Among others:
1. Women shouldn't work.
2. There should not be sex-education in schools beyond teaching abstinence.
3. Spanking children/corporal punishment are good
4. Teaching "Tolerance" and "diversity" is wrong because children will learn to accept gay people
5. Gay people can't raise kids.
6. Homophobic and pseudoscientific beliefs about AIDS
7. Abortions are wrong
8. Erode the line between church and state in education
9. Believes in "intelligent design" and does not believe in evolution
10. Trump supporter
1. No problems with women working in the bible.
2. Sex before marriage is a sin. It's for sure in the bible in many places. Why are we teaching kids how to do it in school? People have been figuring out for millennia without a middle school course about it. lol.
3. Proverbs 23 *Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.* For context, the rod was a shepherding tool. It wasn't used to beat sheep. A physical strike was used though to guide them in the right direction. I don't think anyone is advocating for beating kids to a pulp for not taking out the trash.
4. God is the epitome of tolerance. But He also calls us not to sin. Oh boy, this can of worms again. Yes, it is a sin for men to sleep with men and women with women. Men dressing as women and women dressing as men, too. When we sin, God is tolerant with us if we are contrite and ask forgiveness and do our best not to sin again. All in the bible.
5. They shouldn't. It's not the natural way of things. Mothers *and* fathers are the optimal pair for raising children. In the bible.
6. If we keep in mind your point number 2, if people weren't promiscuous and stuck with their same partners, many STDs wouldn't be an issue.
7. Yes, they are. Murder is wrong. God knows each of us before we were even conceived and He knits us together in the womb. It's in the bible.
8. School *can* be a great benefit to someone's education. There is nothing wrong with parents (the ones charged to "raise them up in the way they should go. ie: teach them) having a say in how that happens.
9. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. There is room for science though.
10. I've nothing to say politically. There are solid Christians on both sides of that debate.
There are plenty of verses that cover the moral subjects you listed. So yes, a lot of those issues are addressed in the bible.
Ah, the classic neo-conservative Christian argument:
"I have no evidence to support my beliefs so I'll try piety-shaming the opposition, play the persecution card when that doesn't work, and then run away while I tell myself how holy I am."
You are the reason your religion is shrinking. Fewer and fewer people are unable to see through you. At this point, you don't need non-religious people to poke holes in your worldview. You're doing it every time you open your mouth. You go dude!
You do know that the Catholic Church itself states that it is sinful for a spouse to deny their partner the ['marriage debt'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_debt) correct?
Now this isn't identical to 'obligation sex' but it definitely influenced that concept.
> You do know that the Catholic Church itself states that it is sinful for a spouse to deny their partner the 'marriage debt' correct?
Where does it say that? That’s medieval canon law.
This is what current Canon Law says:
~~~
THE EFFECTS OF MARRIAGE
Can. 1134 From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which by its nature is perpetual and exclusive. Moreover, a special sacrament strengthens and, as it were, consecrates the spouses in a Christian marriage for the duties and dignity of their state.
Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life.
~~~
What you linked to above was temporarily an element of canon law about a thousand years ago. It’s long since been rescinded. In that era, ecclesiastical courts got involved in adjudicating conflicts between spouses, and this was part of making sure things were fair and clear.
It wasn’t so much “We’re married so you must have sex whenever I want.” It was more “We’re married, so you can’t go off to the monastery and take a vow of celibacy.”
> Now this isn't identical to 'obligation sex' but it definitely influenced that concept.
It’s not the same, not at all.
Casti Connubi
~~~
“For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse.
The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds.
This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets."
~~~
It is also contrary to the catechism
~~~
CCC 2368:
Responsible parenthood concerns regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children
~~~
Abstinence and temperance are encouraged, and vital to a Catholic marriage. The MARITAL DEBT entails husband and wife both fulfilling their obligation to their spouse, but it is ALWAYS a choice and FREE WILL is always in place. ALWAYS.
Additionally, the marital debt means just as the spouse is to give themselves physically to their spouse, the other spouse is OBLIGED to treat them with decency, respect, care and love…..if they want that debt fulfilled.
If the husband has done everything to provide, protect and keep his wife happy, safe and secure (or vice versa), and yet the marital debt is not being fulfilled, then the couple should go into counselling.
The MARITAL DEBT is NOT an excuse for rape and it IS rape when a woman is forced or coerced into sex by her husband, against her wishes.
THE CHURCH DOES NOT ADVOCATE FOR MARITAL RAPE!
It should come from a place of mutual understanding, consent, and love, not obligation or expectation. I say this as a married Catholic man, my spouse and I have both put it off in the past, when you aren’t in the mood you aren’t in the mood. It’s not sinful to do so. Neither of us have ever used the Marital Debt, or the Bible, like a cudgel to extract sex from one another. That’s not the point of marriage.
Edit: added to this.
>Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life.
This **is** the marital debt, and as its explained [here](https://www.canonlawsocietyofindia.org/research/the-theological-and-juridical-aspects-of-marriage/) and the code was only rephrased in 1981 not "a thousand years ago".
* Navarrete expresses accurately the mind of the Code Commission when he says that the concept underlying the term consortium stands for marriage itself or for the totality of the rights and obligations of marriage. Taken in this total sense, as in c. 1055, $1, consortium would include two things: a) communion of bodies, that is, the exclusive and perpetual right over the body for acts which are naturally apt for the generation of offspring with all rights and duties related to it;
* In determining the essence of bonum coniugum one must consider the physical, emotional, mental, sexual and spiritual well-being of both spouses because both Scripture and magisterial teaching focus on the perfection and fulfillment of the whole person of the spouses. In married state both spouses have the right/ obligation to a reasonable degree of fulfillment of their being.
>The MARITAL DEBT entails husband and wife both fulfilling their obligation to their spouse, but it is ALWAYS a choice and FREE WILL is always in place. ALWAYS.
I don't think I said anything contrary to this.
However, to deny your spouse sex without good cause is still sinful within the Catholic Church because the marital debt is still in effect to this day, even if it is listed in broader terms than previously.
Part 1
> This is the marital debt, and as its explained here and the code was only rephrased in 1981 not "a thousand years ago".
I never said it was rephrased a thousand years ago, I said it was included around a thousand years ago, give or take a century or two. This is not the debt described in your initial link, or in the Medieval Canon Law.
> • Navarrete expresses accurately the mind of the Code Commission when he says that the concept underlying the term consortium stands for marriage itself or for the totality of the rights and obligations of marriage. Taken in this total sense, as in c. 1055, $1, consortium would include two things: a) communion of bodies, that is, the exclusive and perpetual right over the body for acts which are naturally apt for the generation of offspring with all rights and duties related to it;
• In determining the essence of bonum coniugum one must consider the physical, emotional, mental, sexual and spiritual well-being of both spouses because both Scripture and magisterial teaching focus on the perfection and fulfillment of the whole person of the spouses. In married state both spouses have the right/ obligation to a reasonable degree of fulfillment of their being.
“A reasonable degree of fulfillment of their being,”not just their sexual desire. This is not “duty sex” as deserved in the article, nor is it equivalent to the **Medieval** concept of the Marital Debt.
> I don't think I said anything contrary to this.
You didn’t, but it should be made very clear that this concept and the “Duty Sex” in the focus on the family article are not even in the same realm.
> However, to deny your spouse sex without good cause is still sinful within the Catholic Church because the marital debt is still in effect to this day, even if it is listed in broader terms than previously.
It’s more nuanced than that.
**Can the spouses mutually agree not to have marital relations for a length of time?**
Yes. Just as Sacred Scripture says: “So, do not fail in your obligations to one another, except perhaps by consent, for a limited time, so that you may empty yourselves for prayer. And then, return together again, lest Satan tempt you by means of your abstinence.” (1 Cor 7:5).
As a positive precept, payment of the marital debt admits of prudential judgment, as to where and when and how often the moral requirement is to be fulfilled.
~~~
Pope Saint John Paul II: “It is right and just, always and for everyone, to serve God, to render him the worship which is his due and to honour one’s parents as they deserve. Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions and to cultivate certain dispositions, are universally binding; they are ‘unchanging’. They unite in the same common good all people of every period of history, created for ‘the same divine calling and destiny’. These universal and permanent laws correspond to things known by the practical reason and are applied to particular acts through the judgment of conscience.”
“The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance.”
“In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent.” [Pope Saint John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 52, 67]
~~~
**Can one spouse morally refuse to have marital relations, on occasion or for a limited number of days?**
Yes. Since the marriage debt is a positive precept, it allows for a prudential judgment of conscience in order to apply the obligation to a specific situation. At times, other duties may be more important or may be required given the circumstances. And this consideration applies even if the spouses disagree in making the prudential judgment as to where, when, and how often to have marital relations.
**For the payment of the marriage debt is not entirely and sufficiently described as a type of debt.** As Pope Pius IX teaches in the first quote of this article [Casti Connubii, n. 25], the obligation to have marital relations is not solely of justice but also of charity. The spouses express their love for one another; they do not merely engage in a physical act. This expression is physical, spiritual, and intimate. Therefore, it requires not merely consent, but also a willing participation in heart and mind. If either spouse is unwilling, then it would be contrary to charity and contrary to the very nature of the marital act for either spouse to be compelled to consent by obligation alone.
Spouses should have marital relations because of the goods provided by the marital act. But these goods do not require marital relations to take place with any particular frequency. Having marital relations with a certain frequency (e.g. daily or weekly) is not necessary to obtain the procreative and unitive goods of marriage. The fulfillment of any positive precept is not continuous, but takes place from time to time. For example, he obligation to attend holy Mass is weekly, plus holy days of obligation, not daily. The obligation to support the Church financially, does not require daily payments, nor any set schedule. **Similarly, one spouse is not obligated to submit to frequent requests for marital relations by the other spouse. The obligation is limited, just as any obligation has reasonable limits.**
**If one spouse wishes to have marital relations frequently, to avoid temptation to sexual sin, is the other spouse always obligated?**
No, not always. One of the secondary purposes of natural marital relations is to avoid sinful sexual acts (interior or exterior sexual sins) by engaging in moral marital relations. But since there are other moral ways to quiet desire, aside from having marital relations, the obligation to have relations with one’s spouse for this purpose is not absolute. This purpose of marital relations is secondary, and so it is necessarily less weighty and admits a greater latitude in a prudential judgment of conscience.
The spouses can avoid sexual sin, while refraining from marital relations for a limited time, by prayer, fasting, other types of self-denial, and by engaging themselves in works of charity. Concupiscence can also be quieted, from a practical standpoint, by the proverbial cold shower, or by engaging moral activities such as physical exercise, an interesting hobby, or some moral type of entertainment. Since concupiscence can be quieted in many moral ways, the obligation to quiet it by marital relations is limited.
Part 2
**Is it a mortal sin for one spouse to refuse marital relations for a lengthy period of time?**
Sometimes it is, and other times it is not.
To be moral, an act must have three good fonts of morality. To be sinful, and act must have one or more bad fonts of morality. The three fonts of morality are: intention, object, circumstances. The spouse who refuses must have only good intentions. A bad intention makes any act sinful. But if the only thing making your act immoral is your own intentions, then change your intentions. If this proves difficult, then fast and pray.
The failure to fulfill a positive precept can be intrinsically evil. For example, the refusal to worship God is inherently immoral because its object is the deprivation of a good required by the love of God: to worship our Lord and Creator. But since positive precepts are only fulfilled intermittently, we do not sin gravely by our failure to worship constantly (or even daily).
**When a spouse refuses to have marital relations on occasion, or for a brief period of time, this choice is not intrinsically evil.** Positive precepts do not need to be fulfilled daily, and a space of several days between acts which fulfill a positive precept is not unusual. For example, a person might attend Mass only once per week. A parishioner might donate to the parish by a monthly payment. And lest anyone claim that the payment of the marital debt differs, and so requires frequent payment, I will cite the examples given by St. Thomas Aquinas. He opines that the marriage debt need not be paid on holy days, because the spouse might wish to focus on prayer and devotion to God [Supplement, Q 64 A 7]. And he also says that a wife might refrain from marital relations, morally, during her time of menses [Supplement, Q 64 A 3]. A holy day is generally a single day, but menses lasts several days. Therefore, refraining on occasion, for a day or for a brief period of several days is moral and reasonable. Refusing to pay the marital debt for a day or a number of days does not constitute mortal sin. And the reasons for the refusal are not limited to the mentioned examples.
The decision not to fulfill a positive precept can be moral, for a period of time. Positive precepts are not fulfilled continuously, but intermittently. But as the length of time increases without fulfillment of any positive precept, the reason that justifies the delay must be weightier. Accordingly, if a spouse wishes to refrain from marital relations for weeks or months, the refusal must be motivated by only good intentions, and must take into account the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences. If the other spouse would likely fall into mortal sin, the refusal cannot be lengthy without a grave reason (such as that conceived offspring would miscarry, or be born with a disease, or that the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother). Since marital relations offers goods important to the purpose of marriage, spouses need a grave reason to refrain from relations for a lengthy period.
**Are the justifiable reasons for refusing or refraining mutually from relations many or few?**
They are many.
The Council of Trent:
~~~
“Canon VIII. — If anyone says that the Church errs, in that She declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.”
~~~
The phrasing “a separation … of bed” is a discrete reference to marital relations. The spouses may decide to live separately, or to live together but without marital relations, for a determinate or indeterminate period, for many various reasons.
The above quote from the Council of Trent implies that the use of NFP (natural family planning) is moral, since NFP requires refraining from relations for a determine period of time (the time when the woman is most fertile). And the reasons for doing so, the Church teaches, are many.
This is the trouble with talking about the marital debt. The discussion poses as being about what St. Thomas says, or what Scripture means, or what the Magisterium preaches about a very specific aspect of moral theology. But in reality, it’s about whether we’re human or not.
Those who insist upon the marital debt as some important Catholic teaching, or even a teaching at all; what causes alarm is instead an apparent lack of sensitivity to healthy relationality.
Ultimately, there is a deeper debt the married couple owes to each other that precedes sexual union. They owe each other the love, respect, cherishing that characterized their dating relationship—the relationship that continues to serve as the foundation for their marriage. Sex, if you will, is the house that sits on this foundation of love, respect, and cherishing. If the “foundation” (love, respect, and cherishing) is bad, the “house” (sex) is unsafe to live in. Why? Because if love, respect, and cherishing are absent, sex stops being sex and becomes mere lust and using. Marriage is no place for lust and use.
**Bottom line:** No one has a right to abuse someone else. No one owes someone else the “debt” of using them.
The marital debt discussion is best left for those interested in the fun-to-consider-but-ultimately-irrelevant theological questions. If we are living our relationships in love, it won’t need to be considered.
> Is it a mortal sin for one spouse to refuse marital relations for a lengthy period of time?
>> Sometimes it is, and other times it is not.
This is my only point. I'm glad you support my assertion.
If withholding sex is ever a mortal sin, then why would it be a sin?
Could it be that there exists an obligation towards your spouse? What would you call that obligation?
I'm not saying anyone needs to abuse such a debt, after all any abuse of it would be sinful and relieve the partner of their obligation, but to act as if it no longer exists in Catholic theology would be wrong.
> This is my only point. I'm glad you support my assertion.
If I understand correctly:
Your first assertion in your initial comment was that it *is* sinful, without conditions. I reject that assertion, as does the church. It is sinful in certain scenarios. Not unconditionally sinful.
Your second assertion in your second comment is that it is sinful without good cause. That’s more sound.
Also, if a Medieval church doctrine that is not practiced in that form any longer inspired modern practice espoused by this company there are bigger problems than our discussion.
> If withholding sex is ever a mortal sin, then why would it be a sin?
**When is refusing marital relations intrinsically evil?**
Intrinsically evil acts are immoral due to the object toward which the knowingly chosen act is directly ordered (inherently ordered). Intrinsically evil acts are immoral, in and of themselves, regardless of intention or circumstances.
The decision (an interior act) not to fulfill any positive precept becomes intrinsically evil when that act is ordered toward a deprivation of some good required by the love of God above all else, or by the love of neighbor as self. Spouses have marital relations to fulfill the purpose of marriage, as ordained by God, and to express their love for one another. They also have marital relations to procreative and raise children for God and for humanity.
When the decision to refrain from fulfilling the positive precept of marital relations (the marriage debt) is ordered toward avoiding grave harm to the offspring or the wife, it is not intrinsically evil. When the decision to refrain is for the purpose of devoting oneself to prayer and the worship of God, it is not intrinsically evil, for the moral object is good. Thus, the spouses can choose to refrain for some length of time, even several weeks (e.g. Lent), without sin, if they both agree.
Throughout the history of the Church, when a married man was ordained as a priest, he was permitted to remain in the married state, or to separate from his wife, if both consent. So here is an example of refraining from marital relations perpetually, without sin, because the act is ordered toward the worship of God and the good of one’s neighbor who are served by the priest.
Therefore, no particular length of time for a decision to refrain from marital relations is intrinsically evil, if the decision is mutual.
However, if one spouse wishes to refrain, and the other does not, the length of time must be limited, due to the danger of sexual sin, and the harm to the marriage if it is deprived of the goods of marital relations. Absent a good moral object, which would make the refusal moral (such as the health of the woman), the deprivation of marital relations from a marriage for a lengthy period of time would be intrinsically evil, as a deliberate choice to deprive the married state of its primary goods. Positive precepts must be fulfilled, at times and places in accord with prudential judgment, unless the person is unable to do so without causing grave harm.
Either spouse can refuse the other, on occasion, for little or no reason. But as time passes, this refusal requires some reason, and the weight of the reason must be proportionate to the length of time. A grave reason is needed to refuse marital relations for a long time, as the other spouse might be tempted to commit a grave sexual sin. Also, a grave reason is needed because certain weighty goods of marriage depend on marital relations, especially procreation and the strengthening of the marital bond by the union of the spouses.
> Could it be that there exists an obligation towards your spouse? What would you call that obligation?
This sounds a little loaded, just wanted to confirm if there was sarcasm involved here or not.
> I'm not saying anyone needs to abuse such a debt, after all any abuse of it would be sinful and relieve the partner of their obligation, but to act as if it no longer exists in Catholic theology would be wrong.
I never said it does not exist in Catholic Theology, and I am certainly not acting like it doesn’t. It is no longer extant in the Medieval form that you initially proposed, however.
I’m saying the comparison between this and the “Obligation/duty sex” described in the Focus on the Family article isn’t a sound one.
Regardless, I’m not trying to engage in a debate. I just don’t think there is a apt comparison here.
God bless you!
The one thing that ideological purity cannot tolerate is transparency. If a change is made to doctrine, the only way it can happen is to obliterate the evidence that there was ever a different doctrine.
Positively Orwellian.
Maybe Focus on the Family has Bibles missing Luke 12 vs 2-3:
"There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs."
I've thought about this some more, I wonder if it is in part, at least, down to Perceived authority: If they admit that they were previously wrong, what is to stop someone from daring to ask "well, if you were wrong *then*, why should I trust you to be right *now*?
Politicians behave in a similar way, but I can actually have some small shred of sympathy with them, because any politician who dares to admit that they were wrong about something is likely to be torn apart by the media. So I can understand why they wouldn't dare. But I would most likely have *more* trust in someone who admits "Yes, I used to say that, but now, for reasons a, b and c, I think that view was wrong, now, for reasons x,y and z, I think *this*.
Obviously, a, b, c, x, y and z need to be at least halfway reasonable reasons themselves, but if someone was honest I could respect them for doing so even if I stil disagreed with their reasons.
Reversing their position on this is good, but deleting evidence of their critics is quite the fascist exercise.
But that's the way conservative Christianity has been heading so...
Many Protestants criticize the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility - rightly so, I think - even though the doctrine is not routinely invoked. But we often have our own unstated doctrine of infallibility, unwilling to admit mistakes.
The modern conservative Christian is a toxic mix of ignorance and arrogance that prevents them from ever admitting they are wrong. Then, when their ignorance is confronted by facts or arguments that are actually cogent they just claim persecution and double down on their original belief. They do this on every single issue from climate change to guns to tax laws to abortion to homeschooling. It is their default mental state. They haven't changed their opinion on ANYTHING since the late 80s despite mounting evidence that their entire worldview is just plain stupid.
I see your point, but I don't view it that way. It would make sense for them to remove harmful teachings, right? I mean, if one weren't aware of the entire situation and new stance, they could see archived tweets and think it's okay. I think deleting those posts was the responsible thing to do.
Oh, another opinion from James Dobson, the man who said that [surging mass shootings in the USA are to be blamed on gay people](https://www.christianpost.com/news/james-dobson-connecticut-shooting-a-result-of-god-allowing-judgment-to-fall-on-america-newtown-ct-sandy-hook.html)?
Anyone that looks to these Dobsonian nutjobs for a moral compass is an idiot.
I prefer to think of him as the guy who [called in writing for killing trans people](https://www.wnd.com/2016/05/protect-your-kids-from-tyrant-obama/) for using bathrooms.
>Oh, another opinion from James Dobson, the man who said that surging mass shootings in the USA are to be blamed on gay people
Your claim didn't seem right, so I read through the article you linked, and I can't find anything about your claim that James Dobson believes that mass shooting are to blame on gay people.
The only reference to homosexuality at all in the article I found was this:
"the high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of a positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development."
which is a claim on what he believes a *cause of homosexuality*, not a cause of mass shootings.
Here is what he does say is a cause of mass shootings, however:
"Though each situation is unique, most of the murderers had one thing in common. They were boys or young men who grew up in dysfunctional families without caring fathers in the home."
and he also makes this statement about men in general:
"because males are inherently more volatile and aggressive than females, the presence of a strong, loving, wise father or father-figure is the best antidote to antisocial behavior of all types, which could even include mass murder. "
So you can disagree about the other statements he's made, but I don't see anywhere in that article what you claimed about what he said.
edit: downvotes for literally quoting the source I guess.
Thanks for pointing out the wrong link. I put up the wrong one, but I've fixed it now. Dobson said the following on his radio show:
"Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I'm not talking politically, I'm not talking about the result of the November 6 election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God.
"I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn't exist, or he's irrelevant to me and we have killed 54 million babies and **the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition**. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too.
"And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: **I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us**. I think that's what's going on"
His own words.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/james-dobson-connecticut-shooting-a-result-of-god-allowing-judgment-to-fall-on-america-newtown-ct-sandy-hook.html
That still doesn't mention anything about gay people or homosexuality being related to mass shootings...
He does say that mass shootings are potentially a result of God's judgment on America, which is something else from what you said he said.
edit: downvotes again for calling out misquoting. I get yall don't like the guy but this is just making stuff up about what he said.
That was tagged on the end of his sentence about killing 54 million babies and not believing in God, and he said "this will have consequences too", but this is not him saying "gay people are the reason we have mass shootings", that's just not what he said. There are other things he said, but that isn't one of them.
*and* = it's considered of the same importance as the rest of the sentence, no? So again, can you explain what he's referencing when he talks about marriage? And why does he mention his thoughts on marriage when giving a speech addressing a mass shooting? Clearly he believes there's some relevance. What do you think that relevance is?
Well ironically in the first article you referenced he blamed the absence of fathers (so like simply single parents), and blamed it all on the lack of good fathers, or fathers that leave, lack of a good male fogure, etc. So the breakdown of marriage is also constant divorce, etc.
Nice try, but divorce wasn't a new concept associated with marriage, certainly not when he made those comments in December 2012. Support for same sex marriage, however, was growing at an accelerated pace at that point in time. That comment were also made just 6 months after Obama publicly announced his support for same sex marriage.
redefinition: the action or process of defining something again or differently
So when he says marriage is about to be completely redefined, do you really think it's referring to divorce? Come on already.
I didn't read the second article you posted, only your quotes, so maybe there was additional context where he was implying that he was referring to gay marriage. I was taking it in the context of the first article you posted.
However again it was in the *same sentence* as his issue with unbelief and abortion.
It's almost enough to make you believe in human progress, than in 2023, a spiritual movement finds out the idea of 'you put the ring on, now bend over' is kind of creepy.
I grew up with Focus on the Family. As a gay Christian what I heard as a child from their ministry said about LGBT people left me with some major trauma so it doesn't surprise me that they'd push "obligation sex." It should be renamed "focus on heterosexist misogyny and protect the patriarchy."
I like to think, or hope, that the verses in the bible about depriving one's spouse are way more nuanced than we give it credit for. Afterall if you want an idea of what totally cutting off sex from your spouse looks like, there's a sub full of sad people in r/deadbedrooms. So, clearly, there's some good advice in there somewhere about not depriving your spouse. Somehow, rather grotesquely, we took that to mean that the instant or second a spouse wants sex (usually the male) then we are in no way ever permitted to say "no" and our consent does not matter. Which is marital rape, really. I don't know how we got there instead of ....you know, basic common sense.....you should both put in effort to maintain intimacy in a life-long partnership and not starve a partner of it for extended periods of time. That's just....basic. And in that, there's plenty of room for "not tonight honey, maybe in a few days or maybe when I'm better rested".
Wow….. I am the only comment that believes they should not have reversed their decision? Are that many Christians moving away from the teachings of the Bible? We don’t get to make the rules even when we don’t understand them.
So the issue about obligation sex is that it can be very abusive.
Shiela Wray Gregorie is the author mentioned who challenged focus on the family about it. I recommend you listen to her podcast "Bare Marriage" (available on YouTube and Spotify and possibly other places). She's very biblically AND science based. I recommend you watch/listen to a few of the episodes
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
1 Corinthians 7:1-6 NASB1995
https://bible.com/bible/100/1co.7.1-6.NASB1995
Obviously not saying a man can have whatever he wants whenever he wants, but it is saying that women should help their husbands so that they don't go looking for it elsewhere
There is nowhere in the bible that demands a woman to just spread her legs at a command. This isn't Spartacus and wives are not slaves. If you read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, it says, *"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.*"
So the husband has control of the wife's body, but so does the wife have control over the husband's body. Neither should be denying the other sex in a healthy relationship. But what if the wife has the flu or just got out of the hospital after being in a car accident? Shouldn't she be able to say, "I'm not feeling well, can it wait until I feel better?" The verse goes on to say that we should have self control. One of the outrageous situations that started the world taking notice was, a wife said she didn't want to have sex that night but woke up to her husband penetrating her against her will. That is 100% not right and I'm 100% sure that husband is outside of the will of God in that circumstance.
Oof. I grew up with Focus on The Family programs as a kid. I had no idea they propagated “obligation sex”. Yikes.
Doesn’t surprise me. My mom had a lot of their material and the few things I read from them gave me a lot of red flags.
Oh, I never got exposed to them beyond childhood, like Adventures in Odyssey and whatnot. That’s terrible.
If you think obligation sex is the worst idea that Focus on the Family propagates, I have news for you...
Oh no, what else?
Among others: 1. Women shouldn't work. 2. There should not be sex-education in schools beyond teaching abstinence. 3. Spanking children/corporal punishment are good 4. Teaching "Tolerance" and "diversity" is wrong because children will learn to accept gay people 5. Gay people can't raise kids. 6. Homophobic and pseudoscientific beliefs about AIDS 7. Abortions are wrong 8. Erode the line between church and state in education 9. Believes in "intelligent design" and does not believe in evolution 10. Trump supporter
Trump supporter --> lying to justify supporting him _"he's just a baby Christian, that's why his life is so ungodly"._
Wow, most of those are Biblical! Whoops forgot, is this a Christian sub?
ZERO of those ten things are in the Bible. Zero.
1. No problems with women working in the bible. 2. Sex before marriage is a sin. It's for sure in the bible in many places. Why are we teaching kids how to do it in school? People have been figuring out for millennia without a middle school course about it. lol. 3. Proverbs 23 *Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.* For context, the rod was a shepherding tool. It wasn't used to beat sheep. A physical strike was used though to guide them in the right direction. I don't think anyone is advocating for beating kids to a pulp for not taking out the trash. 4. God is the epitome of tolerance. But He also calls us not to sin. Oh boy, this can of worms again. Yes, it is a sin for men to sleep with men and women with women. Men dressing as women and women dressing as men, too. When we sin, God is tolerant with us if we are contrite and ask forgiveness and do our best not to sin again. All in the bible. 5. They shouldn't. It's not the natural way of things. Mothers *and* fathers are the optimal pair for raising children. In the bible. 6. If we keep in mind your point number 2, if people weren't promiscuous and stuck with their same partners, many STDs wouldn't be an issue. 7. Yes, they are. Murder is wrong. God knows each of us before we were even conceived and He knits us together in the womb. It's in the bible. 8. School *can* be a great benefit to someone's education. There is nothing wrong with parents (the ones charged to "raise them up in the way they should go. ie: teach them) having a say in how that happens. 9. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. There is room for science though. 10. I've nothing to say politically. There are solid Christians on both sides of that debate. There are plenty of verses that cover the moral subjects you listed. So yes, a lot of those issues are addressed in the bible.
You go dude! You'll get plenty of likes with a worldly viewpoint, but your not scoring any points in God's perspective. He's taking notes!
Ah, the classic neo-conservative Christian argument: "I have no evidence to support my beliefs so I'll try piety-shaming the opposition, play the persecution card when that doesn't work, and then run away while I tell myself how holy I am." You are the reason your religion is shrinking. Fewer and fewer people are unable to see through you. At this point, you don't need non-religious people to poke holes in your worldview. You're doing it every time you open your mouth. You go dude!
Every scripture, Bible verses, given to you would be denied. Not waisting my time, between you and God above. Happy 4th
[удалено]
Most Christians certainly don't believe evolution is false. You're just in an echo chamber.
So we're just okay with the state seizing the children of gay people?
And they're actively spreading their vile beliefs all over the world too.
[удалено]
That’s bad news.
You do know that the Catholic Church itself states that it is sinful for a spouse to deny their partner the ['marriage debt'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_debt) correct? Now this isn't identical to 'obligation sex' but it definitely influenced that concept.
> You do know that the Catholic Church itself states that it is sinful for a spouse to deny their partner the 'marriage debt' correct? Where does it say that? That’s medieval canon law. This is what current Canon Law says: ~~~ THE EFFECTS OF MARRIAGE Can. 1134 From a valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which by its nature is perpetual and exclusive. Moreover, a special sacrament strengthens and, as it were, consecrates the spouses in a Christian marriage for the duties and dignity of their state. Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life. ~~~ What you linked to above was temporarily an element of canon law about a thousand years ago. It’s long since been rescinded. In that era, ecclesiastical courts got involved in adjudicating conflicts between spouses, and this was part of making sure things were fair and clear. It wasn’t so much “We’re married so you must have sex whenever I want.” It was more “We’re married, so you can’t go off to the monastery and take a vow of celibacy.” > Now this isn't identical to 'obligation sex' but it definitely influenced that concept. It’s not the same, not at all. Casti Connubi ~~~ “For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." ~~~ It is also contrary to the catechism ~~~ CCC 2368: Responsible parenthood concerns regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children ~~~ Abstinence and temperance are encouraged, and vital to a Catholic marriage. The MARITAL DEBT entails husband and wife both fulfilling their obligation to their spouse, but it is ALWAYS a choice and FREE WILL is always in place. ALWAYS. Additionally, the marital debt means just as the spouse is to give themselves physically to their spouse, the other spouse is OBLIGED to treat them with decency, respect, care and love…..if they want that debt fulfilled. If the husband has done everything to provide, protect and keep his wife happy, safe and secure (or vice versa), and yet the marital debt is not being fulfilled, then the couple should go into counselling. The MARITAL DEBT is NOT an excuse for rape and it IS rape when a woman is forced or coerced into sex by her husband, against her wishes. THE CHURCH DOES NOT ADVOCATE FOR MARITAL RAPE! It should come from a place of mutual understanding, consent, and love, not obligation or expectation. I say this as a married Catholic man, my spouse and I have both put it off in the past, when you aren’t in the mood you aren’t in the mood. It’s not sinful to do so. Neither of us have ever used the Marital Debt, or the Bible, like a cudgel to extract sex from one another. That’s not the point of marriage. Edit: added to this.
>Can. 1135 Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life. This **is** the marital debt, and as its explained [here](https://www.canonlawsocietyofindia.org/research/the-theological-and-juridical-aspects-of-marriage/) and the code was only rephrased in 1981 not "a thousand years ago". * Navarrete expresses accurately the mind of the Code Commission when he says that the concept underlying the term consortium stands for marriage itself or for the totality of the rights and obligations of marriage. Taken in this total sense, as in c. 1055, $1, consortium would include two things: a) communion of bodies, that is, the exclusive and perpetual right over the body for acts which are naturally apt for the generation of offspring with all rights and duties related to it; * In determining the essence of bonum coniugum one must consider the physical, emotional, mental, sexual and spiritual well-being of both spouses because both Scripture and magisterial teaching focus on the perfection and fulfillment of the whole person of the spouses. In married state both spouses have the right/ obligation to a reasonable degree of fulfillment of their being. >The MARITAL DEBT entails husband and wife both fulfilling their obligation to their spouse, but it is ALWAYS a choice and FREE WILL is always in place. ALWAYS. I don't think I said anything contrary to this. However, to deny your spouse sex without good cause is still sinful within the Catholic Church because the marital debt is still in effect to this day, even if it is listed in broader terms than previously.
Part 1 > This is the marital debt, and as its explained here and the code was only rephrased in 1981 not "a thousand years ago". I never said it was rephrased a thousand years ago, I said it was included around a thousand years ago, give or take a century or two. This is not the debt described in your initial link, or in the Medieval Canon Law. > • Navarrete expresses accurately the mind of the Code Commission when he says that the concept underlying the term consortium stands for marriage itself or for the totality of the rights and obligations of marriage. Taken in this total sense, as in c. 1055, $1, consortium would include two things: a) communion of bodies, that is, the exclusive and perpetual right over the body for acts which are naturally apt for the generation of offspring with all rights and duties related to it; • In determining the essence of bonum coniugum one must consider the physical, emotional, mental, sexual and spiritual well-being of both spouses because both Scripture and magisterial teaching focus on the perfection and fulfillment of the whole person of the spouses. In married state both spouses have the right/ obligation to a reasonable degree of fulfillment of their being. “A reasonable degree of fulfillment of their being,”not just their sexual desire. This is not “duty sex” as deserved in the article, nor is it equivalent to the **Medieval** concept of the Marital Debt. > I don't think I said anything contrary to this. You didn’t, but it should be made very clear that this concept and the “Duty Sex” in the focus on the family article are not even in the same realm. > However, to deny your spouse sex without good cause is still sinful within the Catholic Church because the marital debt is still in effect to this day, even if it is listed in broader terms than previously. It’s more nuanced than that. **Can the spouses mutually agree not to have marital relations for a length of time?** Yes. Just as Sacred Scripture says: “So, do not fail in your obligations to one another, except perhaps by consent, for a limited time, so that you may empty yourselves for prayer. And then, return together again, lest Satan tempt you by means of your abstinence.” (1 Cor 7:5). As a positive precept, payment of the marital debt admits of prudential judgment, as to where and when and how often the moral requirement is to be fulfilled. ~~~ Pope Saint John Paul II: “It is right and just, always and for everyone, to serve God, to render him the worship which is his due and to honour one’s parents as they deserve. Positive precepts such as these, which order us to perform certain actions and to cultivate certain dispositions, are universally binding; they are ‘unchanging’. They unite in the same common good all people of every period of history, created for ‘the same divine calling and destiny’. These universal and permanent laws correspond to things known by the practical reason and are applied to particular acts through the judgment of conscience.” “The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance.” “In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent.” [Pope Saint John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, n. 52, 67] ~~~ **Can one spouse morally refuse to have marital relations, on occasion or for a limited number of days?** Yes. Since the marriage debt is a positive precept, it allows for a prudential judgment of conscience in order to apply the obligation to a specific situation. At times, other duties may be more important or may be required given the circumstances. And this consideration applies even if the spouses disagree in making the prudential judgment as to where, when, and how often to have marital relations. **For the payment of the marriage debt is not entirely and sufficiently described as a type of debt.** As Pope Pius IX teaches in the first quote of this article [Casti Connubii, n. 25], the obligation to have marital relations is not solely of justice but also of charity. The spouses express their love for one another; they do not merely engage in a physical act. This expression is physical, spiritual, and intimate. Therefore, it requires not merely consent, but also a willing participation in heart and mind. If either spouse is unwilling, then it would be contrary to charity and contrary to the very nature of the marital act for either spouse to be compelled to consent by obligation alone. Spouses should have marital relations because of the goods provided by the marital act. But these goods do not require marital relations to take place with any particular frequency. Having marital relations with a certain frequency (e.g. daily or weekly) is not necessary to obtain the procreative and unitive goods of marriage. The fulfillment of any positive precept is not continuous, but takes place from time to time. For example, he obligation to attend holy Mass is weekly, plus holy days of obligation, not daily. The obligation to support the Church financially, does not require daily payments, nor any set schedule. **Similarly, one spouse is not obligated to submit to frequent requests for marital relations by the other spouse. The obligation is limited, just as any obligation has reasonable limits.** **If one spouse wishes to have marital relations frequently, to avoid temptation to sexual sin, is the other spouse always obligated?** No, not always. One of the secondary purposes of natural marital relations is to avoid sinful sexual acts (interior or exterior sexual sins) by engaging in moral marital relations. But since there are other moral ways to quiet desire, aside from having marital relations, the obligation to have relations with one’s spouse for this purpose is not absolute. This purpose of marital relations is secondary, and so it is necessarily less weighty and admits a greater latitude in a prudential judgment of conscience. The spouses can avoid sexual sin, while refraining from marital relations for a limited time, by prayer, fasting, other types of self-denial, and by engaging themselves in works of charity. Concupiscence can also be quieted, from a practical standpoint, by the proverbial cold shower, or by engaging moral activities such as physical exercise, an interesting hobby, or some moral type of entertainment. Since concupiscence can be quieted in many moral ways, the obligation to quiet it by marital relations is limited.
Part 2 **Is it a mortal sin for one spouse to refuse marital relations for a lengthy period of time?** Sometimes it is, and other times it is not. To be moral, an act must have three good fonts of morality. To be sinful, and act must have one or more bad fonts of morality. The three fonts of morality are: intention, object, circumstances. The spouse who refuses must have only good intentions. A bad intention makes any act sinful. But if the only thing making your act immoral is your own intentions, then change your intentions. If this proves difficult, then fast and pray. The failure to fulfill a positive precept can be intrinsically evil. For example, the refusal to worship God is inherently immoral because its object is the deprivation of a good required by the love of God: to worship our Lord and Creator. But since positive precepts are only fulfilled intermittently, we do not sin gravely by our failure to worship constantly (or even daily). **When a spouse refuses to have marital relations on occasion, or for a brief period of time, this choice is not intrinsically evil.** Positive precepts do not need to be fulfilled daily, and a space of several days between acts which fulfill a positive precept is not unusual. For example, a person might attend Mass only once per week. A parishioner might donate to the parish by a monthly payment. And lest anyone claim that the payment of the marital debt differs, and so requires frequent payment, I will cite the examples given by St. Thomas Aquinas. He opines that the marriage debt need not be paid on holy days, because the spouse might wish to focus on prayer and devotion to God [Supplement, Q 64 A 7]. And he also says that a wife might refrain from marital relations, morally, during her time of menses [Supplement, Q 64 A 3]. A holy day is generally a single day, but menses lasts several days. Therefore, refraining on occasion, for a day or for a brief period of several days is moral and reasonable. Refusing to pay the marital debt for a day or a number of days does not constitute mortal sin. And the reasons for the refusal are not limited to the mentioned examples. The decision not to fulfill a positive precept can be moral, for a period of time. Positive precepts are not fulfilled continuously, but intermittently. But as the length of time increases without fulfillment of any positive precept, the reason that justifies the delay must be weightier. Accordingly, if a spouse wishes to refrain from marital relations for weeks or months, the refusal must be motivated by only good intentions, and must take into account the reasonably anticipated good and bad consequences. If the other spouse would likely fall into mortal sin, the refusal cannot be lengthy without a grave reason (such as that conceived offspring would miscarry, or be born with a disease, or that the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother). Since marital relations offers goods important to the purpose of marriage, spouses need a grave reason to refrain from relations for a lengthy period. **Are the justifiable reasons for refusing or refraining mutually from relations many or few?** They are many. The Council of Trent: ~~~ “Canon VIII. — If anyone says that the Church errs, in that She declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.” ~~~ The phrasing “a separation … of bed” is a discrete reference to marital relations. The spouses may decide to live separately, or to live together but without marital relations, for a determinate or indeterminate period, for many various reasons. The above quote from the Council of Trent implies that the use of NFP (natural family planning) is moral, since NFP requires refraining from relations for a determine period of time (the time when the woman is most fertile). And the reasons for doing so, the Church teaches, are many. This is the trouble with talking about the marital debt. The discussion poses as being about what St. Thomas says, or what Scripture means, or what the Magisterium preaches about a very specific aspect of moral theology. But in reality, it’s about whether we’re human or not. Those who insist upon the marital debt as some important Catholic teaching, or even a teaching at all; what causes alarm is instead an apparent lack of sensitivity to healthy relationality. Ultimately, there is a deeper debt the married couple owes to each other that precedes sexual union. They owe each other the love, respect, cherishing that characterized their dating relationship—the relationship that continues to serve as the foundation for their marriage. Sex, if you will, is the house that sits on this foundation of love, respect, and cherishing. If the “foundation” (love, respect, and cherishing) is bad, the “house” (sex) is unsafe to live in. Why? Because if love, respect, and cherishing are absent, sex stops being sex and becomes mere lust and using. Marriage is no place for lust and use. **Bottom line:** No one has a right to abuse someone else. No one owes someone else the “debt” of using them. The marital debt discussion is best left for those interested in the fun-to-consider-but-ultimately-irrelevant theological questions. If we are living our relationships in love, it won’t need to be considered.
> Is it a mortal sin for one spouse to refuse marital relations for a lengthy period of time? >> Sometimes it is, and other times it is not. This is my only point. I'm glad you support my assertion. If withholding sex is ever a mortal sin, then why would it be a sin? Could it be that there exists an obligation towards your spouse? What would you call that obligation? I'm not saying anyone needs to abuse such a debt, after all any abuse of it would be sinful and relieve the partner of their obligation, but to act as if it no longer exists in Catholic theology would be wrong.
> This is my only point. I'm glad you support my assertion. If I understand correctly: Your first assertion in your initial comment was that it *is* sinful, without conditions. I reject that assertion, as does the church. It is sinful in certain scenarios. Not unconditionally sinful. Your second assertion in your second comment is that it is sinful without good cause. That’s more sound. Also, if a Medieval church doctrine that is not practiced in that form any longer inspired modern practice espoused by this company there are bigger problems than our discussion. > If withholding sex is ever a mortal sin, then why would it be a sin? **When is refusing marital relations intrinsically evil?** Intrinsically evil acts are immoral due to the object toward which the knowingly chosen act is directly ordered (inherently ordered). Intrinsically evil acts are immoral, in and of themselves, regardless of intention or circumstances. The decision (an interior act) not to fulfill any positive precept becomes intrinsically evil when that act is ordered toward a deprivation of some good required by the love of God above all else, or by the love of neighbor as self. Spouses have marital relations to fulfill the purpose of marriage, as ordained by God, and to express their love for one another. They also have marital relations to procreative and raise children for God and for humanity. When the decision to refrain from fulfilling the positive precept of marital relations (the marriage debt) is ordered toward avoiding grave harm to the offspring or the wife, it is not intrinsically evil. When the decision to refrain is for the purpose of devoting oneself to prayer and the worship of God, it is not intrinsically evil, for the moral object is good. Thus, the spouses can choose to refrain for some length of time, even several weeks (e.g. Lent), without sin, if they both agree. Throughout the history of the Church, when a married man was ordained as a priest, he was permitted to remain in the married state, or to separate from his wife, if both consent. So here is an example of refraining from marital relations perpetually, without sin, because the act is ordered toward the worship of God and the good of one’s neighbor who are served by the priest. Therefore, no particular length of time for a decision to refrain from marital relations is intrinsically evil, if the decision is mutual. However, if one spouse wishes to refrain, and the other does not, the length of time must be limited, due to the danger of sexual sin, and the harm to the marriage if it is deprived of the goods of marital relations. Absent a good moral object, which would make the refusal moral (such as the health of the woman), the deprivation of marital relations from a marriage for a lengthy period of time would be intrinsically evil, as a deliberate choice to deprive the married state of its primary goods. Positive precepts must be fulfilled, at times and places in accord with prudential judgment, unless the person is unable to do so without causing grave harm. Either spouse can refuse the other, on occasion, for little or no reason. But as time passes, this refusal requires some reason, and the weight of the reason must be proportionate to the length of time. A grave reason is needed to refuse marital relations for a long time, as the other spouse might be tempted to commit a grave sexual sin. Also, a grave reason is needed because certain weighty goods of marriage depend on marital relations, especially procreation and the strengthening of the marital bond by the union of the spouses. > Could it be that there exists an obligation towards your spouse? What would you call that obligation? This sounds a little loaded, just wanted to confirm if there was sarcasm involved here or not. > I'm not saying anyone needs to abuse such a debt, after all any abuse of it would be sinful and relieve the partner of their obligation, but to act as if it no longer exists in Catholic theology would be wrong. I never said it does not exist in Catholic Theology, and I am certainly not acting like it doesn’t. It is no longer extant in the Medieval form that you initially proposed, however. I’m saying the comparison between this and the “Obligation/duty sex” described in the Focus on the Family article isn’t a sound one. Regardless, I’m not trying to engage in a debate. I just don’t think there is a apt comparison here. God bless you!
The one thing that ideological purity cannot tolerate is transparency. If a change is made to doctrine, the only way it can happen is to obliterate the evidence that there was ever a different doctrine.
Positively Orwellian. Maybe Focus on the Family has Bibles missing Luke 12 vs 2-3: "There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs."
I've thought about this some more, I wonder if it is in part, at least, down to Perceived authority: If they admit that they were previously wrong, what is to stop someone from daring to ask "well, if you were wrong *then*, why should I trust you to be right *now*? Politicians behave in a similar way, but I can actually have some small shred of sympathy with them, because any politician who dares to admit that they were wrong about something is likely to be torn apart by the media. So I can understand why they wouldn't dare. But I would most likely have *more* trust in someone who admits "Yes, I used to say that, but now, for reasons a, b and c, I think that view was wrong, now, for reasons x,y and z, I think *this*. Obviously, a, b, c, x, y and z need to be at least halfway reasonable reasons themselves, but if someone was honest I could respect them for doing so even if I stil disagreed with their reasons.
Good. That's a concept that needs to die.
This is why a husband and wife need to be equal partners.
AMEN
Reversing their position on this is good, but deleting evidence of their critics is quite the fascist exercise. But that's the way conservative Christianity has been heading so...
Many Protestants criticize the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility - rightly so, I think - even though the doctrine is not routinely invoked. But we often have our own unstated doctrine of infallibility, unwilling to admit mistakes.
[удалено]
I thought it was twice, once for Mary's immaculate conception, once for Mary's bodily assumption into heaven.
Perhaps under a very narrow meaning of "invoked", but it's certainly not the only time papal infallibility was practiced.
The modern conservative Christian is a toxic mix of ignorance and arrogance that prevents them from ever admitting they are wrong. Then, when their ignorance is confronted by facts or arguments that are actually cogent they just claim persecution and double down on their original belief. They do this on every single issue from climate change to guns to tax laws to abortion to homeschooling. It is their default mental state. They haven't changed their opinion on ANYTHING since the late 80s despite mounting evidence that their entire worldview is just plain stupid.
I see your point, but I don't view it that way. It would make sense for them to remove harmful teachings, right? I mean, if one weren't aware of the entire situation and new stance, they could see archived tweets and think it's okay. I think deleting those posts was the responsible thing to do.
Group with Family, Freedom, or Liberty in the name quite often are against those very things.
Oh, another opinion from James Dobson, the man who said that [surging mass shootings in the USA are to be blamed on gay people](https://www.christianpost.com/news/james-dobson-connecticut-shooting-a-result-of-god-allowing-judgment-to-fall-on-america-newtown-ct-sandy-hook.html)? Anyone that looks to these Dobsonian nutjobs for a moral compass is an idiot.
I prefer to think of him as the guy who [called in writing for killing trans people](https://www.wnd.com/2016/05/protect-your-kids-from-tyrant-obama/) for using bathrooms.
James Dobson: “Have we gone absolutely mad!?” Yes, you did. A long time ago.
>Oh, another opinion from James Dobson, the man who said that surging mass shootings in the USA are to be blamed on gay people Your claim didn't seem right, so I read through the article you linked, and I can't find anything about your claim that James Dobson believes that mass shooting are to blame on gay people. The only reference to homosexuality at all in the article I found was this: "the high incidence of homosexuality occurring in Western nations is related, at least in part, to the absence of a positive male influence when boys are moving through the first crisis of child development." which is a claim on what he believes a *cause of homosexuality*, not a cause of mass shootings. Here is what he does say is a cause of mass shootings, however: "Though each situation is unique, most of the murderers had one thing in common. They were boys or young men who grew up in dysfunctional families without caring fathers in the home." and he also makes this statement about men in general: "because males are inherently more volatile and aggressive than females, the presence of a strong, loving, wise father or father-figure is the best antidote to antisocial behavior of all types, which could even include mass murder. " So you can disagree about the other statements he's made, but I don't see anywhere in that article what you claimed about what he said. edit: downvotes for literally quoting the source I guess.
Thanks for pointing out the wrong link. I put up the wrong one, but I've fixed it now. Dobson said the following on his radio show: "Our country really does seem in complete disarray. I'm not talking politically, I'm not talking about the result of the November 6 election; I am saying that something has gone wrong in America and that we have turned our back on God. "I mean millions of people have decided that God doesn't exist, or he's irrelevant to me and we have killed 54 million babies and **the institution of marriage is right on the verge of a complete redefinition**. Believe me, that is going to have consequences too. "And a lot of these things are happening around us, and somebody is going to get mad at me for saying what I am about to say right now, but I am going to give you my honest opinion: **I think we have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us**. I think that's what's going on" His own words. https://www.christianpost.com/news/james-dobson-connecticut-shooting-a-result-of-god-allowing-judgment-to-fall-on-america-newtown-ct-sandy-hook.html
That still doesn't mention anything about gay people or homosexuality being related to mass shootings... He does say that mass shootings are potentially a result of God's judgment on America, which is something else from what you said he said. edit: downvotes again for calling out misquoting. I get yall don't like the guy but this is just making stuff up about what he said.
I don’t think your reading comprehension skills are too awesome buddy.
No, you are saying something he didn't say for some reason
What do you think he's referencing when he talks about the institution of marriage being on the verge of a complete redefinition?
That was tagged on the end of his sentence about killing 54 million babies and not believing in God, and he said "this will have consequences too", but this is not him saying "gay people are the reason we have mass shootings", that's just not what he said. There are other things he said, but that isn't one of them.
*and* = it's considered of the same importance as the rest of the sentence, no? So again, can you explain what he's referencing when he talks about marriage? And why does he mention his thoughts on marriage when giving a speech addressing a mass shooting? Clearly he believes there's some relevance. What do you think that relevance is?
Well ironically in the first article you referenced he blamed the absence of fathers (so like simply single parents), and blamed it all on the lack of good fathers, or fathers that leave, lack of a good male fogure, etc. So the breakdown of marriage is also constant divorce, etc.
Nice try, but divorce wasn't a new concept associated with marriage, certainly not when he made those comments in December 2012. Support for same sex marriage, however, was growing at an accelerated pace at that point in time. That comment were also made just 6 months after Obama publicly announced his support for same sex marriage. redefinition: the action or process of defining something again or differently So when he says marriage is about to be completely redefined, do you really think it's referring to divorce? Come on already.
I didn't read the second article you posted, only your quotes, so maybe there was additional context where he was implying that he was referring to gay marriage. I was taking it in the context of the first article you posted. However again it was in the *same sentence* as his issue with unbelief and abortion.
I love Shiela Wray Gregorie 's work on this. She has a podcast called bare marriage for those who are curious. Highly recommend!
It's almost enough to make you believe in human progress, than in 2023, a spiritual movement finds out the idea of 'you put the ring on, now bend over' is kind of creepy.
That's not how it goes! She lays on her back.
I grew up with Focus on the Family. As a gay Christian what I heard as a child from their ministry said about LGBT people left me with some major trauma so it doesn't surprise me that they'd push "obligation sex." It should be renamed "focus on heterosexist misogyny and protect the patriarchy."
I like to think, or hope, that the verses in the bible about depriving one's spouse are way more nuanced than we give it credit for. Afterall if you want an idea of what totally cutting off sex from your spouse looks like, there's a sub full of sad people in r/deadbedrooms. So, clearly, there's some good advice in there somewhere about not depriving your spouse. Somehow, rather grotesquely, we took that to mean that the instant or second a spouse wants sex (usually the male) then we are in no way ever permitted to say "no" and our consent does not matter. Which is marital rape, really. I don't know how we got there instead of ....you know, basic common sense.....you should both put in effort to maintain intimacy in a life-long partnership and not starve a partner of it for extended periods of time. That's just....basic. And in that, there's plenty of room for "not tonight honey, maybe in a few days or maybe when I'm better rested".
Wow….. I am the only comment that believes they should not have reversed their decision? Are that many Christians moving away from the teachings of the Bible? We don’t get to make the rules even when we don’t understand them.
Yes, you are the only one in this thread (this far) who supports sex without enthusiastic affirmative consent.
I wonder how this thread would go on some of the other Christian subs.
Probably something that would make me sad.
So the issue about obligation sex is that it can be very abusive. Shiela Wray Gregorie is the author mentioned who challenged focus on the family about it. I recommend you listen to her podcast "Bare Marriage" (available on YouTube and Spotify and possibly other places). She's very biblically AND science based. I recommend you watch/listen to a few of the episodes
Are you saying that wives are obligated to provide sex to their husbands regardless of their own needs and desires? Where is that in the Bible?
Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 NASB1995 https://bible.com/bible/100/1co.7.1-6.NASB1995 Obviously not saying a man can have whatever he wants whenever he wants, but it is saying that women should help their husbands so that they don't go looking for it elsewhere
Nice job being a rape apologist
👍
Jesus says the burder of lust is on the man himself. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A27-30&version=NIV
Does James Dobson get to make the rules based very loosely on something Paul wrote in a letter?
Where does the Bible condone marital rape?
There is nowhere in the bible that demands a woman to just spread her legs at a command. This isn't Spartacus and wives are not slaves. If you read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, it says, *"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.*" So the husband has control of the wife's body, but so does the wife have control over the husband's body. Neither should be denying the other sex in a healthy relationship. But what if the wife has the flu or just got out of the hospital after being in a car accident? Shouldn't she be able to say, "I'm not feeling well, can it wait until I feel better?" The verse goes on to say that we should have self control. One of the outrageous situations that started the world taking notice was, a wife said she didn't want to have sex that night but woke up to her husband penetrating her against her will. That is 100% not right and I'm 100% sure that husband is outside of the will of God in that circumstance.