Aiming for Sainthood, and the Marital Act

[mommamaree]

Is it a sin to initiate marital relations with one’s spouse motivated by the fact that one is feeling physically desirous? Is that too base of a reason to initiate?

I am asking this question because I have read here on this forum some assertions by forum members that initiating marital relations because a person “has a need” is sinful on the part of the person who requests the marital act due to their need, but that fulfilling that request on the part of the acquiescing spouse is an act of charity. The sinful aspect is due, according to what I gathered from what members were saying, to the fact that they are focusing upon selfishly meeting their own needs and are not focused upon making a complete gift of self.

But this doesn’t make sense to me. Cannot a husband or wife use the awareness of their own increase in physical desire within themselves as a signal to offer themselves to their spouse? Their own need would then become an occasion for them to give, in my thinking.

And is it really true that the marital act is always accompanied by some measure of lust, as I have commonly seen asserted? If this is true, how is it that we have married saints, people who were able to engage in marital relations frequently enough to have a large family in some cases, yet the Church declares them to be beholding the beatific vision?

Finally, if sexual relations even within marriage with one’s own spouse is so fraught with danger that it can be a near occasion of sin for married persons (involving severe temptation to lust), then how can holy matrimony be a sacrament? Marital relations are, after all, the renewing of marriage vows.

How can God be calling people to holiness through the vocation of marriage, which naturally and commonly includes the marital act, if that very act is so spiritually dangerous that couples are frequently guilty of lust while participating in the act?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Is it sinful to seek deep intimacy with God because you long for Him? Of course not.

In just the same way, desire is a good reason to seek sexual intimacy with your spouse. It is, actually, the BEST reason to do so.

(Realize, however, that lust is not the same thing as desire.)

 

[porthos11]

Is it a sin to initiate marital relations with one’s spouse motivated by the fact that one is feeling physically desirous? Is that too base of a reason to initiate?

I am asking this question because I have read here on this forum some assertions by forum members that initiating marital relations because a person “has a need” is sinful on the part of the person who requests the marital act due to their need, but that fulfilling that request on the part of the acquiescing spouse is an act of charity. The sinful aspect is due, according to what I gathered from what members were saying, to the fact that they are focusing upon selfishly meeting their own needs and are not focused upon making a complete gift of self.

But this doesn’t make sense to me. Cannot a husband or wife use the awareness of their own increase in physical desire within themselves as a signal to offer themselves to their spouse? Their own need would then become an occasion for them to give, in my thinking.

And is it really true that the marital act is always accompanied by some measure of lust, as I have commonly seen asserted? If this is true, how is it that we have married saints, people who were able to engage in marital relations frequently enough to have a large family in some cases, yet the Church declares them to be beholding the beatific vision?

Finally, if sexual relations even within marriage with one’s own spouse is so fraught with danger that it can be a near occasion of sin for married persons (involving severe temptation to lust), then how can holy matrimony be a sacrament? Marital relations are, after all, the renewing of marriage vows.

How can God be calling people to holiness through the vocation of marriage, which naturally and commonly includes the marital act, if that very act is so spiritually dangerous that couples are frequently guilty of lust while participating in the act?

That one feels the “urge” is a legitimate reason to initiate sexual relations. This is the way God wired us, specifically for this purpose. To “use” (sorry for the crude word) one’s spouse is legitimate and does not detract from the holiness of the sexual act, and for the other spouse to allow it shows his/her love for his/her spouse by allowing it.

This is also confirmed by St. Paul: " For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor 7:9 NRSV). The immediate context of the passage is addressed to young widows, but the principle remains the same: marriage is the proper outlet for sexual passions.

This is also why sexual relations is a “debt”, so to speak, because spouses have the right to each other’s bodies, and it is a sin to refuse sexual relations to one’s spouse without serious reason.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

I would like to pose a question myself, is it possible that you take everything regarding you faith to seriously , but this. I mean,by taking everything written as the only way,
And not allowing yourself to experience life, emotion, but instead seeing guilt in everything you do and think, ?

 

[mommamaree]

Very good answers so far. It seems that the opinions that I have seen espoused on some threads here were likely in error, then. It almost seemed like a personal rejection of the joys of the marital act, as if it was okay for a Catholic to submit to a request for the marital act but to actually be the requesting spouse was morally problematic. And that seemed totally wrong and anti-“body” to me.

Thanks for the helpful perspectives!

 

[mommamaree]

(Realize, however, that lust is not the same thing as desire.)

Right, because lust is the disordered desire for inordinate sexual pleasure, as one definition I have seen to explain it. But sexual desire in itself can be very good, and to act upon it with one’s own spouse is very good, too.

I recently reread a portion of Grisez’s The Way of the Lord Jesus, where he explained that sexual pleasure should be subordinate to communion of persons. This order of priorities makes sense to me, because it rejects sexual behaviors that are unloving or abusive or degrading, even if one spouse or the other might find them to be pleasurable. Love is what should be communicated in the most intimate of human acts, and what hopefully will be if the higher priority is communion of persons.

But none of that rejects the inner awareness of desire of one spouse for another. Instead, I think it just gives it proper context.

 

[mommamaree]

I would like to pose a question myself, is it possible that you take everything regarding you faith to seriously , but this. I mean,by taking everything written as the only way,
And not allowing yourself to experience life, emotion, but instead seeing guilt in everything you do and think, ?

I do take my faith seriously, yes. And I do hope to make it to heaven one day. But if you knew me personally, you would know your last question is unnecessary. I live a crazy, chaotic and quite happy life with my husband and our little children. But I do tend toward being very thoughtful and ponderous about things. Even when I was 5yo, I would climb up on my daddy’s lap to discuss the nature of the universe and God and religion and sin and heaven and hell. Sometimes, I amuse my family and friends with all my questions. Other times, I exasperate them!

 

[randomusername]

Having sex with your spouse isn’t bad. Sex was made for married couples and reproduction.

 

[mommamaree]

Having sex with your spouse isn’t bad. Sex was made for married couples and reproduction.

I do understand that part of it. I was asking more about motivations than the act itself. I have seen asserted here by some members various ideas with which I could not agree, so I wanted to ask what was right.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Is it a sin to initiate marital relations with one’s spouse motivated by the fact that one is feeling physically desirous? Is that too base of a reason to initiate?

I am asking this question because I have read here on this forum some assertions by forum members that initiating marital relations because a person “has a need” is sinful on the part of the person who requests the marital act due to their need, but that fulfilling that request on the part of the acquiescing spouse is an act of charity. The sinful aspect is due, according to what I gathered from what members were saying, to the fact that they are focusing upon selfishly meeting their own needs and are not focused upon making a complete gift of self.

But this doesn’t make sense to me. Cannot a husband or wife use the awareness of their own increase in physical desire within themselves as a signal to offer themselves to their spouse? Their own need would then become an occasion for them to give, in my thinking.

And is it really true that the marital act is always accompanied by some measure of lust, as I have commonly seen asserted? If this is true, how is it that we have married saints, people who were able to engage in marital relations frequently enough to have a large family in some cases, yet the Church declares them to be beholding the beatific vision?

Finally, if sexual relations even within marriage with one’s own spouse is so fraught with danger that it can be a near occasion of sin for married persons (involving severe temptation to lust), then how can holy matrimony be a sacrament? Marital relations are, after all, the renewing of marriage vows.

How can God be calling people to holiness through the vocation of marriage, which naturally and commonly includes the marital act, if that very act is so spiritually dangerous that couples are frequently guilty of lust while participating in the act?

It is perfectly proper and even holy to desire one’s partner and there is nothing lustful with the marriage act as long as it remains open to new life. Although such desires could become lustful if it were only remotely possible to fulfill the marriage duty. ( One should discuss this with one’s confessor ).

It is a serious sin to refuse one’s marital duty if one does not have a serious reason ( one should discuss these questions with one’s confessor ).

Lust would be possible if one desired one’s partner while intending to obstruct God’s plans for new life, or if one engaged in acts normally regarded as objectively sinful in themselves ( one should discuss this with one’s confessor, but be wary because some confessors are confused on this point because of certain teachings by Christopher West and others. ).

Linus2nd

 

[awsiukiewicz]

I couldn’t imagine NOT having a physical desire and having relations with my wife…we were always open to conception if it should happen, and it did, a number of times…but what you are asking/describing almost seems like you might believe that we are NO T supposed to enjoy it…it’s a gift…the joining of two souls…can be and should be beautiful…and enjoyable…my respectful suggestion…is 'lighten up on yrself" PAX

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Is it a sin to initiate marital relations with one’s spouse motivated by the fact that one is feeling physically desirous? Is that too base of a reason to initiate?

I am asking this question because I have read here on this forum some assertions by forum members that initiating marital relations because a person “has a need” is sinful on the part of the person who requests the marital act due to their need, but that fulfilling that request on the part of the acquiescing spouse is an act of charity. The sinful aspect is due, according to what I gathered from what members were saying, to the fact that they are focusing upon selfishly meeting their own needs and are not focused upon making a complete gift of self.

But this doesn’t make sense to me. Cannot a husband or wife use the awareness of their own increase in physical desire within themselves as a signal to offer themselves to their spouse? Their own need would then become an occasion for them to give, in my thinking.

And is it really true that the marital act is always accompanied by some measure of lust, as I have commonly seen asserted? If this is true, how is it that we have married saints, people who were able to engage in marital relations frequently enough to have a large family in some cases, yet the Church declares them to be beholding the beatific vision?

Finally, if sexual relations even within marriage with one’s own spouse is so fraught with danger that it can be a near occasion of sin for married persons (involving severe temptation to lust), then how can holy matrimony be a sacrament? Marital relations are, after all, the renewing of marriage vows.

How can God be calling people to holiness through the vocation of marriage, which naturally and commonly includes the marital act, if that very act is so spiritually dangerous that couples are frequently guilty of lust while participating in the act?

It is not sinful to initiate sexual relation with your spouse motivated by desire.

 

[mommamaree]

Thanks everyone for such clear answers.

Just to clarify, the questions I asked were not beliefs I held. They were beliefs that other forum members had asserted in other, older threads. In those threads, no one refuted what appeared to me to be faulty thinking and mistaken understanding. Because those assertions were not refuted, and because I have seen such things asserted frequently here at CAF, I really wanted to ask.

I suppose you could say my original post was a bit rhetorical, because I was all but certain I knew the answers, but I still needed to ask the questions.

So thanks again everyone! God bless you.

 

[mommamaree]

One more thought…

As I was exploring this issue yesterday, this occurred to me: how hurtful would it be toward one’s spouse if they realized over time that one was never initiating relations motivated by desire (whether for relations itself or for one’s spouse) but was instead ignoring one’s own desire and merely condescending toward them in the marital act?

So yes, I am very glad to reject the line of thinking that I came across that assets that acting on one’s own desires is selfish. And I really like all the perspectives you all used to refute that line of thinking. Now I will know how to respond next time I see wrong assertions being made.

 

[Vico]

I do understand that part of it. I was asking more about motivations than the act itself. I have seen asserted here by some members various ideas with which I could not agree, so I wanted to ask what was right.

Religious education is incomplete without some reading of St. Augustine, who wrote:Sexual intercourse in marriage not for begetting children is a venial fault

1. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining 1947 one another’s weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other. For thus far also, “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the man: in like manner also the man hath not power of his own body, but the woman.” 1948 That that also, which, not for the begetting of children, but for weakness and incontinence, either he seeks of marriage, or she of her husband, p. 402 they deny not the one or the other; lest by this they fall into damnable seductions, through temptation of Satan, by reason of incontinence either of both, or of whichever of them. For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting hath not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it hath venial fault: but adultery or fornication hath deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting. But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished; charity of the married ought to beware, lest whilst it seek for itself occasion of larger honor, it do that for its partner which cause condemnation. “For whosoever putteth away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.” 1949 To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil.

sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/103/1030523.htm

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Religious education is incomplete without some reading of St. Augustine, who wrote:Sexual intercourse in marriage not for begetting children is a venial fault

1. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining 1947 one another’s weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other. For thus far also, “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the man: in like manner also the man hath not power of his own body, but the woman.” 1948 That that also, which, not for the begetting of children, but for weakness and incontinence, either he seeks of marriage, or she of her husband, p. 402 they deny not the one or the other; lest by this they fall into damnable seductions, through temptation of Satan, by reason of incontinence either of both, or of whichever of them. For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting hath not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it hath venial fault: but adultery or fornication hath deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting. But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished; charity of the married ought to beware, lest whilst it seek for itself occasion of larger honor, it do that for its partner which cause condemnation. “For whosoever putteth away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery.” 1949 To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil.

sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/103/1030523.htm

So as I read Augustine here, a couple practicing NFP for serious reasons, as sanctioned by the Church, is still sinning, in that their marital act under the NFP scheduling is, by definition, not primarily for the begetting of children. Venial, perhaps, but still sin per Augustine. So the Church permits sinning in the marital bed?

 

[mommamaree]

Vico,
Sure I have read that many times. It is unfortunately one of the most common writings referenced to bolster the claims that I was seeking to learn how to refute, the claim that initiating marital relations with one’s spouse solely motivated by desire was sinful. Fortunately, now I know how to respond with the Church’s actual teachings on this matter.

First, sexual desire for one’s spouse is not the same as lust. Lust is the inordinate desire for sexual pleasure, whether beyond what is moderate or outside of proper context. Simply desiring to be united with one’s spouse is not lustful.
Second, the Church has clarified Augustine’s writings, which could be open to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. The Church has taught that a married couple need not actively intend procreation at each act of intercourse, but simply must not act contrary to procreation if they do engage in the marital act. Furthermore, She has clarified that there is, in fact, a two-fold purpose for the marital act: procreation AND unity of the couple. If a couple desires the unitive aspect, and engage in marital relations in the natural, procreative way, there is no fault.
Thirdly, couples who are experiencing sterility, whether permanent or temporary, are still permitted to enjoy the offering and receiving of married sexual intercourse. For example, a woman who is already pregnant may enjoy relations. So may a woman who has had a hysterectomy, or a woman who is post-menopausal. A man who has reduced fertility or is infertile may likewise enjoy married relations. Furthermore, the Church allows the infertile to marry, even when the infertility is known prior to the marriage.
So, while St. Augustine made some important points about lust in marriage being wrong (and he seems to be saying lust directed at one’s spouse is only venial, provided the actions are still proper to the marital act), the Church has since clarified the two-fold purpose of the marital act, and the important difference between lust and legitimate sexual desire, both of which helps to put St. Augustine’s writings into their property context so as to avoid continued misunderstanding.
In the situation where a husband and wife are not actively seeking procreation, but neither are they preventing it, and instead they merely desire to be united for the joy and pleasure that they bring to each other, I cannot see how there could be any fault. Where could the fault possibly lie? A marriage is not made holier by denying oneself and each other a vital aspect of marital communion.

So, thanks for linking up St. Augustine’s opinion on the issue. I hope I did a decent job responding to this. At the very least, even if someone find gaps in my thinking, this was good practice.

 

[mommamaree]

So as I read Augustine here, a couple practicing NFP for serious reasons, as sanctioned by the Church, is still sinning, in that their marital act under the NFP scheduling is, by definition, not primarily for the begetting of children. Venial, perhaps, but still sin per Augustine. So the Church permits sinning in the marital bed?

Tarpeian Rock,
Would you kindly read my response to Vico 's post and tell me if I responded clearly?

 

[choose_to_love]

I thought it was clear. St. A is not the Magisterium by himself, and I think you have accurately identified a development in the understanding of marital sexuality. Second, I think there are other times where St. A acknowledges that the unity of spouses is such a given that he doesn’t even feel the need to go into detail.

It is a terrible combox topic St. A.'s thoughts on sex), because a) it is really nuanced b) there always seem to be translation issues c) the intended audience is not always made clear and d) the type of writing, or context, is always important

 

[mommamaree]

I thought it was clear. St. A is not the Magisterium by himself, and I think you have accurately identified a development in the understanding of marital sexuality. Second, I think there are other times where St. A acknowledges that the unity of spouses is such a given that he doesn’t even feel the need to go into detail.

It is a terrible combox topic [St. A.'s thoughts on sex), because a) it is really nuanced b) there always seem to be translation issues c) the intended audience is not always made clear and d) the type of writing, or context, is always important

Thank you. I have found, as a convert to Catholicism, that it is all too easy to misunderstand some of St. Augustine, and indeed, many other saints and their writings. If one simply reads excerpts of saints’ writings, without already being thoroughly and properly catechized, and also understanding the difference in authority between the saints and the Magisterium of the Church, it is very easy to err in one’s thinking and begin to espouse those errors as what the Church teaches.

I have learned so much about how to think critically by continuing to read and discuss and debate. But I find it troubling at times how difficult it can be to sift through the errors to understand the truth of the issues. Perhaps part of my challenge is that I approached my conversion and my religion from the intellectual side of things, whereas a lot of good and holy people have better instincts and intuition than I do.
[/quote]