T
How is denying you spouce sex on a regular basis a confessable sin?
- Status
W
whm
Guest
It is not out of your control. You can work on the underlying issues. If an attempt of working on things is taking place, that is a totally different situation. These situations aren’t always about 1 time a week vs 2 or 3, often it is about 1 time a month vs. 1 time a year (or worse).
G
godisgood77
Guest
Sure, but we are talking about married couples who have expressed their love for each other and committed themselves to each other… Not some stranger in the line a McDonald’s
PS… Thinking of England sounds like the worst possible alternative…
R
Roger1
Guest
Right, This is what I was referring to in the original post. A sexless marriage is often defined as intimacy of few than 10 times with in a year.
Would it be wrong to only speak to your spouse 10 times per year? Would it be considered marital abuse if a husband refused to take his wife out fewer than 10 times per year knowing full well they had the resources in the family budget?
Although I do know some households that if this did happen to a 20 or 30 something Mom with a house full of little ones, there might be a Mama-meltdown followed by high probability of a murder.
S
severus68
Guest
Nothing wrong with being a feminist. Saying someone is talking like a Satanist is not acceptable on a Catholic forum. You can disagree without being personal and using such terms.
My view - If a spouse keeps refusing, there are issues in the marriage which are much more than about sex. Spouses who love each other and have no serious issues, would be happy to have marital relations if they are not ill or tired.
R
Roger1
Guest
This is what I wrote “What you have written is a Feminist/Satanic view point.”
The words written are demonic, not necessarily the person.
While on earth we are called to be the Church Militant Pilgrim. We are called to be womenly-women and manly-men. We cannot allow evil to be called good. Our Lord tells us in Holy Scripture that “Who ever is ashamed of me in this life, I will be ashamed of them before the Father in the next.”
Remember I am the minority victim in this attack.
I am being bullied.
I am being persecuted for standing up for the Lord.
M
mommamaree
Guest
It really depends on the reasons why a person is denying their spouse. For instance, if the asking spouse is an adulterer, then the denying spouse does good in denying the marital embrace until the adulterer is repentant and is ready to reconcile. Then the injured spouse can decide to resume conjugal intimacy. So the denying of marital relations is not a sin, but is a prudent decision.
Now, if the asking spouse is loving, faithful, and affectionate, but the spouse denies them for frivolous reasons like “I just don’t feel like it” or as a means to control or manipulate the asking spouse, that would be a sin.
But there is a whole range of circumstances and attitudes that must be taken into account in order to know if either or neither spouse is sinning in the asking or denying of sex. So, it is best to ask your priest, and this type of question can be asked in confession, too, if need be. This certainly is not an easy answer. Good luck. I hope you find the answer you seek.
R
Roger1
Guest
Right, that’s what I ment essentially. Denying the other spouse for a frivolous a reason.
B
bernadettefaith
Guest
I wonder about this question as well. My husband has been refusing sex for six months now. He’s no longer in love with me. No big deal breakers here like abuse, addiction, or adultery. He just doesn’t feel love anymore as he’s held in a lot of resentment for past hurts. Yes, we’ve done professional counseling and plan to do Retrouvaille in the spring/summer. I’ve worked on myself. He does not believe love is a choice and if he does not feel like it then he believes that there is nothing wrong with refusing. I understand that he does not want to and don’t want to pressure him. At the same time, I feel as if lack if intimacy only makes the distance greater. Would you consider it a sin in this case? Is it ok to refuse if you feel no attraction or love for your spouse? I’m not quite sure what the answer is. He feels it would be lie to be intimate with me if he’s not truly feeling the love.
B
bernadettefaith
Guest
O
on_the_hill
Guest
S
severus68
Guest
I am too. Have no idea what that was about but did not respond to avoid a further rant.
S
severus68
Guest
This must be so difficult for you. I am asking. Perhaps if you turn the situation around - what if your husband declares he does not love you but insists on sex. You would be entitled to refuse and why would you want to?
I think there are other issues in your case and your husband needs to work them out. He married you for ever. What about trying other forms of intimacy like hugs? Of course, you need more help than we here can give.
B
bernadettefaith
Guest
In that case, I’d probably try it just to see if it helps with his feelings. I don’t know about trying that long term if he still insisted his feelings did not change. I’m really not sure how that would work out.
He’s ok with hugs but nothing else.
G
glendab
Guest
Hello everyone. Here are the rules of the road for married folks as I found them in Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology. I cannot find an on-line version. I don’t think the publishers are allowing that, so you’ll have to trust my typing. I wrote out all the paragraphs and sections I think apply. I didn’t think listing all the deviant sexual acts was necessary. All requests for deviancy are sins of grave matter and do give cause for the one party to deny the requests of the other. Translation: if you ask for anything kinky, you’re committing mortal sin and you partner has the right to deny you.
Glenda
P.S. The section is too long so I divided it. Hope it helps clear things up.
Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology
Treatise X - Marriage
Chapter 4
858. The Roman Catechism sets forth the following instruction: “The faithful are to be taught that marriage has three benefits: offspring, conjugal fidelity, and the sacrament; by these three means are alleviated those troubles mentioned by the Apostle: ‘those who do so will meet with outward distress’ (1 Cor. vii, 28); and thus it comes about that the physical union which is rightly condemned when practiced outside the state of marriage is regarded as morally good.” — Any action which seriously violates one or other of these benefits is a mortal sin.
Glenda
P.S. The section is too long so I divided it. Hope it helps clear things up.
Prummer’s Handbook of Moral Theology
Treatise X - Marriage
Chapter 4
858. The Roman Catechism sets forth the following instruction: “The faithful are to be taught that marriage has three benefits: offspring, conjugal fidelity, and the sacrament; by these three means are alleviated those troubles mentioned by the Apostle: ‘those who do so will meet with outward distress’ (1 Cor. vii, 28); and thus it comes about that the physical union which is rightly condemned when practiced outside the state of marriage is regarded as morally good.” — Any action which seriously violates one or other of these benefits is a mortal sin.
- The benefit of offspring consists in the acceptance and education of children for the worship of God, and thus it is necessary that the parents should care for the physical and spiritual welfare of their children. Therefore parents who procure an abortion or who neglect the feeding and proper education of their offspring commit grave sin. (c. 1113).
- Conjugal fidelity, to which must be conjoined the right to sexual intercourse — to be discussed in the following chapter — is another benefit of marriage. Such fidelity is an immense blessing proper to the married state, and the more carefully it is preserved, the greater the happiness existing between the married persons. It is violated by adultery and by all similar acts, even by solitary pollution.
- The benefit of the sacrament refers to the indissolubility of the bond of marriage and to the union of love existing between the partners. This marital union is violated not only by improper divorce but also by any neglect of those duties which belong to husband and wife. These duties were discussed in the treatise on the Fourth Commandment, n. 462 sqq.
Chapter 5
The Obligations of Marriage
Introduction. There are many obligations flowing from the benefits of marriage enumerated in the preceding chapter. Here we shall consider no more than the obligations arising from the benefit of conjugal fidelity, viz. the marital dues. - I. The Lawfulness of the Conjugal Act.
Principle. The conjugal act is lawful and even meritorious as often as it is not opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity.
St. Paul writes: “Let every man give his wife what is her due, and every woman do the same by her husband.” (1 Cor. vii, 3). — The intrinsic reason for this is that the conjugal act is necessary not only for the propagation of the human race but also for the fostering of married love. As often as one of these purposes is desired, the conjugal act is lawful, provided that no other ills or inconveniences ensue. Consequently the partners in marriage are not obliged to exercise sexual intercourse simply for the sake of procreation. Therefore this act is lawful even if both parties are sterile, also during the time of lactation or pregnancy, on Sundays and feast days; but it is forbidden to exercise the sexual function by means of onanism or with serious danger to health or at the some time causing scandal to others, etc.
Circumstances of the Conjugal Act. Not only the conjugal act itself but also touches and looks and all other acts are lawful between the married, provided that there is no proximate danger of pollution and the sole intention is not mere sexual pleasure. Therefore in ordinary circumstances the confessor should not interrogate married persons about these accompanying acts.
G
glendab
Guest
Here’s Part Two:
860. 2. The Obligation To Render The Marriage Dues.
Frist Principle. As often as one of the parties asks reasonably and seriously for the rendering of the marriage dues, the other is bound in justice to accede to the request; otherwise grave sin is committed.
Explanation. The request must be reasonable and serious.
The request is unreasonable if made in a state of drunkeness, or when one of the parties is seriously ill, or if the request is too frequent or causes scandal to others, or if the act is accompanied by the practice of onanism. — The request is not considered serious if made in the form of a desire rather than a definite will. — But if the request is reasonable and serious, then the other party is obliged in justice to render the marriage debt under pain of grievous sin, as is evident a) from the words of St. Paul quoted above, and b) from the nature of the marriage contract in which the right to sexual intercourse is handed over from one party to the other. This obligation of rendering the marriage dues, although of its nature serious since it is concerned with a grave matter stipulated in a just contract, does admit of parvity of matter. Thus, if the wife were to refuse marital relations once or twice, awaiting a time more suitable to herself, she would not be guilty of grave sin — at least, if the husband is not thereby placed in proximate danger of incontinence or provoked to excessive anger.
It is self-evident that there is no obligation to render these dues if one of the parties has forfeited the right to ask for them by reason of his or her adultery or as the result of severence of conjugal relations having been legitimately obtained.
861. Second Principle. a) In itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and therefore it is permissible for both parties by mutual free consent to abstain from the act either permanently or for a time; b) but incidentally, by reason of charity, there does exist on occasions such an obligation.
The reason justifying the first part of the principle is that both parties are free to renounce their right to sexual intercourse. Thus Our Lady and St. Joseph, although truly married, freely renounced their right of asking for the marriage dues, and at least temporary continence is usually beneficial in promoting the spiritual life of husband and wife.
The reason for the second part of the principle is that the withholding of marital relations can be the cause of many evils, e.g. danger to chastity, a weakening of married love.
862. 3. Sins of the Married.
Principle. a) Whatsoever is directly and seriously opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity is a grave sin against chastity; b) anything that is done for mere sexual pleasure is a slight sin, provided it is not directly contrary to the offspring or to conjugal fidelity; c) whatever is useful for or necessary to the perfect fulfilment of the conjugal act and the fostering of marital love in not sinful.
Explanation. The second and third parts of this principle are sufficiently evident from what has been said in n. 859 regarding the use of the conjugal act for mere sexual pleasure and the circumstances accompanying the use of the act.
Serious harm is caused to the offspring and conjugal fidelity by:
a) sins of impurity committed with others either in deed or desire;
b) by solitary pollution;
c) by the practice of onanism. Sufficient has been said already in n. 518 sqq. in the treastise on chastity regarding sins belonging to the first and second categories. We must now consider the sin of onanism.
863. Onanism is of two kinds; solitary onanism, which is the same as pollution or self-abuse, and conjugal onanism which is practiced either a) by breaking off the conjugal act before semination**, or b) by the use of various instruments (e.g. a pessary) which prevent the seed of the male reaching its proper place. Here we shall speak of conjugal onanism only.
**note: It is gravely unlawful to wash out the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse with the express intention of expelling the seed or destroying the spermatozoa (by means of a liquid specially prepared for the purpose) so as to prevent conception. However such a washing is lawful if undertaken for hygienic reasons and not immediately after sexual intercourse, for it is certain that in those circumstances conception is not rendered impossible.
Moral Character. Conjugal onanism, no matter in what way it is freely practiced, is always grievously sinful.
Such is the teaching of right reason and of the Church. Right reason testifies clearly that onanism is directly contrary to the procreation of children and to conjugal fidelity and is merely a form of pollution. Furthermore this practice usually has disastrous consequences; the bodily health of both parties is often seriously affected, the birth of children is prevented, families and states are underpopulated, the feelings are exposed to every form of lust. — The Holy Office, May 21, 1851 declared as “scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural law of marriage” the following proposition: “For morally good reasons married people may use marriage in the manner proposed by Onan.” The Sacred Penitentiary, Nov. 13, 1901, replied “It is not permissible to absolve any penitent who refuses to desist from a way of acting which is plainly onanism.”
End Part Two
860. 2. The Obligation To Render The Marriage Dues.
Frist Principle. As often as one of the parties asks reasonably and seriously for the rendering of the marriage dues, the other is bound in justice to accede to the request; otherwise grave sin is committed.
Explanation. The request must be reasonable and serious.
The request is unreasonable if made in a state of drunkeness, or when one of the parties is seriously ill, or if the request is too frequent or causes scandal to others, or if the act is accompanied by the practice of onanism. — The request is not considered serious if made in the form of a desire rather than a definite will. — But if the request is reasonable and serious, then the other party is obliged in justice to render the marriage debt under pain of grievous sin, as is evident a) from the words of St. Paul quoted above, and b) from the nature of the marriage contract in which the right to sexual intercourse is handed over from one party to the other. This obligation of rendering the marriage dues, although of its nature serious since it is concerned with a grave matter stipulated in a just contract, does admit of parvity of matter. Thus, if the wife were to refuse marital relations once or twice, awaiting a time more suitable to herself, she would not be guilty of grave sin — at least, if the husband is not thereby placed in proximate danger of incontinence or provoked to excessive anger.
It is self-evident that there is no obligation to render these dues if one of the parties has forfeited the right to ask for them by reason of his or her adultery or as the result of severence of conjugal relations having been legitimately obtained.
861. Second Principle. a) In itself there is no obligation to ask for the act proper to the married state, and therefore it is permissible for both parties by mutual free consent to abstain from the act either permanently or for a time; b) but incidentally, by reason of charity, there does exist on occasions such an obligation.
The reason justifying the first part of the principle is that both parties are free to renounce their right to sexual intercourse. Thus Our Lady and St. Joseph, although truly married, freely renounced their right of asking for the marriage dues, and at least temporary continence is usually beneficial in promoting the spiritual life of husband and wife.
The reason for the second part of the principle is that the withholding of marital relations can be the cause of many evils, e.g. danger to chastity, a weakening of married love.
862. 3. Sins of the Married.
Principle. a) Whatsoever is directly and seriously opposed to the benefit of offspring and conjugal fidelity is a grave sin against chastity; b) anything that is done for mere sexual pleasure is a slight sin, provided it is not directly contrary to the offspring or to conjugal fidelity; c) whatever is useful for or necessary to the perfect fulfilment of the conjugal act and the fostering of marital love in not sinful.
Explanation. The second and third parts of this principle are sufficiently evident from what has been said in n. 859 regarding the use of the conjugal act for mere sexual pleasure and the circumstances accompanying the use of the act.
Serious harm is caused to the offspring and conjugal fidelity by:
a) sins of impurity committed with others either in deed or desire;
b) by solitary pollution;
c) by the practice of onanism. Sufficient has been said already in n. 518 sqq. in the treastise on chastity regarding sins belonging to the first and second categories. We must now consider the sin of onanism.
863. Onanism is of two kinds; solitary onanism, which is the same as pollution or self-abuse, and conjugal onanism which is practiced either a) by breaking off the conjugal act before semination**, or b) by the use of various instruments (e.g. a pessary) which prevent the seed of the male reaching its proper place. Here we shall speak of conjugal onanism only.
**note: It is gravely unlawful to wash out the vagina immediately after sexual intercourse with the express intention of expelling the seed or destroying the spermatozoa (by means of a liquid specially prepared for the purpose) so as to prevent conception. However such a washing is lawful if undertaken for hygienic reasons and not immediately after sexual intercourse, for it is certain that in those circumstances conception is not rendered impossible.
Moral Character. Conjugal onanism, no matter in what way it is freely practiced, is always grievously sinful.
Such is the teaching of right reason and of the Church. Right reason testifies clearly that onanism is directly contrary to the procreation of children and to conjugal fidelity and is merely a form of pollution. Furthermore this practice usually has disastrous consequences; the bodily health of both parties is often seriously affected, the birth of children is prevented, families and states are underpopulated, the feelings are exposed to every form of lust. — The Holy Office, May 21, 1851 declared as “scandalous, erroneous, and contrary to the natural law of marriage” the following proposition: “For morally good reasons married people may use marriage in the manner proposed by Onan.” The Sacred Penitentiary, Nov. 13, 1901, replied “It is not permissible to absolve any penitent who refuses to desist from a way of acting which is plainly onanism.”
End Part Two
G
glendab
Guest
And Part Three:
- Formal co-operation in the practice of onanism is never lawful; material co-operation in onanism which is practiced by withdrawal is sometimes lawful, provided there is a proportionately grave reason.
The reason for the prohibition against formal co-operation is that it is never permitted to co-operate formally in the sin of another, cf. n. 234. Material co-operation is sometimes permitted because the action of the person who co-operates materially is objectively good, and its evil character arises from the misuse of the act by the other person. Accordingly we must apply here the rules concerning evil actions which are indirectly voluntary. Reasons which are sufficiently grave to permit one of the parties to co-operate materially in the practice of onanism would be, e.g. a well-grounded fear of strife and quarrelling, or of adultery, etc. Furthermore it is required: a) that the innocent party is purely passive in the act of withdrawal; b) that he or she should try to persuade the other to refrain from the evil practice; c) that all internal pleasure in the evil act is witheld. If all these conditions are verified, either party may not only render but also request the marital duties from the other who practices onanism. However the innocent party is quite justified in refusing intercourse, since the other has no right to the conjugal act as the result of desire to abuse marriage in that way. Material co-operation in that form of onanism which is practiced by the use of mechanical contrivances can only be permitted when there is fear of very grave harm, so that the innocent party is obliged to offer positive resistance to any act which is of its nature and from its commencement is unlawful. Some authors maintain that the wife should then behave in almost the same way as a virgin would if attacked by a man. - No other known remedies against onanism exist at present which are both effective and lawful, apart form virtuous continence and firm trust in God. There are known to exist many physical means of preventing conception but they are all either unlawful or not certainly effective. To make use of the so-called safe period (i.e., to refrain from the conjugal act during the period then the woman is fertile) has been declared lawful by the Sacred Penitentiary, but it is not a certain means of preventing conception, since there is no infallible way of determining the safe period.
Other parts pertaining to the OP: - c) Solemn Religious Profession dissolves a non-consummated Christian marriage…Neither simple profession nor the solemn vow of chastity made during the reception of the subdiaconate dissolves a previous marriage. Formerly, if one of the parties considered entering a religious Order within the first two months of the marriage, he or she could refuse the marriage debt, but the Code of Canon law states, c. 1111, that from the moment the contract has been concluded both parties must render the debt if requested. Accordingly the ancient privilege has been withdrawn.
- Carnal Adultery committed by either of the parties gives the right to the innocent party to discontinue conjugal life.
The innocent person who, either upon sentence of the judge, or by his or her own authority, leaves the guilty party, has no longer any obligation to admit the adulterer again to conjugal life; however the innocent partner has the right to admit the guilty person and even to oblige him or her to return, unless the latter has in the meantime, with the consent of the former, embraced a state of life contrary to marriage (c 1130). If, therefore, the guilty party has embraced the religious life with the consent of the other person, he or she cannot be obliged to return later on. Although it is highly desirable that the consent of the Ordinary should be obtained before the parties cease living together because of adultery or for other reasons to be mentioned later, since this would obviate much inconvenience, nevertheless the innocent party may separate from the guilty person of his or her private authority if there is certainly and without any doubt a sufficient reason for separation and there is danger of delay (c.1131,:1)
Note: 1. The innocent party is permitted to sever conjugal life because of the adultery of his or her partner, but it is very rare that there is any obligation to do so. Generally speaking, it is preferable for the two parties to attempt a reconciliation.
- Carnal Adultery committed by either of the parties gives the right to the innocent party to discontinue conjugal life.
- Spiritual Adultery, i.e. heresy or apostasy (occurring after marriage), committed by one of the married parties who formally adheres to a non-Catholic sect or educates the children in heresy, is a sufficient reason for separation.
After such a crime there usually exists a serious danger of perversion either of the innocent party or of the children. But it is rarely lawful to effect a separation on private authority for such a reason; however, if this is done, the innocent party is bound to return to the other if the latter ceases to be a heretic (c 1131, :2).
- Spiritual Adultery, i.e. heresy or apostasy (occurring after marriage), committed by one of the married parties who formally adheres to a non-Catholic sect or educates the children in heresy, is a sufficient reason for separation.
- Mutual consent freely and lawfully given is a sufficient reason for severing conjugal relations even permanently.
For although the married may indulge in sexual intercourse they remain a liberty to observe continence by mutual consent.
- Mutual consent freely and lawfully given is a sufficient reason for severing conjugal relations even permanently.
G
glendab
Guest
And finally, Part Four:
Glenda
- Notes. 1. Resumption of Conjugal Life. If the separation was due to adultery there is never any strict obligation on the innocent party to resume conjugal life, as noted already; in all other cases the common life must be restored when the reason for the separation ceases; if however, the separation was pronounced by the bishop either for a time or indefinitely, the innocent party is not obliged to return except when the time specified has elapsed or the bishop give orders to return. (c 1131).
- Duties of the Married.
There are certain duties which are mutual and others which are peculiar to husband or wife.
a) The following obligations are mutual: i) mutual love both affective and effective; ii) the rendering of the marriage debt; iii) life in common (mutual companionship).
b) The husband is obliged i) as head of the family to guide his wife, children and servants; ii) to provide for his wife and family sufficient food, clothing and maintenance; iii) to administer family property wisely.
c) The wife is obliged: i) to show due obedience to her husband; ii) to pay careful attention to the home and to the education of her children.
Glenda
W
whm
Guest
It is a sin, it is grave matter. I doubt he knows this as it is not taught as widely or as clearly as it used to be. Knowing that it is important that you try to help your husband. Outright telling him that it is a sin not to have relations, might not work too well. Your husband appears to have a backwards view of sex, he is concerned about himself and not you. It will likely take a lot of education that ideally would have happened before marriage.
Note I am in a similar situation with the exception that there are some mitigating circumstances. Since my spouse was unwilling to work on the situation at all, I eventually decided not to pursue it any longer. I certainly did not want to put my spouse in a position to sin whether mortal or venial nor cause undo anxiety. The world did not come to an end, yeah we are missing out on something I guess, but we have plenty of good things going for us. For me it is great not to have to be preoccupied by it any longer.
P
phil_at_dayboro
Guest
Goodness me…What a lot of words…
A lot of People just don’t want to do it… They feel no need,no Urge And no use of it…
while the other is interested… not much you can do about it i’m afraid.read a book maybe ?
A lot of People just don’t want to do it… They feel no need,no Urge And no use of it…
while the other is interested… not much you can do about it i’m afraid.read a book maybe ?
- Status