during a bookclub meeting last week i finally got to meet her. she is beautiful and smart and funny. and she doesn't pull punches. i like that.
we were talking about nfp and i thought i overheard her say something along the lines of how if our husband initiates itimacy we are bound to say "yes".
it was a crazy moment where many strong women were sitting in a circle at a starbuck's talking at the same time with music playing in the background so i emailed her to get through all the static of the evening.
this is a bit of my email. i had all these thoughts while brushing my teeth last night. the holy spirit picks interesting times...
we dont believe that. i can say "no" to him and it's not going against the catholic church's beliefs. when we come together it's a free union. it wouldn't be free if i was bound to say "yes" whenever he wanted.
the catholic church likens a bride and groom to Christ and the church. we have free will and that while we are human and flawed, our love isn't perfect- but it is ours to give, freely.
most protestants believe that "once saved always saved". meaning, if we "proclaim Jesus Christ as our lord and savior" that even if we backslide and live the rest of our lives in abject sin, we will inherit heaven.
i disagree with that as well.
bc that means- once i have become a "believer", that my free will is taken away. i am no longer free to say "no, you can take your 'salvation' and shove it. i don't want it anymore.". i think in order to give love freely, i should be able to walk away. I should be able to say "no".
3 comments:
I will reply, I will reply, I promise I will reply...
On that note, please find me a new nanny :/
Elizabeth,
I disagree with your understanding. I believe that the Catholic teaching is that either spouse is required to accept an invitation to have relations except for under a few select circumstances, and that this is based on 1 Corinthians 7:4 and the principle of justice (defined as giving what is owed).
This is a sermon that explains that the Catholic marriage contract (Canon law) is: “A man and a woman give and accept an exclusive and perpetual right for acts which are themselves suitable for the generation of children.” So, if that is the basic contract and one party declines those “rights” without suitable cause, then the contract is being violated.
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070520-Marriage-Rules-on-Marriage-Part-1.html
This sermon discusses the right to the marital debt (specifically starting at 14:40). To refuse a reasonable request for marital relations is a mortal sin against justice (because one party is denying what is owed to the other within the marriage contract) and a mortal sin against charity (because this denial against the spouse’s “closest neighbor” puts that person in danger of sin due to concupiscence). Relations must be refused when there is insufficient privacy and when one partner insists on cooperation with sinful actions; relations may be refused when the person requesting has committed adultery, when the one requesting is not in the right mind (e.g., drunk), when there is a real danger of miscarriage, when there is a grave danger of injuring the spouse (e.g., disease), and for up to six weeks after birth; questions should be referred to the confessional.
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070909-The-Marriage-Contract-Part-3.html
This is another good sermon (the priest gets to this specific point around 4:40).
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20040718-Holy-Matrimony-and-NFP.html
On a similar note, I just read an interesting letter to the editor in which the priest-writer did an analysis of Gaudiem et Spes, showing that it is a mistaken to interpret that the conjugal love was somehow raised to an equal or greater level than children as the two purposes of marriage. He shows that Gaudiem et Spes itself shows that conjugal love is the form of marriage, while the procreation and education of children is its end. (Homiletic and Pastoral Review, December 2009, pp. 6-7)
katherine, i think you bring up a point that i didn't go into. in my email to michelle i went into it.
i believe charity can and should be exercised by both parties. and within our marriage it is. i think it would be hard to live in a marriage where charity weren't practiced by both. i know people who have experienced both sides to this coin. one woman witholds marital relations as a sort of power struggle/control tool. and another woman's husband doesn't take her feelings into consideration at all. she could have the flu and he'd still be making the request.
it's tough- but i'm thankful that is one area of our marriage that there is no strife.
Post a Comment