your spouse, “not tonight.” But anger, bitterness or punishment aren’t justifiable reasons. Of course, in a healthy sacramental reasons, neither spouse is going to insist upon their marital rights if the other isn’t up for it. It’s simply a reminder that we are to love fully and unselfishly. Withholding sex and demanding it are both selfish acts.
23
posted on
08/20/2007 9:55:06 PM PDT
by
mockingbyrd
(peace begins in the womb)
To: mockingbyrd
Thanks. You said it better than I did.
To: NYer
How to have a Happy Marriage?
Well, if you don't know I'm not going to tell you.
25
posted on
08/21/2007 4:56:28 AM PDT
by
N. Theknow
(Kennedys: Can't drive, can't fly, can't ski, can't skipper a boat; but they know what's best for us)
To: mockingbyrd; steadfastconservative
The disputed assertion:
to refuse intercourse to your married partner is a mortal sin, unless you have a serious reason.
This, of course, raises the question of what constitutes a "serious reason", and whether "serious reason" is consistent with St. Paul's command not to "defraud" each other.
St. Paul also talks about how the wife should submit to the husband and the husband should love his wife "as Christ loves the Church". Both are difficult commands, particularly in modern America.
IMO, looking at the whole passage, I'd suggest that the presumption should be in favor of "relations" if either party wants it, but that declining on the grounds of "not being up to it tonight" should not be cause for discord. (If either party is consistently, continuously "not up to it", the couple should ask "why?") OTOH, using sex as a weapon is very wrong.
26
posted on
08/21/2007 6:01:00 AM PDT
by
ArrogantBustard
(Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-26 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson