Is it sinful to lust one's wife?

[itsjustdave1988]

Would this also include self imposed sterilization (Vasectomy, tubaligations, ect.)?

Yes, sterilization (either temporary or permanent) for the purpose of contraception is morally illict. If surgery is sought, however, as a medical procedure for some illness/pathology, and if contraception is neither intended either as a means or an end, then the surgery is licit under Catholic moral theology, applying the principle of double effect.

BTW: One’s natural ability to procreate is not an “illness/pathology,” despite some liberal tendencies to think otherwise.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (p. 1021) provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect. All four conditions must be met:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect”

 

[JRKH]

Is it always a sin to ‘lust’, or have sexual thoughts or fantasies about one’s own wife?
Say if you haven’t been intimate for a while, or maybe you are physically a part for long periods of time.
Not that you are just thinking of her as an object, or because you just want sex, but becuase you love her and want to be ‘with’ her?

Personally, based solely on what you have written here, I don’t see a problem.
What you are missing is the Lovng Joy that you and your spouse rightly give to each other in the bonds of marriage. Remembering these things and looking forward to them does not seem sinful. However it is best not to “Dwell on them” for this could lead to the “Narrow Occasion of Sin”

Of course their are caveats in anything of this nature.
If your thoughts interfere with what you should be doing and thinking about - Not Good!!
If your thoughts interfere with your duties to God (i.e. prayer)- Not Good!!
If the remembering leads to a sin of “self indulgence” - Not Good!!
If the anticipation involves things you might like but she does not - Not Good!!

Of course if you are concerned about it, why not ask your confessor?

 

[JRKH]

I’m trying to figure out in my practical reality,how it’s part of the Lords’ Plan…The Lord knows us better than any soul…

Lust,passion,you betcha ,if there is anyone I can "sin"with in this way it’s my husband.(With all reverence and dignity for the "theology"of his body!,of course!) I “love” him more fully now than I ever did as a young bride,and I’m not talking strictly sexually.,our marriage union has grown and is growing in love and "Com-Passion"for each other.
We both strive to live our lives centered on the Lord .There is such tremendous joy involved in sharing in that together.Vulgar discussion demeans the sacramentality of My union,so I won’t go there,but I will say I think my husband is a “Hottie”!

Ellen I like your post.
It kind of describes my dear wife and I. The Longer we are together the more full and beautiful our Love Grows. Our Passion has always grown out of that Love and expresses itself in such wonderous ways - But always in ways that are giving to the other, for there is much joy in that.

Unfortunately she is now ill with Alzheimers and we must use other ways than the marriage bed to give and express our Love for the other. Fortunately, we also have great fun together and love to laugh. God has Blessed us generously.

My wish for you dear Ellen is that You and your Husband continue to find grand and beautiful fulfilment in your marriage.

Peace
James

 

[itsjustdave1988]

So what is considered unjustly? One persons reasoning may not be considered just to another person, where is the line drawn?

That’s a big question: what is justice? There are entire courses in ethics and philosophy that discuss this question. I cannot provide a comprehensive answer here, but I can give some introductory info…

Something is unjust, first and foremost, if it contradicts the way of Christ. God gives us many “drawn lines” within the deposit of faith of Divine Revelation, which is entrusted and handed on in the tradition of the Church, both oral and written.

How one goes about informing their conscience regarding the Divine will, and then follow their informed conscience it is a bit more difficult to summarize.

Nonetheless, one thing to keep in mind is that one can sin by commission or by omission. A sin of commission is deliberately doing something evil. A sin of omission is a willful neglect of doing something good, neglect of an obligation or duty.

With regard to marriage, the vows normatively imply giving of themselves to each other, to include conjugal relations. Among other things, marriage is directed to the avoiding of sins against chastity (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2). Thus, marriage involves an obligation, and when one neglects an obligation, it is sin. This sin could be a stumbling block to one’s spouse, who may be increasiningly tempted to sin against chastity.

Can a spouse have trivial or “unjust” reasons for not having sex with their spouse? Sure. “I want to watch T.V., go away.” This kind of response to a spouse’s request for sexual relations may have the consequence of placing their spouse at risk of committing sins against chastity.

Can there be just reasons to either permanently or temporarily abstain from sexual relations? Certainly.

For example, the text Contemporary Moral Theology,Vol. II, Marriage Questions, by John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J., (Westminster Maryland: Newman Press, 1964), dedicates three chapters to the moral licitness of using periodic continence (i.e. periodic sexual abstinence) to avoid pregnancy. According to Fathers Ford and Kelly, there are three conditions for the morally licit use of periodic sexual abstinence (pg. 387-388):

(1) both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were
mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other);

(2) both parties were able to do so (this meant that the practice
did not involve either one in the unjustifiable occasion of sin, for
instance solitary sin *, or other sins against chastity, etc., and did not expose the marriage to unjustifiable dangers);

(3) provided that there existed a legitimate reason for avoiding conception.

So, what is a “legitimate reason?”

Pius XII used the phrase “serious proportionate motives,” and said that he had spoken on periodic continence "in order to put an end to the anxieties of conscience of many Christians," AAS, 50 (1958), 732-40, at 736." (ibid., p. 425-426). He called those motives “indeed quite broad” (AAS 43 (1951), 855-60, at 859).

Consequently, the expressions ‘grave motive,’ ‘serious reasons,’ etc., are the equivalent of the expression “proportionate reasons.”

Fathers Ford and Kelly explain:

"The institution of marriage has as its primary, intrinsic end, from nature and from God, the procreation of children. Consequently, all those who enter this state are per se obligated to procreate, if they can. Consequently, they are obliged to use their marriage rights * during fertile periods often enough to discharge this obligation. But this obligation is an affirmative one, and individual couples may be excused from it temporarily or permanently for*

proportionate reasons…" (ibid., p. 409)

“…couples who already have even one child cannot, in our opinion, be accused of a grave dereliction of their affirmative duty if they decide to have no more.” (p. 426)

“…no couple can in practice be accused of mortal sin merely because of the use of [NFP] without sufficient reasons…” (ibid., pg. 450)

Similarly, John Paul II taught:

The use of the infertile periods for conjugal union can be an abuse

if the couple, for unworthy reasons, seeks in this way to avoid having children, thus lowering the number of births in their family below the morally correct level. This morally correct level must be established by taking into account not only the good of one’s own family, and even the state of health and the means of the couple themselves, but also the good of the society to which they belong, of the Church, and even of all mankind. [John Paul II, http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb120.htm”]General Audience address, 5 September 1984]

See more here:

What is the morally correct level of children?
*

 

[newbetx]

Excellent and informative post… But I have a question about how to interpret this statement…

…
For example, the text Contemporary Moral Theology,Vol. II, Marriage Questions, by John C. Ford, S.J. and Gerard Kelly, S.J., (Westminster Maryland: Newman Press, 1964), dedicates three chapters to the moral licitness of using periodic continence (i.e. periodic sexual abstinence) to avoid pregnancy. According to Fathers Ford and Kelly, there are three conditions for the morally licit use of periodic sexual abstinence (pg. 387-388):

(1) both parties were willing to do so (this meant that they were
mutually agreed, that neither party forced the practice on the other);

%between%

Does this mean to imply that BOTH have to agree about wishing to postpone a possible pregnancy before they can use the method? I’ve been of the impression that BOTH must want to try to conceive, not both wish not to.

I read quite often here where (typically but not always) the woman would say: I want to have another baby but my husband does not… Why does his “no” out vote my “yes” I WANT another baby!

I know it is difficult to take such a large amount of data and crunch it down into a single post, but an alarm went off when I read this. I have seen several documents written by priests and bishops that discuss periodic abstenence as if it were “Catholic Contraception.”

Maybe I’m being a bit oversensitive but I’ve read it three times and I can’t see another way around how it is phrased. IMO, if one says “no,” the answer is “no.”

Or does it try to imply that PA can’t be forced upon the one who wishes an alternative such as ABC. That is not consistant with what I’ve seen on these forums, either.

 

[Prime]

It is a sin, according to Catholic moral theology, to unjustly withhold conjugal relations among spouses.

No. So long as the spouse does not unjustly withold conjugal relations, she does not sin.

I agree with the definitions but where exactly does ‘unjust’ witholding of marital relations with spouse begin?

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

See more here:

What is the morally correct level of children?

Great Post Dave, I appreciate it. Read most of it all and can understand where the RCC is coming from.

Hypothetically though, if custom of a community is that a man and woman are married and it is expected of them to have at least two children, one male one female, would it be a sin to abstain for child bearing after only giving birth to one child?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Does this mean to imply that BOTH have to agree about wishing to postpone a possible pregnancy before they can use the method?

Yes. For spouses to licitly abstain from sex, either periodically or permanently for some greater good (e.g., use natural family planning (NFP) to avoid conception), they both must willfully consent, the both must be able, and they must have a “serious” or “proportionate” reason. The three conditions: 1) willing, 2) able, 3) serious reason must all three be met, or the use of periodic or permanent continence is illicit (sinful).

The reason for this is that marriage obliges the offer of conjugal relations often enough to be a means to mitigate sins against chastity. If one were to withhold conjugal relations contrary to the will of the other, then it would be a sin of omission which may serve to push the other into porn, maturbation, adultery, etc. This is a serious consequence for not fulfilling condition 1) and 2) (willing and able).

What is the serious consequence of not fulfilling the 3rd condition? Catholic theologians have no consensus as to failure of “serious reason” being a “grave” sin. Thus, it can at most be considered a venial sin.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I agree with the definitions but where exactly does ‘unjust’ witholding of marital relations with spouse begin?

Perhaps examples might help clarify…

If I have a splitting headache, is that a just reason for not having conjugal relations?

If my wife as endometriosis which makes sexual relations very painful, is that a “just reason” for abstaining from sexual relations?

I’d say the two examples above are “just” reasons.

Let’s say, however, that in the past 6 months, the “I’m tired” or “I have a headache” response has been received so repetiviely that honestly seems questionable. The other spouse has patiently lived without any sex for six months. Is this just?

It’s one thing to give up sex for a greater good (i.e. health of the wife), but another altogether to give up sex for something that doesn’t seem at all to be a greater good. If one person desires it and continues to patiently request sexual relations, while the other person seems to always have what might seem to be rather dis-honest excuses, it amounts to them not seeing conjugal relations as a “good” in their marriage, and as such is not seen to be very important in their lives. This example may create malice between the spouses, harm marital unity and bring about conditions ripe for infidelity.

I can’t tell you when it “begins” in the above example, but when one spouse senses that the other is not honest in their “reasons” for not wanting sex, there’s something about the relationship that is missing the mark. In the above example, I think I’d schedule “date night” as often as needed to help restore the intimacy that may have diminished in the relationship.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…Hypothetically though, if custom of a community is that a man and woman are married and it is expected of them to have at least two children, one male one female, would it be a sin to abstain for child bearing after only giving birth to one child?

The above “expectation” seems to imply that we “make” children. We don’t. God does. They are a gift. What we do is participate instrumentally in God’s creative power through the use of another God-given gift: conjugal relations. However, there are no guarantees that in so doing, God is somehow obliged by it to give us the gift of a child. This depends solely upon God’s providence.

The above “custom” seems contrary to understanding that children are a gift from God, and so I would not allow it to influence the conduct of responsible parenthood in any way.

As for only having one child. The Church teaches that it is the conscientious discernment of the parents to decide the “morally correct level of children,” after having informed their consciences on the matter. Perhaps their decision turns out to be selfish (and as such sinful), so that they can afford that boat they always wanted. Then again, perhaps their decision to have but one child was objectively speaking, the greater good, given the circumstances of their family and community. Having one child cannot be considered a sin by someone else, who does not know the internal disposition of the souls of the parents. They don’t know, for example, psychological or medical health of the parents or other child, their financial conditions, etc. So, nobody, not even a priest can attribute sin to parents who choose to use NFP after already having one child. In fact, parents may very well have “serious reasons” for not attempting to have any children, and this is something parents must decide conscientiously, after having heard and understood Christian doctrine on the matter.

 

[Prime]

Perhaps examples might help clarify…

If I have a splitting headache, is that a just reason for not having conjugal relations?

If my wife as endometriosis which makes sexual relations very painful, is that a “just reason” for abstaining from sexual relations?

I’d say the two examples above are “just” reasons.

Let’s say, however, that in the past 6 months, the “I’m tired” or “I have a headache” response has been received so repetiviely that honestly seems questionable. The other spouse has patiently lived without any sex for six months. Is this just?

It’s one thing to give up sex for a greater good (i.e. health of the wife), but another altogether to give up sex for something that doesn’t seem at all to be a greater good. If one person desires it and continues to patiently request sexual relations, while the other person seems to always have what might seem to be rather dis-honest excuses, it amounts to them not seeing conjugal relations as a “good” in their marriage, and as such is not seen to be very important in their lives. This example may create malice between the spouses, harm marital unity and bring about conditions ripe for infidelity.

I can’t tell you when it “begins” in the above example, but when one spouse senses that the other is not honest in their “reasons” for not wanting sex, there’s something about the relationship that is missing the mark. In the above example, I think I’d schedule “date night” as often as needed to help restore the intimacy that may have diminished in the relationship.

The bottomline choice that I was driving at was:

a) Is it good for the relationship? (assuming no abuse of marital rights)
or
b) Is it good for my own comfort?
My take on this is:
One has to sacrifice b) in favor of a). Failing to take that sacrifice falls under the classification of being selfish.

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Dave,

I have loved all of your replies. They are concise and to the point. However, what you have explained brings up a serious question concerning the doctrine of the RCC concerning Mary and her virginity and or her sinlessness.

With the things you have explained in mind either Mary would have sinned by not participating in her marriage obligations toward Joseph or she did participate and was not a virgin.

Now if she participated in her marriage obligations with Joseph this would not proclude her being sinless as sexual relations with in the bounds of marriage and for the purpose of expressing ones love, as you have explained, is not a sin, therefore Mary could have remained sinless as the RCC so proports.

On the other hand if Mary abstained for her marriage obligations with Joseph would that not have endangered him to those sins that your mentioned in earlier posts.

How can this these two doctrines be reconciled as they seem to contradict each other.

 

[JRKH]

Dave,

I have loved all of your replies. They are concise and to the point. However, what you have explained brings up a serious question concerning the doctrine of the RCC concerning Mary and her virginity and or her sinlessness.

With the things you have explained in mind either Mary would have sinned by not participating in her marriage obligations toward Joseph or she did participate and was not a virgin.

Now if she participated in her marriage obligations with Joseph this would not proclude her being sinless as sexual relations with in the bounds of marriage and for the purpose of expressing ones love, as you have explained, is not a sin, therefore Mary could have remained sinless as the RCC so proports.

On the other hand if Mary abstained for her marriage obligations with Joseph would that not have endangered him to those sins that your mentioned in earlier posts.

How can this these two doctrines be reconciled as they seem to contradict each other.

I’m not Dave, but my 2cents is this.
There is really no contradition. If both spouses agree to forego sexual relations then there is no sin and Mary remains a Virgin. No problem.

Peace
James

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

I’m not Dave, but my 2cents is this.
There is really no contradition. If both spouses agree to forego sexual relations then there is no sin and Mary remains a Virgin. No problem.

Peace
James

Joseph must have been the Saint of all Saints to forego marital relations for over 30 years, I might be able to understand it if they weren’t married, but they were. The theology is that man is born with a sinful nature, it that is true then it must have taken the will power of the ages, yes I know, we can do all things through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit wasn’t sent until after Christ was Crucified. It has never made sense to me and still doesn’t.

 

[bilop]

Joseph must have been the Saint of all Saints to forego marital relations for over 30 years, I might be able to understand it if they weren’t married, but they were. The theology is that man is born with a sinful nature, it that is true then it must have taken the will power of the ages, yes I know, we can do all things through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit wasn’t sent until after Christ was Crucified. It has never made sense to me and still doesn’t.

The, non-doctrinal, tradition is that Joseph was an elderly widower when he married Mary, and she was a consecrated virgin, so the marriage was intended to be celibate from the beginning. This also ties to the “brothers and sisters” of Christ being Joseph’s children from his first marriage. People at the time would have thought them to be Jesus’s half-siblings.

It is also likely that Joseph died early in the life of Christ. We hear little of him in the Bible, or even the non-canonical early writings.

Again, these are non-definitive, small-t, traditional beliefs.

God Bless

 

[JRKH]

Joseph must have been the Saint of all Saints to forego marital relations for over 30 years, I might be able to understand it if they weren’t married, but they were. The theology is that man is born with a sinful nature, it that is true then it must have taken the will power of the ages, yes I know, we can do all things through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit wasn’t sent until after Christ was Crucified. It has never made sense to me and still doesn’t.

That is because you look at things with the eyes of man.

Consider this, Joseph knew from the beginning that Mary carried within her the Messiah, the Son of God. As such, his having relations with her would be a violation of a tabernacle of God.

Would you feel comfortable having relations with your spouse with this knowledge? Would you feel comfortable having relations with your spouse knowing that she is, also the spouse of the Most High God and the Mother of His Son? I can tell you I wouldn’t!!

Finally, consider that, in choosing the most Blessed Mary as Mother of His Son, God may also have chosen a most special Man to be Mary’s Earthly Spouse.

Normal male-female relationship thinking just doesn’t apply here.

Peace
James

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The bottomline choice that I was driving at was:

a) Is it good for the relationship? (assuming no abuse of marital rights)
or
b) Is it good for my own comfort?
My take on this is:
One has to sacrifice b) in favor of a). Failing to take that sacrifice falls under the classification of being selfish.

I agree. Pius XII explains that “serious reasons” is synonomous with “proportionate reaons.” There may be instances when we are called to sacrifice, to act in accord with the higher good, or even in some instances, the lesser evil.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dave,

I have loved all of your replies. They are concise and to the point. However, what you have explained brings up a serious question concerning the doctrine of the RCC concerning Mary and her virginity and or her sinlessness.

With the things you have explained in mind either Mary would have sinned by not participating in her marriage obligations toward Joseph or she did participate and was not a virgin.

Applying the conditions for licit (nonsinful) continence:

1. Both are willing
2. Both are able
3. Seriour reason

I can only assume Mary, who vowed to be a lifelong virgin before meeting Joseph, had entered into her marriage with Joseph, both being willing and able to remain continent, and therefore did meet the above conditions, giving up something good (conjugal relations) for something better (celibate relations).

Celibacy is preferred to conjugal relations, for those given this gift. Being “able” means that doing so is not an “occasion of mortal sin,” given that they were indeed given the gift of grace sufficient to overcome any temptations contrary to chastity.

Throughout the history of the Church, other married spouses have entered into complete continence as a sacred expression of their love for one another, and for their love of God. They are really spouses to one another, yet they have never had sex. I understand that given today’s “sex worshipping” society, many cannot even imagine such a thing. However, the Church allows complete ceilibacy within marriage, for “serious reasons.”

Mary and Joseph, had “serious reasons,” were willing and were able to remain celibate in their marriage, as have many others in the life of the Church.

 

[twb1621]

Lusting after one’s wife is sinful.

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, **not in the passion of lust **like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness.” (1 Thes 4:3-7)

Beautifully resolved…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…yes I know, we can do all things through the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit wasn’t sent until after Christ was Crucified.

Errrrrrrrrrrrr…no. Please read Scripture. The Holy Spirit was not absent until after the crucifixion. How do you suppose the babe in Elizabeth’s womb “lept” for joy? From the very beginning, God sent his Spirit (cf. Gen 1:2).