Abstinence (Continence) in Marriage

[TomFromMD]

My wife and I are both in agreement and we both believe our reasons satisfy Catholic moral norms.My question has to do with the practicalities once the decision has been made.

I think that the biggest practicality is making sure you and your wife both feel loved. Sex is binding. Sex releases oxytocin, just like breastfeeding. It makes falling and staying in love easier.

Your sexual obligation to her extends no farther than she needs it to. As long you are perfectly honest with each other about your respective needs, and as long as you maintain a loving relationship, you’re fine. If either of you find yourselves find yourself drawn to sexual sin, or if the two of you start drifting away from each other, then you have a problem. But if you can keep your “love tanks” full without sex, you’re fine.

 

[Rau]

Hi,

I am wondering why the church does not praise abstinence/continence in marriage as a necessary virtue at times, but only allows it in the context of NFP in grave situations giving what appears to be a very negative perspective on the practice.

Case in point: Mary and Joseph abstained from marital intercourse. Many married saints were abstinent. Physical injury can force couples to abstain. The wife’s health can also be an important reason for abstinence.

We have an avalanche of material that praises the effectiveness of NFP, that endorses its use, but we have nothing for those people who cannot use NFP for whatever reason.

My thought is that this is a recent occurrence and that in the past, the church fully endorsed the life-giving beauty of continence within marriage.

It is so hard to shake the feeling that a marriage is doomed if one is not having regular sexual intimacy.

Any thoughts?

God bless,
Ut

I don’t think abstinence in marriage is a virtue. What is virtuous and praiseworthy is that a couple, enduring a forced abstinence, remain true and faithful to each other.

 

[MJJean]

I appreciate the language of principles. But my question is not about justifying the abstinence. My wife and I are both in agreement and we both believe our reasons satisfy Catholic moral norms. My question has to do with the practicalities once the decision has been made.

It seems like you’re looking for advice from people who are in sexless marriages. Since sexless marriages are not the norm, you probably won’t be able to find much advice given from experienced couples.

And even if there were many such couples, what works for one couple may be torture for another.

I use the post from fpt as an example. If my husband and I could no longer have sex I would want him to sleep in the same bed and to cuddle, hug, kiss (no french kissing, though) and hold my hand. I would also appreciate it if he could massage me to relieve tension and assist me with stretching. I would do the same for him. But I would** not** want him to caress and arouse me, even just to show affection. That, for me, would be torture.

I imagine a couple that wouldn’t mind all kinds of intimate touching and arousal even without hope of orgasm.

I could also imagine a couple where one is so sensitive to any kind of stimulation that they do not share a bedroom, give each other privacy when showering or changing clothes so as not to accidentally visually arouse and who do nothing more than occasionally hug.

I think surviving a sexless marriage with sanity intact is something that is very individual and each couple must decide for themselves what works and what does not. Just like sex takes practice before the couple know what works for them I think not having sex while maintaining closeness would also require a period of trial and error before the couple found what works and what doesn’t.

 

[CallMeDad]

I have no experience in the long term deprivation you are enduring; some experience in the short term NFP related deprivation.

I have also fasted, and I believe it is not unholy to sate yourself as best you can - within the boundaries - during a fast. For instance, for those on a bread and water fast, there is a local baker who sells bread specific to that fast. It is rich in the nutrients necessary; it is a fasting bread, meant to carry one through the deprivation without breaking the fast. These deprivations need not be torture; one should seek accommodation. I do long way of the cross walks, and I wear comfortable shoes. That’s not cheating.

As to surviving without sex, I do not know the nature of what inhibits sex in your case. Like fasting, I guess I would seek to satisfy myself as best I can without putting myself and my spouse in a bad way.

I am sure all of this is useless to you; I’m sorry. Know that whatever suffering is offered up, for whatever reason, is not futile.

 

[tafan]

I am not sure what a Josephite marriage is, but I assume it is a celibate marriage taken intentionally from the start. That would fit with Joseph and Mary. Agreed. But can’t Joseph and Mary inspire those who are forced to bear the cross of abstinence against their will? I suppose what I am looking for is spiritual guidance and practical tips for those who have to endure this cross. It seems really hard to come by. Do you sleep in the same bed? Do you get another room? How do you avoid temptations, etc… but perhaps that should be standard stuff I should have learned before marriage.

I totally agree with your statement about the problems with how NFP is presented by some.

God bless,
Ut

I do not have practical advice. I do have a little experience of what you are going through, but in my situation the loss of sex was the least of my concerns. So it was a cross that I did not even feel at the time.

I supposes Joseph and Mary may be able to inspire those who are forced to bear this cross. I am guessing that it may not be quite satisfactory. With them, it was a freely chosen situation. It is a hard situation and I doubt there is any way to consider it standard stuff one should have learned ahead of time. God bless.

My only point, with the NFP example is to beware of trying to look at this as some type of blessing-in-disguise. All suffering can increase one’s holiness, but pretending it is not suffering probably doesn’t work.

 

[utunumsint]

It is only my interpretation and not an official directive. This message is only my thought of my understandings of the catholic teaching (implicitly and indirectly). For being sure, ask to your catholic priests, to your catholic couples of friends, to your catholic ethicists. You need more information.

What is morally permissible to do between husband and wife if a couple practices the Natural Family Planning (Physical affection during the N.F.P.), if a couple wants the conjugal physical affection without sex, or if a couple cannot have a complete marital sex, for a time or all time???

They have the right to give physical affection between them. Wife can give physical tenderness to her husband; husband can give physical tenderness to his wife. During those periods of continence, they are and stay spouses, they are not brother and sister: the marital intimacy without sex is possible and totally permissible, they need to find their " creative abstinence" . The marital intimacy without sex is morally okay, of course. Per se, there is no moral problem. They can caress each one with moderation, I mean in avoiding the orgasms.

For instance:
A kiss on mouth, a french kiss, a kiss on the forehead, a kiss on the hands, a kiss on shoulders, a kiss on the nose, a kiss in neck, a kiss on ears, a kiss on eyes, a kiss on feet, a kiss on chest, a kiss on breasts, a kiss on nipples, a kiss on the back. The rubs on the top part of the body of each one; The caresses on the top part of the body of each one; Massages between spouses for improving the bonding of love without touching the exterior genitals. Wife and husband can sleep together in the same bed very closely, even totally naked. They can speak very freely how to improve their sexual life: their desires, their wishes. It is a good moment for having a nice conversation about this topic and next days after to try. If there is an accident from husband without intention (ejaculation is outside), it is not a mortal sin or venial sin, per se, because the couple is trying to understand the reaction of their bodies and it is an accident. By principle, we have not to see the sin (venial or mortal sin) everywhere. Scrupulism is a very bad thought. During these periods of time, to be far away to one to the other in the physical sense is not a solution.

Natural erection of husband with a massage of top part of a body does not automatically mean to keep going for having sexual intercourse; Excitation of wife with top massage of her body does not means moral obligation to keep going completely, even after sensual massage.
To be prudish, to be scrupulous, to be sad, and to be flipped (full of stress) because of the fear of the sin. No and no? Be careful, okay, but not like a nun, a monk, a single, a fiancé , a fiancée. In the marriage, the first rule is Love. The key is no intention of orgasm and the physical tenderness for expressing conjugal love.

In conclusion “conjugal charity” is the key before " conjugal chastity ", even if " conjugal chastity " is an element of conjugal charity. The concept of " marital charity “ (conjugal charity) is the best. During fertile times, **do sport together, do romantic dinners, do sensual massages,do romantic talks, sensual caresses, cinema, make prayers. The husband has to be nice, lovable, very near for his wife and the wife has to be nice, lovable, very near for her husband. To be romantic, like before the wedding.**The solution is the creative abstinence: the conjugal physical tenderness without marital act, not as brother and sister, but in staying like wife and husband. The physical tenderness with some sexed touchings, some sexed massages, some sexed kisses, some sexed licks without the male orgasm and the without the female orgasms: on all the body of the other except on the sexual external organs.

FOR INFORMATION:
According to Father Noël Barbara, a French priest (a traditionalist catholic after VATICAN II, BECAUSE HE WAS IN LINK WITH SSPX , AND AFTER A SEDEVACANTIST PRIEST) between wife and husband:

All the caresses are morally permissible. Each time that for one reason, they can not or do not want to practice the marital act, they have to avoid all what could lead to orgasm. The voluptuous excitations without orgasm, in link with their intimity are in the conjugal life that venial sins I AM NOT OKAY WITH HIM, in my opinion, no venial sin]. And no sin, if the motivation (intention) is the affection.

Caresses with orgasm, without the context of marital act, by surprise and without will, a simply venial disorder and nothing if they have a simple regret.
(Cathéchèse Catholique of Marriage, 1963).

IN MY OPINION, AFTER THIS READING, EVEN THE SEXUAL CARESSES WITHOUT WANTING TO REACH THE ORGASM AND ONLY FOR EXPRESSING AFFECTION, ARE NOT SINFUL.

Thank you for these insights. I like the priority of the concept of conjugal charity over chastity as the governing principle.

And I also agree that this charity must find expression in physical “conjugal” ways even if orgasm is not achieved. As a general rule though, we try to avoid needlessly arousing each other since there can be no resolution. The desire is more like a fire that consumes. The more you feed it, the less control you have over the fire, and the more dangerous it becomes. Finding that right balance that is life giving, and not destructive, is difficult at times.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I think that the biggest practicality is making sure you and your wife both feel loved. Sex is binding. Sex releases oxytocin, just like breastfeeding. It makes falling and staying in love easier.

Your sexual obligation to her extends no farther than she needs it to. As long you are perfectly honest with each other about your respective needs, and as long as you maintain a loving relationship, you’re fine. If either of you find yourselves find yourself drawn to sexual sin, or if the two of you start drifting away from each other, then you have a problem. But if you can keep your “love tanks” full without sex, you’re fine.

It is the drifting part that is currently the problem. How to keep that bond alive without the physical act, as you call it, that binding act, takes conscious acts of charity and self sacrifice. I have to consciously figure out ways to please her. This is a good thing, though, for our marriage. It is an opportunity to stretch myself.

Yes, it really does come down to keeping the love tank full.

Thank you for your insights.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I don’t think abstinence in marriage is a virtue. What is virtuous and praiseworthy is that a couple, enduring a forced abstinence, remain true and faithful to each other.

Yes. True.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

It seems like you’re looking for advice from people who are in sexless marriages. Since sexless marriages are not the norm, you probably won’t be able to find much advice given from experienced couples.

And even if there were many such couples, what works for one couple may be torture for another.

I use the post from fpt as an example. If my husband and I could no longer have sex I would want him to sleep in the same bed and to cuddle, hug, kiss (no french kissing, though) and hold my hand. I would also appreciate it if he could massage me to relieve tension and assist me with stretching. I would do the same for him. But I would** not** want him to caress and arouse me, even just to show affection. That, for me, would be torture.

I imagine a couple that wouldn’t mind all kinds of intimate touching and arousal even without hope of orgasm.

I’m with you on that one. Arousal alone is just torture.

I could also imagine a couple where one is so sensitive to any kind of stimulation that they do not share a bedroom, give each other privacy when showering or changing clothes so as not to accidentally visually arouse and who do nothing more than occasionally hug.

I think surviving a sexless marriage with sanity intact is something that is very individual and each couple must decide for themselves what works and what does not. Just like sex takes practice before the couple know what works for them I think not having sex while maintaining closeness would also require a period of trial and error before the couple found what works and what doesn’t.

Makes sense. It is an ongoing thing.

Thanks for sharing these insights.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I have no experience in the long term deprivation you are enduring; some experience in the short term NFP related deprivation.

I have also fasted, and I believe it is not unholy to sate yourself as best you can - within the boundaries - during a fast. For instance, for those on a bread and water fast, there is a local baker who sells bread specific to that fast. It is rich in the nutrients necessary; it is a fasting bread, meant to carry one through the deprivation without breaking the fast. These deprivations need not be torture; one should seek accommodation. I do long way of the cross walks, and I wear comfortable shoes. That’s not cheating.

As to surviving without sex, I do not know the nature of what inhibits sex in your case. Like fasting, I guess I would seek to satisfy myself as best I can without putting myself and my spouse in a bad way.

I am sure all of this is useless to you; I’m sorry. Know that whatever suffering is offered up, for whatever reason, is not futile.

Thanks for this CallMeDad. this is definitely not useless. I like the idea of using comfortable shoes on the way of the cross walks.

Still, it makes me think of that saying when I was dating: if you are constantly thinking about how far is too far, then you are already in trouble.

Of course, there is the will of God that has a hand to play in this as well. For us, too far, if it results in the conjugal act, is an opportunity for God to create a new life. And that is no sin, although it may practically make no sense, and it may put my wife’s health in danger. what a strange world God has made for us.

God bless,
Ut

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

I do not have practical advice. I do have a little experience of what you are going through, but in my situation the loss of sex was the least of my concerns. So it was a cross that I did not even feel at the time.

I supposes Joseph and Mary may be able to inspire those who are forced to bear this cross. I am guessing that it may not be quite satisfactory. With them, it was a freely chosen situation. It is a hard situation and I doubt there is any way to consider it standard stuff one should have learned ahead of time. God bless.

My only point, with the NFP example is to beware of trying to look at this as some type of blessing-in-disguise. All suffering can increase one’s holiness, but pretending it is not suffering probably doesn’t work.

But that is the point of the cross, isn’t it. All our suffering can be ultimately, redemptive and contribute to our salvation. Even if, from the world’s perspective, we lose everything.

I’m thinking of Job here. He had it all. The wife, the kids, riches, etc… and God, for his own reasons, took it all away. God’s answer to Job is his answer to us, I think. And ends in Christ and the promise of the resurrection, and eternal life with God.

But from this worldly perspective, I agree. It makes no sense. I think of my father-in-law, with MS. He has been slowly stripped of his faculties over the space of 20 years. And yet he still has faith, and he still has dignity. He does not say the MS is a blessing. But his faith takes him through it.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Carmentalis]

have you tried the Catechism? About 2360’s or around there

The Catechism say clear that out of concern 4 his spouse, the man should make sure, out of loving concern, that his partner is also desiring sex, meaning that he doesn’t just claim his right when she ‘isn’t into it’ he wants her right there with him, enjoying every moment, & when our souls unite, are in sync & fully fulfilled & enriched. Nor should that point be visa versa & yes, I’ve experienced it both ways
A few catholics (unfortunately the loud ones) seem to think that this text suddenly means one can do anal or oral sex- sinful acts- so long as this wrong, sinful act evenutally leads to the one sole good one- the mutally giving, equally sharing, full love, procreative act. WHAT!? This is absurd interpretation of what the Catechism teaches. Then they wonder why their relationship suffers

My husband’s pleasure is in God & in being with me, our souls as one- sex or not, so he is very Catholic, very Christian there. I can only feel sorry for those in error, but for teaching error, I call on God’s justice- whoever they are.

OK, so how does all that have anything to do with chastity in marriage? When u love someone, u listen, honour, you respect, when you love someone, u are willing & able to sacrifice yourself. Chastity is FOUNDATIONAL to the Christian life. Chastity in marriage, done out of love for a time, for God &/or our spouse, will BENEFIT, gain strength.

If u feel u need to abstain for a while, it’ll only be good for both of u. It practice being gentle considerate, listening, neither of u want to be a slave to anything in this world (by self denial & chastity we gain such strength) even if it be something good like the sole good marriage sex.

The Bible says we should live as though we are unmarried, as in, seek God first. periods of abstinance will strengthen bond of unity & love with God & with each other -when u join together again u will know what i say truth.
should not merely please spouse or other way around. nor merely please ourselves. Love won’t tolerate that anyway.

When the Spirit of God lives in u, He Teaches right & wrong u gain a natural instinct.

Chastity within marriage isn’t just good, but also right. It should be practiced. Abstinance, for a time, but chastity always. That means self control, denial, not living for our natural selves, for pleasure or for world, but living, serving God, love, each other, this is the way Christians should behave & live.

A Christian is NOT, as said in Bible, meant to live to please his natural self, or the world. He is meant to serve God, when one loves God & each other truly, one finds a lack of temptation often, the practice of chastity grows us in strength right there- no hold over u with things of this world. So the Bible says we should put God first even to the degree it is as if we are not married. That is the best way too. u are totally correct to seek that. but let abstinance be love or necessity

My Catholic forebearers didn’t go near their wives after they were past child bearing. This upset their wives, as the story goes. There is a communion between souls that enriches within sex & that is desireable, is glorious & pleasureable, needing no fiddling, little foreplay (we have a trigger, kissing the wrists, neither of us wanted every little act of hugging kissing to suddenly mean sex -he started it, actually) & NO unnatural sexual acts, whether or not the sinful one ends in the sole good one.

In marriage desire not to be a slave of anything, nor to deny it totally & always. A good spouse would manage no less than to balance the two the true pleasure is found in loving, via the body or held only in the heart. Your spouse should love totally, be satisfied with just holding u because of that great love & unity.

Christ was Chaste, we are meant to follow Him, be alike Him. Is it any wonder why there were ancient heresies that tried to spread rumour that Christ was married? Because Chastity is so important to Christianity. The rewards for obeying God in these things are fantastic.

Your spouse love u & will give space & time u need out of loving concern!

My husband doesn’t come near me when I am pregnant or menstral- not sexually. That were his choice, but I found agreement. That though, is personal choice.
There hasn’t been a time where he hasn’t desired a child, he doesn’t seperate sex from procreation- which is right of him. I’m open to children, but let God decide ‘the dice roll’
we are fresh within the first 5 years of marriage so we haven’t spent much more than a week abstaining when I wasn’t pregant- usually it’s just like ‘not tonight’ & so he just holds me all night. Actually, Im more often in mood then he, haha. he often only holds me anyway, particularly when I pray on the Rosary at night & rest against him. When I was pregnant there wasn’t a day he would fail to rub oil on me, but it had no lust. It’s not short of being addictive the way the souls join together through all layers of being. Our very wedding night he were so nervous & we decided together to settle a bit first- now i could have demanded, wanted to consummate - get that intial time over with. out of loving concern for him I happily agreed to wait. I am happy enough just holding him to my heart, & visa versa. Our marriage is wonderful & God Intended, I’m blessed he is just himself

Being self indulgent and pleasure seeking will end badly. Christians are to be primarily interested in the world to be, of things of God and morality, not stuff of this world. That is vital to our conviction and arguement against every immorality.

Chastity is foundational to Christian life. Abstinance is good for a time, but let it be like sex in that it should be unitive borne out of love & understood between u for greater good. Love requires many sacrifices of ourselves in life, but for the Christian, it’s a easy thing to want to do.

 

[fpt]

The Bible says we should live as though we are unmarried, as in, seek God first.???** explain to me???** periods of abstinance will strengthen bond of unity & love with God & with each other -when u join together again u will know what i say truth.
should not merely please spouse or other way around. nor merely please ourselves. Love won’t tolerate that anyway.

My husband doesn’t come near me when I am pregnant or menstral- not sexually. That were his choice, but I found agreement. That though, is personal choice.
There hasn’t been a time where he hasn’t desired a child, he doesn’t seperate sex from procreation- which is right of him. I’m open to children, but let God decide ‘the dice roll’
we are fresh within the first 5 years of marriage so we haven’t spent much more than a week abstaining when I wasn’t pregant- usually it’s just like ‘not tonight’ & so he just holds me all night. Actually, Im more often in mood then he, haha. he often only holds me anyway, particularly when I pray on the Rosary at night & rest against him. When I was pregnant there wasn’t a day he would fail to rub oil on me, but it had no lust. It’s not short of being addictive the way the souls join together through all layers of being. Our very wedding night he were so nervous & we decided together to settle a bit first- now i could have demanded, wanted to consummate - get that intial time over with. out of loving concern for him I happily agreed to wait. I am happy enough just holding him to my heart, & visa versa. Our marriage is wonderful & God Intended, I’m blessed he is just himself

Being self indulgent and pleasure seeking will end badly. Christians are to be primarily interested in the world to be, of things of God and morality, not stuff of this world. That is vital to our conviction and arguement against every immorality.

Chastity is foundational to Christian life. Abstinance is good for a time, but let it be like sex in that it should be unitive borne out of love & understood between u for greater good. Love requires many sacrifices of ourselves in life, but for the Christian, it’s a easy thing to want to do.

The conjugal chastity is not the chastity of a single person. The natural moral order of these two types of chastity is very different.

The conjugal chastity is in link with the state of the marriage; the chastity of a single person (a layman or a laywoman) is in link with the state of a single person; the chastity of a priest, a monk, a nun, or of a friar is special. Each one is in the particular situation and unique about the chastity.

The conjugal chastity does not mean not to practice conjugal act. In the marriage, the conjugal act is the principle: * a sexual right, a sexual obligation, a sexual duty, a sexual prayer, a sexual liturgy, an sexual effort, a sexual sacrifice, a sexual debt, a sexual gift, a sexual present, a sexual act of the conjugal love, a meritorious sexual act;
*

By nature and per se, the fact of making love during pregnancy is chaste and is not morally wrong. The wife has the right of requesting the marital act to her husband, the husband has the right of requesting the marital act to his wife, and the bilateral initiative for conjugal sex is very good; the fact of not asking the request of the marital act to the other in reason of pregnancy, without no good reason, is not morally acceptable. The simple fact of invoking the pregnancy for not practicing the conjugal act is not morally irrelevant.

By nature and per se, the fact of making love during the periods of wife is chaste and is not morally wrong. In this situation, the wife has the right of requesting the marital act to her husband, the husband has the right of requesting the marital act to his wife, and the bilateral initiative for conjugal sex is very good;* the fact of not asking the request of the marital act to the other in reason of wife periods, without no good reason, is not morally acceptable. The simple fact of invoking the wife periods for not practicing the conjugal act is not morally irrelevant. Only, a true bilateral agreement can be moral for not practicing the marital sex in this situation; an unilateral refusal of not practicing the marital act during the periods of wife can be moral if and only if the reasons are just, fair, objective, real and present. What is a good reason for the unilateral refusal???
*
The same moral view during the breastfeeding, during the menopause and after the menopause;

 

[fpt]

The Bible says we should live as though we are unmarried, as in, seek God first.???** explain to me???** periods of abstinance will strengthen bond of unity & love with God & with each other -when u join together again u will know what i say truth.
should not merely please spouse or other way around. nor merely please ourselves. Love won’t tolerate that anyway.

My husband doesn’t come near me when I am pregnant or menstral- not sexually. That were his choice, but I found agreement. That though, is personal choice.
There hasn’t been a time where he hasn’t desired a child, he doesn’t seperate sex from procreation- which is right of him. I’m open to children, but let God decide ‘the dice roll’
we are fresh within the first 5 years of marriage so we haven’t spent much more than a week abstaining when I wasn’t pregant- usually it’s just like ‘not tonight’ & so he just holds me all night. Actually, Im more often in mood then he, haha. he often only holds me anyway, particularly when I pray on the Rosary at night & rest against him. When I was pregnant there wasn’t a day he would fail to rub oil on me, but it had no lust. It’s not short of being addictive the way the souls join together through all layers of being. Our very wedding night he were so nervous & we decided together to settle a bit first- now i could have demanded, wanted to consummate - get that intial time over with. out of loving concern for him I happily agreed to wait. I am happy enough just holding him to my heart, & visa versa. Our marriage is wonderful & God Intended, I’m blessed he is just himself

Being self indulgent and pleasure seeking will end badly. Christians are to be primarily interested in the world to be, of things of God and morality, not stuff of this world. That is vital to our conviction and arguement against every immorality.

Chastity is foundational to Christian life. Abstinance is good for a time, but let it be like sex in that it should be unitive borne out of love & understood between u for greater good. Love requires many sacrifices of ourselves in life, but for the Christian, it’s a easy thing to want to do.

The conjugal chastity is not the chastity of a single person. The natural moral order of these two types of chastity is very different.

The conjugal chastity is in link with the state of the marriage; the chastity of a single person (a layman or a laywoman) is in link with the state of a single person; the chastity of a priest, a monk, a nun, or of a friar is special. Each one is in the particular situation and unique about the chastity.

The conjugal chastity does not mean not to practice conjugal act. In the marriage, the conjugal act is the principle: * a sexual right, a sexual obligation, a sexual duty, a sexual prayer, a sexual liturgy, an sexual effort, a sexual sacrifice, a sexual debt, a sexual gift, a sexual present, a sexual act of the conjugal love, a meritorious sexual act;
*

By nature and per se, the fact of making love during pregnancy is chaste and is not morally wrong. The wife has the right of requesting the marital act to her husband, the husband has the right of requesting the marital act to his wife, and the bilateral initiative for conjugal sex is very good; the fact of not asking the request of the marital act to the other in reason of pregnancy, without no good reason, is not morally acceptable. The simple fact of invoking the pregnancy for not practicing the conjugal act is not morally relevant. [that is irrelevant]

By nature and per se, the fact of making love during the periods of wife is chaste and is not morally wrong. In this situation, the wife has the right of requesting the marital act to her husband, the husband has the right of requesting the marital act to his wife, and the bilateral initiative for conjugal sex is very good;* the fact of not asking the request of the marital act to the other in reason of wife periods, without no good reason, is not morally acceptable. The simple fact of invoking the wife periods for not practicing the conjugal act is not morally relevant [it is irrelevant]. Only, a true bilateral agreement can be moral for not practicing the marital sex in this situation; an unilateral refusal of not practicing the marital act during the periods of wife can be moral if and only if the reasons are just, fair, objective, real and present. What is a good reason for the unilateral refusal???
*
The same moral view during the breastfeeding, during the menopause and after the menopause;

 

[TomFromMD]

have you tried the Catechism? About 2360’s or around there

The Catechism say clear that out of concern 4 his spouse, the man should make sure, out of loving concern, that his partner is also desiring sex, meaning that he doesn’t just claim his right when she ‘isn’t into it’ he wants her right there with him, enjoying every moment, & when our souls unite, are in sync & fully fulfilled & enriched. Nor should that point be visa versa & yes, I’ve experienced it both ways

Help me out, because I can’t find that in the 2360s at all. Do you have a specific number you’re looking at? If that “she isn’t into it” means that they should have sex only when they both actively desire it, I don’t think that’s ever been a teaching of the church, and St. Paul certainly would certainly disagree with that approach. It is loving for one spouse to defer when the other does not desire sex, but it is unloving to be unwilling to have sex when you know your spouse wants to, especially on a continuing basis. And the two aren’t equal. In Catholic teaching, the obligation to have sex (even if it’s not verbally asked for, but you know your spouse wants it) is much stronger - we call that the marriage debt, and Aquinas talked about it at length. newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm

What would you say if you started talking to your husband about something important, and he said something like this? “You know what, honey? I really don’t feel like listening to you. I think from now on, I’m only going to listen to you when I feel like listening.”

I’m glad to hear that you have such a loving marriage though. It sounds like your husband is a gem

 

[utunumsint]

Marriage debt. newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm

Is this catholic doctrine?

God bless,
Ut

 

[TomFromMD]

Marriage debt as a concept is generally considered Catholic teaching, yes. As for Aquinas, the Church doesn’t treat him as inspired, but has a *strong tendency *to agree with him. A good Catholic could disagree with Aquinas on points here and there. I think there’s wiggle room as to the specifics of the debt (i.e. a spouse should be open to sex within reason, but people may differ on what “within reason” is), but the fact that there is a debt is pretty universally held.

I think that in your case, if there’s a physical impediment, and your spouse is understanding, and lovingly agrees, and likely to avoid any sexual sin as a result, and isn’t burning with desire, I doubt *anyone *would say that doesn’t absolve you.

 

[Pug]

Any thoughts?

God bless,
Ut

I think what is marriage enhancing is true self-sacrificial love, giving to the other. I don’t think marriage enhancement really lies in a method, in my opinion. However, sometimes restrictions make a challenge and the person responds creatively and new things for that person come from that. Sort of like if you are told you can only use a black pencil to draw, instead of colors, so you draw something beautiful that you wouldn’t have otherwise.

But, say your spouse is not creative…

Yikes! But anyway, I can personally tell you that long term abstinence is a bummer. Perhaps it depends on the reason and the cooperation between the spouses. If it is in any way lopsided, it will take a toll. It contains more temptation than living a single life at times. Resentment must be mastered, and it can simmer, unnoticed on a back burner, for quite some time. You must find a way to clearly let your spouse know it is not a rejection, and that you love them truly, even if that takes a ton of work. Even then, it may be hard to let your spouse know that they are someone you desire and treasure as their spouse, and not just their best friend, support system, and well-loved stuffed animal.

Perhaps it is easier for people who have had relations shut down for reason of having their parts blown off in war, but I seriously doubt it.

No, a marriage is not doomed if there will be no relations for the next 20+ years, but I would not recommend it to anyone, unless they are some special kind of holy person.

 

[tafan]

Marriage debt. newadvent.org/summa/5064.htm

Is this catholic doctrine?

God bless,
Ut

The marriage debt is certainly part of Catholic doctrine, but I don’t think I would use Aquinas’s summa if I were you to understand it (and I am a big fan of the Summa).

The best I have found is the following
twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html and scan down to section 1,g.

This online moral theology text is very well regarded, has an imprimatue and nil obstat.

 

[fpt]

The marriage debt is certainly part of Catholic doctrine, but I don’t think I would use Aquinas’s summa if I were you to understand it (and I am a big fan of the Summa).

The best I have found is the following
twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html and scan down to section 1,g.

This online moral theology text is very well regarded, has an imprimatue and nil obstat.

The catholic doctrine who respects of the natural moral law of marital act teaches that:

The marriage is a sexed and sexual institution and a sexed and sexual contract between one man and one woman (the sexual alterity and sexual complementarity) for the life; the object of contract is the mutual and reciprocal donation of person (body and soul), what means the mutual and reciprocal donation of souls (the union of souls), the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies, the mutual and reciprocal donation of nudities, the sexual cooperation between wife and husband, in the human fashion, in order to make one flesh (the right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the sexual debt, the sexual rights, the sexual privileges, the sexual obligation, the sexual duty). **The conjugal sexual relationships are one of hard cores of marriage: a gift, a present, a prayer, a liturgy, a sign of the Holy Trinity, an institutional duty, an contractual obligation, a contractual debt, a institutional and contractual right. **

The equality and the equity, between husband and wife, for the marital request to the conjugal sex (each member of couple can be initiative of the marital act, each member of couple has to be initiative of the marital act, each member of couple can say yes to marital act, each member of couple has to say yes to initiative of the marital act, the mutual and reciprocal submission concerning the conjugal sexuality);

The practice of marital act is the principle, and the non-practice of the marital act is the exception;

There are the natural moral order of the intentionality of the marital act, and the natural moral order of the materiality of the marital act. The unilateral regime of the natural moral order of the refusal of practicing the marital act? The bilateral **regime of the natural moral order of not practicing the marital act?

The regime of the natural moral order of the refusal of practicing the marital act??? What is it?: to do, not to do, to allow to do, not to allow to do, to allow not to do, to give, not to give, to allow to give, not to allow to give, to allow not to give, to receive, not to receive, to allow to receive, not to allow to receive, to allow not to receive, to take, not to take, to allow to take, not to allow to take, to allow not to take, to offer, not to offer, to allow to offer, not to allow to offer, to allow not to offer, to be active, to be passive, not to be active, not to be passive, to refuse, not to refuse, to sacrifice, not to sacrifice, sexually speaking;

In the couple, each one has the right of using the touching and each one has the obligation of being okay with the touching in order to express the love: that is almost non negociable. The mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies during the marital act and / or out of the marital act, in link with the natural moral order. The other love languages are very important, because we are body and soul. Each one has to try to agree with the other languages of love, it is an obligations of means. The conjugal charity is to try to offer and to receive all the love languages;

The conjugal bed is an invention of the catholic Church. When I say an invention, I want to mean a explanation of the natural law of marriage that is, only, recognised by the catholic church. For saying the things very clearly, the conjugal bed is the normal and natural. It is the normal and natural rule, it is the principle. Of course there are exceptions, but they are, only, some exceptions. **The exceptions are not the rules. **Information in French: lemonde.fr/vous/article/2…8546_3238.html