Husband claims "sexual sin"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barnabysmom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Barnabysmom

Guest
My husband of 20 years recently read some of the saints^ statements about sexual sin within marriage. We do not contracept and STRICTLY adhere to the moral teachings of the church. His concern is that the “mutual enjoyment” renders it sinful. He did not consult a priest on this matter. He singlehandedly declared it tainted and wrong.

This is not the first time he has made outlandish claims without first consulting our priest. In the past, he asked me to live as brother and sister because he was not sure his annulment given by the Catholic Church was enough/valid. He had no formal reason to believe it is not. It was officially granted. I openly refused. Eventually he backed down, but I carry the emotional scars.

I am distraught by his obsession with this, and have now asked him to live an abstinent marriage. He says he does not want that. He only wants the sexual act to be penetrative but without any other contact/pleasure. I refuse to be subjected to that, as I feel objectified by it…

I do not want to be hurt again. I feel utterly rejected and beyond embarrassed. Please help. I love him very much and we are raising 3 children.

How should I proceed?
 
Would he be willing to sit down with a priest? Your husband has some ideas about sex that are frankly bizarre.
 
At this point, he seems very upset that he’s hurt me again and would probably agree to seek professional help. Not sure what therapist would meet his orthodox expectations, however. Any therapist that considers him to be “too uptight about sin” ot seems modern would lose his respect quickly.
 
At my request he wrote an email to our priest. We’ve received no answer after 10 days. I agree with you in that his sexual obsession is bizarre. For years he cheated on his previous wife, who would deny him intimacy. Now, married to me, he seems to be looking for reasons not to enjoy what’s available to him.
 
Barnaby(name removed by moderator) said:
My husband of 20 years recently read some of the saints^ statements about sexual sin within marriage. We do not contracept and STRICTLY adhere to the moral teachings of the church. His concern is that the “mutual enjoyment” renders it sinful. He did not consult a priest on this matter. He singlehandedly declared it tainted and wrong.
Click to expand...
Which saints? Some of the saints got it very wrong when it came to sexual ethics and marriage. Being a Saint does not mean that all your writings are doctrine. Even the great St. Thomas Aquinas had to admit he was wrong on the Immaculate Conception.
Contrary to popular belief, the Church doesn’t actually have many rules around sex in marriage. Your husband needs to speak to a priest who is well learned in this area and submit to the authority of the Church on these matters. One of the sins in marriage can be depriving or hurting your spouse in this manner. He needs to stop being an armchair theologian and do what is right for his spouse.
 
Barnaby(name removed by moderator) said:
At my request he wrote an email to our priest. We’ve received no answer after 10 days. I agree with you in that his sexual obsession is bizarre. For years he cheated on his previous wife, who would deny him intimacy. Now, married to me, he seems to be looking for reasons not to enjoy what’s available to him
Click to expand...
Some people go from being sexually promiscuous to basically being an over-scrupulous prude. I wonder if that’s what happened to your husband. In any case it seems like he needs an intervention from some kind of authority figure to explain to him that he’s wrong on this.
 
Thank you Adam. I’ve pasted a portion of my husband’s email to our priest:

"It seems there is a strong consensus against sexual pleasure -even within marriage- but that it is “excusable” as a necessary evil in order to procreate. To Aquinas, as an example, it violates the natural law: “ because the reason is carried away entirely on account of the vehemence of the pleasure, so that it is unable to understand anything at the same time, the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused …” ( Summa Theologica, Supplement , Q. 49, Art. 5) Digging further into my Summa, it is “excused,” of course, by the goods of marriage, which are sacrament, faith, and offspring. But the obvious implication both here and elsewhere is that anything sexual outside what directly brings forth offspring is unreasonable, lascivious, and wrong.

This strikes me as completely opposed to what I have heard in current Catholic circles: that excluding consummated oral and anal sex, pretty much anything goes, as long as procreation is possible at the point of the man’s climax: including, implicitly, doing whatever it takes to achieve the wife’s physical satisfaction.

JPII indicates that marital sexual felicity is an important, shared enterprise, and a vehicle of divine love in and of itself, and especially that the satisfaction of both partners is equally important. I find no other saint who even mentions “satisfaction” (of either partner) as a consideration in marital sex. Given the seeming prohibitions and condemnations of the entire body of moral theologians and saints that preceded him, the modern emphasis on pleasure seems “discontinuous” to say the least."

He also mentioned the writings of St. Bridgette of Sweeden.
 
Barnaby(name removed by moderator) said:
"It seems there is a strong consensus against sexual pleasure -even within marriage- but that it is “excusable” as a necessary evil in order to procreate. To Aquinas, as an example, it violates the natural law: “ because the reason is carried away entirely on account of the vehemence of the pleasure, so that it is unable to understand anything at the same time, the marriage act also will always be evil unless it be excused …” ( Summa Theologica, Supplement , Q. 49, Art. 5) Digging further into my Summa, it is “excused,” of course, by the goods of marriage, which are sacrament, faith, and offspring. But the obvious implication both here and elsewhere is that anything sexual outside what directly brings forth offspring is unreasonable, lascivious, and wrong.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s all wrong and basically draws upon the discarded elements of some of the saints’ musings on sexual ethics. The official Church never viewed sexual pleasure between spouses as wrong or a necessary evil. Actually that’s quite a protestant thing to think.
Barnaby(name removed by moderator) said:
This strikes me as completely opposed to what I have heard in current Catholic circles: that excluding consummated oral and anal sex, pretty much anything goes, as long as procreation is possible at the point of the man’s climax: including, implicitly, doing whatever it takes to achieve the wife’s physical satisfaction.
Click to expand...
You are correct, in fact I had a discussion with a trusted priest and he specifically said that helping one’s wife to climax is perfectly in keeping with the unitive and procreative nature of the act. The Church doesn’t really state what is and isn’t allowed within the marital act and much is left open to the common sense of the spouses. I presume the Church operates from the assumption that married Catholics have been properly formed.
 
Barnaby(name removed by moderator) said:
My words to him exactly.
Click to expand...
A good example is St. Augustine. He wrote extensively on the sexual area, but the Church disregards much of what he says as it was overly influenced by his involvement in Manichaeism, which viewed the physical world as evil. This particular heresy has repeatedly emerged throughout the ages, again in the form of Albigensianism in the Middle Ages, which St. Dominic and his Order of Preachers did much to counter, and again after the Reformation with puritan forms of Protestantism.
 
Last edited:
From the CCC - 2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

So, unless you meet the criteria for lust, your sexual pleasure is okay.
 
We’ve been trying to conceive another child for years. As for unity, I have always believed that the marital embrace pleased God and brought us closer to each other. His sudden repulsion for it is more that I can bear. He has told me he is already “mourning its loss”…

These almost feel like “private revelations” he believes he has received by reading too much into the beautiful writings of some fantastic saints. I am a cradle Catholic and raised under an authoritarian household: I just listen to the Magisterium and delve no deeper.
 
I’ve never considered this. Thank you so much for shedding some light on it.
 
It’s hard to internalize that the musings of saints are not all true and useful.

The procreative and unitive purposes don’t have to mean that you are actively trying to achieve pregnancy, just that you’re doing it “right”.

Mutual enjoyment is a purpose of the marital embrace, not something that renders it sinful.
 
It seems that your husband somehow got the issues of sex within marriage, out of order. He may be trying to punish himself for his past sexual misconduct.

I won’t discourage you from trying to have a baby. But, please, don’t expect said child to ‘cure’ any marital problems. Try and keep marital issues and parental issues separate!
 
Last edited:
Legend said:
eems that your husband somehow got the issues of sex within marriage, out of order. He may be trying to punish himself for his past sexual misconduct.
Click to expand...
I’ve seriously considered that.
 
Legend said:
I won’t discourage you from trying to have a baby. But, please, don’t expect said child to ‘cure’ any marital problems. Try and keep marital issues and parental issues separate!
Click to expand...
What gave you that impression? I only mentioned that to illustrate that we’ve been open to procreation.
 
It just seems to happen that way, sometimes, with couples who have marital problems. Since you both seem to be open to life, probably not a big problem.
 
Barnaby(name removed by moderator) said:
In the past, he asked me to live as brother and sister because he was not sure his annulment given by the Catholic Church was enough/valid. He had no formal reason to believe it is not. It was officially granted.
Click to expand...
This sounds a lot like my mother. She has obsessive/compulsive tendencies. Even if people who know what they’re talking about/have authority to declare official decisions say things are one way, she will put her own stipulations on it with a “just in case” or “just for good measure” mentality behind it. It’s very detrimental and I wish she would get some professional help. She refuses…but I digress.

Maybe your husband has similar obsessive/compulsive tendencies? It also sounds like it could be Scrupulosity…I hope he can talk with a good and trusted priest or Catholic counselor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top