Is this a sin?

[fix]

There is an old phrase that anything taken to it’s logical extreme is illogical. The comments above are not responsive to the issue at hand, namely the OP’s problem with intercourse.

The short answer is that if someone sticks their foot out and trips the man, he stumbles; but to assume that he is solely responsible for stumbling is to say that anyone else can stick their foot out and trip him. The other party does not have permission to trip him, either. They have a moral duty to not put their foot out and trip him.

And if you don’t accept that, please re-read the Gospel comment by Christ about causing another to stumble… He imputes guilt to the one causing the stumble.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I am trying to follow your logic here. How is it one may commit an intrinsically evil act and claim less culpability based on the fact another has not held up their end of the contract? Taken to its logical conclusion much may be justified.

No doubt one is obliged to render the marital debt, but a failure to do so allows one to sin?

 

[otjm]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I am trying to follow your logic here. How is it one may commit an intrinsically evil act and claim less culpability based on the fact another has not held up their end of the contract? Taken to its logical conclusion much may be justified.

No doubt one is obliged to render the marital debt, but a failure to do so allows one to sin?

Where in my answer did I make any statement about allowance to sin?

Read it again. I said “he stumbles”, which is the language Christ used; I don’t think Christ said that the person who stumbles is “allowed” to sin.

It was The Chrismyster who went on about personal responsiblity, in essence denying that the wife’s non-responsiveness might have anything to do with the potential husband’s sin. Christ seems to say otherwise; in fact, I would say that He just flat out says it.

I can think of no relationship in which responsiblity to another is greater than in a marriage. The basis of marriage is covenant, something that runs much deeper than a contract; “I will be yours and you will be mine” is worlds different that “If you do this for me, I will be obliged to do this for you”, and the marital act is the supreme example of the total self-giving of each spouse to the other.

The OP is having problems with that self giving; and I make that statement not to suggest fault in any way. To simply resolve the issue in terms of “letting him have his way with her” is to miss what intercourse is about; it is supposed to be the deepest communication of self to the other.

Chrismyster would have it that if the husband chose to masturbate or view pornography as a result of his wife’s indifference, that he was solely and totally responsible. I see nothing in my answer that indicates that he has no responsbility. I do posit that both have a responsiblity should the husband turn to those outlets as a result of the effective rejection by his wife.

Nor do I see anything in my answer that suggests “license” (to use BlestOne’s language) or “allowance” (to use yours).

 

[PennitentMan]

Where in my answer did I make any statement about allowance to sin?

Read it again. I said “he stumbles”, which is the language Christ used; I don’t think Christ said that the person who stumbles is “allowed” to sin.

It was The Chrismyster who went on about personal responsiblity, in essence denying that the wife’s non-responsiveness might have anything to do with the potential husband’s sin. Christ seems to say otherwise; in fact, I would say that He just flat out says it.

I can think of no relationship in which responsiblity to another is greater than in a marriage. The basis of marriage is covenant, something that runs much deeper than a contract; “I will be yours and you will be mine” is worlds different that “If you do this for me, I will be obliged to do this for you”, and the marital act is the supreme example of the total self-giving of each spouse to the other.

The OP is having problems with that self giving; and I make that statement not to suggest fault in any way. To simply resolve the issue in terms of “letting him have his way with her” is to miss what intercourse is about; it is supposed to be the deepest communication of self to the other.

Chrismyster would have it that if the husband chose to masturbate or view pornography as a result of his wife’s indifference, that he was solely and totally responsible. I see nothing in my answer that indicates that he has no responsbility. I do posit that both have a responsiblity should the husband turn to those outlets as a result of the effective rejection by his wife.

Nor do I see anything in my answer that suggests “license” (to use BlestOne’s language) or “allowance” (to use yours).

Thank you for stating so elloquently what I could not express…

 

[dulcissima]

I can think of no relationship in which responsiblity to another is greater than in a marriage. The basis of marriage is covenant, something that runs much deeper than a contract; “I will be yours and you will be mine” is worlds different that “If you do this for me, I will be obliged to do this for you”, and the marital act is the supreme example of the total self-giving of each spouse to the other.

I think that this is very true. On a thread talking about putting up with abuse from a spouse someone made the comment about a marriage should not have to rely on one spouse being a saint in order to make it work. The same could be said in this situation. That’s why a spouse who regularly denied the other, would share in the guilt of any sin that the deprived spouse might commit as a result. A spouse who refuses to give of themselves can not rightly expect their spouse to be a saint and that there would be no moral consequences for their own selfishness.

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

I’ve wondered the same thing as you. I really dont care for sex. If my husband never pursued me I definitely would not pursue him. I would like to know, if letting him just have his way and I dont get involved mentally is a sin.

This lack of desire has increased immensely moreso in hte last 12 months.

shae

You have really aroused my curiousity. Why don’t you enjoy sex with your husband? You are missing out on a truly wonderful experience. My husband and I have been married for 24 years, and it is still great for both of us.

 

[marcadam]

HI!
First of all I have to say that if sex didn’t exist I would not care.
I’m married and I don’t get arouse very easily.My husband is very good with the first part but than he doesn’t last long and very often to get that thing done I need to have dirty thoughts.
Is this a sin?

Thank you

The phrase “dirty thoughts” is too vague to make a determination here. If you’re thinking about your husband, then no; if you’re thinking about the pool boy, eh, that might be a problem.

I cautiously ask for a clarification. Please be sensitive to our purity!

 

[fix]

Where in my answer did I make any statement about allowance to sin?

Read it again. I said “he stumbles”, which is the language Christ used; I don’t think Christ said that the person who stumbles is “allowed” to sin.

It was The Chrismyster who went on about personal responsiblity, in essence denying that the wife’s non-responsiveness might have anything to do with the potential husband’s sin. Christ seems to say otherwise; in fact, I would say that He just flat out says it.

I am just trying to clarify. Of course this is a case by case issue. I agree a spouse who refuses may incur grave culpability. My point is simply that causing another to stumble is very serious and it is serious because the one who stumbles is sinning. I just wanted to balance out the issue. It is worse for the one who causes the stumble but it is so because another is led into sin.

Chrismyster would have it that if the husband chose to masturbate or view pornography as a result of his wife’s indifference, that he was solely and totally responsible. I see nothing in my answer that indicates that he has no responsbility. I do posit that both have a responsiblity should the husband turn to those outlets as a result of the effective rejection by his wife.

Then we agree. I just asked for clarification.

Nor do I see anything in my answer that suggests “license” (to use BlestOne’s language) or “allowance” (to use yours).

Again clarity is helpful. The poster who brought this up said that he was told masturbation, in his case, would be venial and the wife would be culpable for mortal sin because he masturbated, if I read that right. I fail to see how that would be reasonable. Yes, the wife may be culpable for mortal sin for refuisng unjustly, but how is it the one who masturbates would be less culpable? Would that apply for seeking a prostitute, or some other adulterous sin under such circumstances?

My point is we ought not minimize the situation.

 

[thechrismyster]

i really wouldn’t expect anything else than this board to be a representation of society at large.
there is a large problem with acceptance of individual flaws.

we blame everything on others.

we are unsuccessful, poor, put down, trodden, sinful because of THEIR action. we’re not to blame, or at least, our guilt is lessened because of anothers actions.

‘yeah, I sinned, but I only did it cause’ she MADE ME."

“i can’t afford my bills, but its because my employer doesn’t pay me enough.”

its SOOOO hard for people to just say “i sinned because i was weak.”

If you are sin, it’s because you sin. if you don’t sin, its because you choose not to.anything else is just justification to make a guilt conscience feel better.
people need to quit blaming the world for their own shortcomings.

if you work for a boss that verbally abuses and underpays you… should you steal to supplement your income? hey, it’s his fault. he paid you too little and you’re just taking a little on the side.

no, find a new job and deal with what you’ve been dealt.

how about understanding your wives, finding out WHY they have no sexual desire, finding out if they have a medical condition, a mental issue they may need counseling about… no, it’s always about US. what our needs are. never considering that the male zipper CAN stay zipped in times of drought.

 

[lizaanne]

You have really aroused my curiousity. Why don’t you enjoy sex with your husband? You are missing out on a truly wonderful experience. My husband and I have been married for 24 years, and it is still great for both of us.

There can be many many reasons why a woman (or man for that matter) can have reduced libido. Hormonal changes, illness (known and unknown), depression, stress, diet, alcohol…it is a very personal and individual thing.

Kudos to you that you have a great sex life - that is not the case for everyone, nor does it mean that they do not love their spouse if libido is reduced.

~Liza

 

[Black_Jaque]

Again clarity is helpful. The poster who brought this up said that he was told masturbation, in his case, would be venial and the wife would be culpable for mortal sin because he masturbated, if I read that right. I fail to see how that would be reasonable. Yes, the wife may be culpable for mortal sin for refuisng unjustly, but how is it the one who masturbates would be less culpable? Would that apply for seeking a prostitute, or some other adulterous sin under such circumstances?

I often get into these debates in favor of the “shared culpability” of spouses. However, I disagree with Penitent Man’s assertion that the husbands culpability is reduced. Frankly, they can both end up in hell for it.

I suppose, for those who insist on the “every man for himself” way of determining culpability you could look at it like this. The wife is guilty of frigidity which is a mortal sin in and of itself. The husband might then commit adultery which is a mortal sin. Both end up in hell.

Either way you slice it, the end result is the same.

Interestingly, I’ve actually had a woman on this board tell me it was the man’s fault if the wife was frigid. But the same woman thought that if the man went out and cheated it was all his fault too. Interesting double standard - women are always the innocent victim of men’s sins. :ehh:

 

[marcadam]

What I do know is that you cannot lust over your husband.

That is not true. “Lust” is any disordered sexual appetite. If a woman (or man) were to engage in sexual fantasy–even about her husband–to the point of neglect of her other duties to her family, or if she were to countenance or engage in sexual perversion (sodomy, generally) with her husband, it would fall under the umbrella of “lustful acts”, or sexual intemperance.

More on lust

 

[lizaanne]

The wife is guilty of frigidity which is a mortal sin in and of itself.

First of all, the use of the word “frigidity” is an extremely poor choice of words. We could very well be talking about someone who is experiencing any of the medical situations I listed above, in which case, the person is hardly in a state of sin. To say that just because someone is not interested in sex that they are in a state of sin is extremely out of line.

Just be careful how you whip out that accusation of sin when you really don’t know the true details of the situation.

~Liza

 

[marcadam]

The poster who brought this up said that he was told masturbation, in his case, would be venial and the wife would be culpable for mortal sin because he masturbated, if I read that right. I fail to see how that would be reasonable. Yes, the wife may be culpable for mortal sin for refuisng unjustly, but how is it the one who masturbates would be less culpable? Would that apply for seeking a prostitute, or some other adulterous sin under such circumstances?

My point is we ought not minimize the situation.

This is an interesting OT subthread, and I think the above focusses the question nicely, on culpability.

In general, culpability can only be reduced by impairing the reason in some way. The magnitude of the temptation itself cannot be brought to bear on the question. Since the actor in this case is assumed to have full knowledge of the gravity of the act, we would have to assume there were some other factor involved.

The question is (bluntly): can “not getting it” really short-circuit otherwise functioning faculties into believing that there’s nothing wrong with masturbating? Given the nature of the sexual appetite, unless there is a mitigating issue like an addiction or other disorder, the answer is no.

As to the woman’s culpability in the matter, it would require a foreknowledge on her part that her husband’s sexuality is thusly disordered. Note that this is utterly independent of his culpability. It simply increases the sin on her part: now, not only is she failing to pay the marriage debt, but she is doing so with the knowledge of of the fragility of her husband’s state. But again, if she is ignorant of his manifest weakness, she bears no blame for his actions, only her own.

An interesting argument for the man’s case: what of the impact of the disordered appetites of our sex-saturated culture? I don’t think this holds water. If the man’s reason/conscience are doing their job, he should be taking steps to sheild his purity. Failure to do so is sinful in itself.

 

[LovedForever]

My heart goes out to you PennitentMan. You try SO hard to do the right thing, be a man of God, look at yourself honestly, and seek the counsel of a wise and holy priest. God will truly honor your efforts.

That said, the point should be made here that a woman is always able to “receive” her husband (extreme circumstances excluded of course such as illnesses or abuse).
She does not need to rely on her body to produce, eh hum… an erection to perform the marital act like a man does.
God designed us this way and we need to really ponder it truthfully and accept that reality.

So for a woman it is her WILL and willingNESS to love her husband totally - body and spirit - that matters.
It is true that in general a woman’s libido is not as high as a man’s. Our hormones fluctuate often for one, among other factors. But the bottom line is we are simply wired differently.
Many women will acknowledge the fact that they often are not “in the mood”, but once they get going with their husband they find pleasure and experience the love and intimacy it is meant to create.
When did this notion that we should “be in the mood” in order to make love to our spouse (and more to the point - GIVE ourselves to him or her when requested) arise?
It is a falsehood and I think has done much harm to marriages.

The truth that our bodies cease to be our “own” when we exchange those sacramental wedding vows needs to be emphasised over and over in all marriage prep classes! It is indeed a mortal sin to refuse without due cause (grave cause actually) - your spouse’s request for the marital embrace.
And when we honor that - it becomes a circle of growing love and giving. Not one of master and slave as the world would have us believe.

You are in my prayers PennitentMan.

 

[Black_Jaque]

To say that just because someone is not interested in sex that they are in a state of sin is extremely out of line.

I always thought frigid implies a refusal along with the lack of interest. Lack of interest is the condition in which a woman might find herself. Refusal is the action she takes, and it’s a sinful action, unless there is a serious impediment. Some of those items you listed may constitute a serious impediment, some wouldn’t. Hormone shifts caused by breastfeeding is not a serious impediment.

If we are to expect that a man should be a master of his hormones, and act rightly in the face of hormonal urges, then it seems fair to expect women to master their hormones too.

If a man, in spite of his strong libido, can lead a very pure existence, keeping custody of his eyes, keeping his thoughts pure, saving himself for his wife and his wife only, and bear the suffering with joy; then why shouldn’t we expect a woman, in spite of her low libido, to receive her husband joyfully?

 

[PennitentMan]

You are in my prayers PennitentMan.

Thank you very much for the kind words.

In Christ,
PM

 

[Black_Jaque]

When did this notion that we should “be in the mood” in order to make love to our spouse (and more to the point - GIVE ourselves to him or her when requested) arise?
It is a falsehood and I think has done much harm to marriages.

It came from the sexual revolution. Where the goodness of the marital embrace was subjectified - made dependent upon the experience of both. And feminism which defined rape solely on the disposition of the woman’s attitude - if she didn’t want to - then it was rape. Sometimes even if she decided after the fact that she really didn’t want to it was still rape.

Rather, marital intimacy is objectively good. Just like going to mass is good, even if the only reason you’re going is because you were told you have to. Attending mass out of obligation is good. And the more you understand what mass is, the better you come to know Christ, the more anxious you are to attend.

 

[fix]

This is an interesting OT subthread, and I think the above focusses the question nicely, on culpability.

In general, culpability can only be reduced by impairing the reason in some way. The magnitude of the temptation itself cannot be brought to bear on the question. Since the actor in this case is assumed to have full knowledge of the gravity of the act, we would have to assume there were some other factor involved.

The question is (bluntly): can “not getting it” really short-circuit otherwise functioning faculties into believing that there’s nothing wrong with masturbating? Given the nature of the sexual appetite, unless there is a mitigating issue like an addiction or other disorder, the answer is no.

As to the woman’s culpability in the matter, it would require a foreknowledge on her part that her husband’s sexuality is thusly disordered. Note that this is utterly independent of his culpability. It simply increases the sin on her part: now, not only is she failing to pay the marriage debt, but she is doing so with the knowledge of of the fragility of her husband’s state. But again, if she is ignorant of his manifest weakness, she bears no blame for his actions, only her own.

An interesting argument for the man’s case: what of the impact of the disordered appetites of our sex-saturated culture? I don’t think this holds water. If the man’s reason/conscience are doing their job, he should be taking steps to sheild his purity. Failure to do so is sinful in itself.

I agree. I may have misread otjm’s position in this matter. My only point was to assert one does not lessen culpability of a grave sin simply because another refuses to render the debt.

 

[Black_Jaque]

My only point was to assert one does not lessen culpability of a grave sin simply because another refuses to render the debt.

I agree.

 

[Teddy_P_1]

My heart goes out to you PennitentMan. You try SO hard to do the right thing, be a man of God, look at yourself honestly, and seek the counsel of a wise and holy priest. God will truly honor your efforts.

That said, the point should be made here that a woman is always able to “receive” her husband (extreme circumstances excluded of course such as illnesses or abuse).
She does not need to rely on her body to produce, eh hum… an erection to perform the marital act like a man does.
God designed us this way and we need to really ponder it truthfully and accept that reality.

So for a woman it is her WILL and willingNESS to love her husband totally - body and spirit - that matters.
It is true that in general a woman’s libido is not as high as a man’s. Our hormones fluctuate often for one, among other factors. But the bottom line is we are simply wired differently.
Many women will acknowledge the fact that they often are not “in the mood”, but once they get going with their husband they find pleasure and experience the love and intimacy it is meant to create.
When did this notion that we should “be in the mood” in order to make love to our spouse (and more to the point - GIVE ourselves to him or her when requested) arise?
It is a falsehood and I think has done much harm to marriages.

The truth that our bodies cease to be our “own” when we exchange those sacramental wedding vows needs to be emphasised over and over in all marriage prep classes! It is indeed a mortal sin to refuse without due cause (grave cause actually) - your spouse’s request for the marital embrace.
And when we honor that - it becomes a circle of growing love and giving. Not one of master and slave as the world would have us believe.

You are in my prayers PennitentMan.

Well I think it is very important for both to be satisfied. If the woman only makes herself available to her husband the hole act is lessened and the husband will soon learn that there is something the matter and begin to doubt himself. And for the record if my wife held back sex or anything like that I do not feel it so important that she should go to hell. But I don’t make the rules.

Teddy