The harmful myth of the ‘marriage debt’

When I saw US Catholic, I was a bit taken aback, as back in the day (late 1970s) when I read it, it wasn't a reliable source for Catholic information loyal to the magisterium.  If that's changed between then and now, glory be, I'll have to check it out.  At the time, US Catholic and St Anthony Messenger (are they still around?) were the twin enfants terribles of the monthly Catholic newsmagazine set, confused the hell out of me as a "baby Catholic" trying to discern where the Mind of Christ was and where It wasn't, but entities can and do change.

But this article is utterly unproblematical, and really quite good.  Thanks for passing it on.  I have to say, though, that the term "marriage debt" sounds absolutely hideous in English, and I really, really wish another term could be found for it.  The correct explanation, taking into account the fact that we now consider the dignity of both spouses, is something like "under normal circumstances, if there is no pressing reason to do otherwise, and if your spouse wishes sexual intimacy, you should give it to them, for since you became 'two in one flesh', your bodies are not entirely your own anymore --- however, this is not license to disregard your spouse's wishes, or to force sex recklessly when the consequences could be severe".  I would go so far as to say if one spouse doesn't wish a child at the moment, for some good and weighty reasons, and the other one does, then the "marriage debt" (again, that sounds so contractual) shouldn't be invoked.  I know some older commentators might have disagreed with me, but that's my thinking.