Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M. (1477) «Rules for Married Life»

[Jayne]

You are not married

Clearly you haven't looked at my profile.

I relied on my memory... never a good idea. 

[Geremia]

I relied on my memory... never a good idea. 

Yes, it's not a prurient interest of mine but something that pertains to my state of life.

[Jayne]

I relied on my memory... never a good idea. 

Yes, it's not a prurient interest of mine but something that pertains to my state of life.

In that case, ignore Cherubino da Siena.  This is not going to help you to be a better husband.

Married people should be more concerned about rendering the marriage debt than about whether their amount of coitus is superfluous.  That is right from Scripture, in I Corinthians 7:

[3] Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. [4] 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. [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.

The issue addressed by St. Paul is spouses who do not have sex when they are supposed to, not married people having sex too often.  Catholics have long understood marriage as a remedy for concupiscence and married couples who abstain from sex too much as putting themselves in danger of temptation. 

So ignore Fra Cherubino and remember instead your wife's rights over your body.

[Maximilian]

This topic is of historical interest only. 

You don't have to go back as far as 1477.

[Geremia]

11. Another obligation of parents is, to correct the faults of the family. "Bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord." There are fathers and mothers who witness faults in the family, and remain silent. A certain mother was in the habit of acting in this manner. Her husband one day took a stick and began to beat her severely. She cried out, and said: "I am doing nothing. Why do you beat me?" "I beat you," replied the husband, "because you see, and do not correct, the faults of the children—because you do nothing." Through fear of displeasing their children some fathers neglect to correct them; but, if you saw your son falling into a pool of water, and in danger of being drowned, would it not be savage cruelty not to catch him by the hair and save his life? "He that spareth the rod hateth his son." (Prov. 13:24.) If you love your sons correct them, and, while they are growing up chastise them, even with the rod, as often as it may be necessary. I say, "with the rod," but not with the stick; for you must correct them like a father, and not like a galley sergeant. You must be careful not to beat them when you are in a passion; for, you shall then be in danger of beating them with too much severity, and the correction will be without fruit; for they then believe that the chastisement is the effect of anger, and not of a desire on your part to see them amend their lives. I have also said that you should correct them "while they are growing up;" for, when they arrive at manhood, your correction will be of little use. You must then abstain from correcting them with the hand; otherwise, they shall become more perverse, and shall lose their respect for you. But of what use is it to correct children by so many injurious words and by so many imprecations? Deprive them of some part of their meals, of certain articles of dress, or shut them up in a room. But I have said enough. Dearly beloved brethren, draw from the discourse which you have heard the conclusion, that he who has brought up his children badly shall be severely punished; and that he who has trained them to habits of virtue shall receive a great reward.

in St. Alphonsus Collection

[Geremia]

Married people should be more concerned about rendering the marriage debt than about whether their amount of coitus is superfluous.

One spouse can exact the debt inordinately of the other.

married couples who abstain from sex too much as putting themselves in danger of temptation.

Not necessarily
Continent or even virginal marriages exist in the history of the Church, even among canonized saints.

[John Lamb]

This topic is of historical interest only. 

You don't have to go back as far as 1477.

After a great war, bad years invariably follow.
— Laozi

His father was hard to live with? I am not surprised. The men in my family, particularly those of my parents' and grandparents' generations were, too. My guess, although this is more a cultural than a genealogical guess, is that Peterson's people came from similar Scots-Irish (aka Calvinist Presbyterian) stock as my family. The kind of fighting stock that Jim Webb describes in Born Fighting. The kind of stock in which the fathers live in perpetual conflict with their sons, so as to toughen them up, make men of them. And in which the women—like, for example, my father's mother—have to live with the tyranny of their husbands.

My aunt told me a story once about what happened the first Thanksgiving that my father was home from college. Dad had gone to the Rice Institute to pursue his dream of studying engineering and mathematics, but he was also on the football team, and his grades were suffering. I can't quite remember how it went, but I think Dad told Grandfather about wanting to quit. There were harsh words. And somehow in the exchange, my Grandfather said or did something to my Grandmother, maybe even hit her.

So my father floored him.

My father also had a complicated relationship with women.

https://fencingbearatprayer.blogspot.com/2018/02/our-lady-and-old-infant.html?m=1

I suppose sons hitting their fathers for hitting their mothers is not in the morality books, but the morality books only know about violence in an abstract way, not in reality.

[Jayne]

Married people should be more concerned about rendering the marriage debt than about whether their amount of coitus is superfluous.

One spouse can exact the debt inordinately of the other.

married couples who abstain from sex too much as putting themselves in danger of temptation.

Not necessarily
Continent or even virginal marriages exist in the history of the Church, even among canonized saints.

Normally a marriage that has not been consummated is not valid.  Continent marriages are a rare exception that should only be undertaken with the advice of a spiritual director. There is a huge risk of spiritual pride as well as sexual temptation.   

It is almost meaningless to speak of "inordinate" or "superfluous" coitus since these are relative and subjective terms.  To one person it could mean more than once a day, to another more than once a week.  It is a matter of prudence that will depend, to a large extent, on the circumstances.  In general, whatever frequency the spouses mutually agree upon is fine.

[Jayne]

This topic is of historical interest only. 

You don't have to go back as far as 1477.

However far back one goes, it is not relevant in our time and place.  For us, it is so imprudent to physically correct a wife that there is no point even discussing it.

What actually is worth discussing is the topic of submission to authority.  This is widely misunderstood by many, perhaps most, people.  Typically, forum discussions about physical correction are a distraction from subjects that could be genuinely helpful or useful.

[Maximilian]

This topic is of historical interest only. 

You don't have to go back as far as 1477.

However far back one goes, it is not relevant in our time and place.

I think what Geremia is searching for in the O.P. is insight into human nature. That is always relevant. When Fr. Ripperger talks about men and women, he always starts by going back to Adam and Eve. That way we are talking about basic principles of natural law, which helps us to extract ourselves from "our time and place."

God told Eve, "Your husband shall rule over you." So we can all agree that this "rule" of the husband over the wife is an essential part of human nature. This might manifest itself in different ways in different times and places, but the principle has to remain. How much of the specifics can be abstracted before it is not "rule" at all?

For us, it is so imprudent to physically correct a wife that there is no point even discussing it.

Yes, this might be true on a practical level. But it's important for us to know just how disordered our own time and place may be. If we contrast our current situation with past times, it allows us to get some indication of where things may have gone wrong before they reached the point of manifest insanity like infanticide and gay marriage.

What actually is worth discussing is the topic of submission to authority.  This is widely misunderstood by many, perhaps most, people. 

Yes, this is a good point. Submission to authority is the real issue. But the nature of authority includes the right and responsibility to administer punishment. Without punishment, there is no authority. We see that happening right now in major cities. When governments abdicate their duty of punishment, then chaos breaks loose.

Typically, forum discussions about physical correction are a distraction from subjects that could be genuinely helpful or useful.

Physical correction of children is one of those hot-button topics that often provokes heated forum discussions. But I don't think it's a "distraction." Rather it gets to the heart of the issue about authority.

[John Lamb]

God told Eve, "Your husband shall rule over you."

He said it after the fall. It's more a description of how things will be from now on, a prediction about the future after humanity has been corrupted by sin, than it is a prescription of any rule or law.

[Maximilian]

God told Eve, "Your husband shall rule over you."

He said it after the fall. It's more a description of how things will be from now on,

Yes, it's a description. God is revealing the nature of how things are.

a prediction about the future after humanity has been corrupted by sin,

No, God doesn't make "predictions." He knows all things from the beginning to the end. But it's true that He is explaining the nature of "humanity corrupted by sin."

than it is a prescription of any rule or law.

True, it's not a rule or law like the 10 commandments. Rather, it's natural law. It's built into the order of creation. Thenceforth human law must correspond to natural law if it's going to be authentic and effective.

[Geremia]

God told Eve, "Your husband shall rule over you."

He said it after the fall.

Even before the Fall there was a hierarchy; Adam was the head of Eve (cf. St. Thomas's Whether woman should have been made from man?).

Also, some translations of Gen. 3:16's "thou shalt be under thy husband's power (sub viri potestate eris)" ("and he shall have dominion over thee") punishment for women are along the lines of "your urge/desire/craving (??????????) shall be for your husband", i.e., the original craving of the wife for her husband before the Fall became a lustful appetite after the Fall.

[Geremia]

It is almost meaningless to speak of "inordinate" or "superfluous" coitus

Demanding the debt is inordinate if it's so frequent that it interferes with spiritual duties.

Summa Theologica suppl. q. 64 ("Whether it is forbidden to demand the debt on holy days?") a. 7 co.:

Although the marriage act is void of sin, nevertheless since it oppresses the reason on account of the carnal pleasure, it renders man unfit for spiritual things. Therefore, on those days when one ought especially to give one's time to spiritual things, it is not lawful to ask for the debt.

Cf. Innocent XI's Cum ad aures (February 12, 1679) on frequent communion (DZ 1147):

In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.

which Pope St. Pius X cited (but did not quote) in his Sacra Tridentina on daily Communion.

Thus demanding the debt everyday for 365 days a year is definitely inordinate, since we're bound to receive Communion at least once a year, in the Easter season, and observe holy days of obligation.

Paying the debt is another matter:
Summa Theologica suppl. q. 64 a. 9 ("Whether one spouse is bound to pay the debt to the other at a festal time?") co.:

Since the wife has power of her husband's body, and "vice versa," with regard to the act of procreation, the one is bound to pay the debt to the other, at any season or hour, with due regard to the decorum required in such matters, for this must not be done at once openly.

[queen.saints]

In that case, ignore Cherubino da Siena.  This is not going to help you to be a better husband.

I've always noticed that Geremia is married and assumed it must be a happy union, because he A) seems to be content and peaceful B) never talks about his marriage, showing proper "exclusivity", which is an essential mark of matrimony.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

He's already shown himself to be an unusually good husband with just those two attributes, so we could learn a lot from him.