Marital Conjugal Struggle

  • Thread starter Thread starter ManofGod1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManofGod1

Guest
Is the following article in line with the Catholic View on sex? (The paragraphs below)

What do you do when your spouse won’t have sex with you? Husbands and wives are puzzled, hurt, and frustrated because their spouse either refuses sex or will have sex only on rare occasions. If you have worked hard to be understanding, kind, clean, attractive, affectionate, patient, an initiator, etc., and your spouse still won’t have sex with you, this blog is for you.

Scripture is clear that it is wrong to consistently deprive your spouse of sex:

“The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife. Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (NLT)

The Message paraphrases (and illuminates) 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 as:

“Sexual drives are strong, but marriage is strong enough to contain them and provide for a balanced and fulfilling sexual life in a world of sexual disorder. The marriage bed must be a place of mutuality—the husband seeking to satisfy his wife, the wife seeking to satisfy her husband. Marriage is not a place to “stand up for your rights.” Marriage is a decision to serve the other, whether in bed or out. Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times. Then come back together again. Satan has an ingenious way of tempting us when we least expect it. I’m not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence—only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.”

I do not interpret this Scripture to mean that you should never turn your spouse down when s/he asks you for sex because sometimes we have legitimate reasons for not wanting physical intimacy at a particular time. I do interpret this Scripture to mean that you should not turn your spouse down frequently and certainly not for months or years (I’m not talking about situations where a spouse is verbally/physically abusive or demands sexual activity that feels wrong or is physically painful).

Despite this clear biblical teaching, many Christian wives and husbands avoid or refuse sex. Why? Because of selfishness.

It’s human nature to avoid pain. If we think something will be unpleasant, we tend to avoid it, even if avoiding that thing will cause someone else pain or unpleasantness. For example, kids typically don’t want to do chores. They seem like unpleasant tasks, so kids avoid chores even if that means that their parents will be upset or left to pick up the slack. It takes years to train children to see past their selfish impulses to the bigger picture of “we all live in this house so we must all cooperate to keep it running well.”
 
Hi!
I wouldn’t say it’s against Church teachings, as the big purpose of marriage is procreation, which, of course, requires intercourse. A spouse prolonging intercourse indefinitely for (seemingly) no reason would be against the purpose of marriage. I don’t have knowledge on how they interpreted the Scripture, but in terms of their words it checks out.
 
Despite this clear biblical teaching, many Christian wives and husbands avoid or refuse sex. Why? Because of selfishness.
That is quite a generalization. There are many things in life that can cause one’s spouse to avoid sex that have nothing to do with selfishness. In fact, to insist or implore their spouse that they should have sex despite their reasons not for not wanting to is the ultimate in selfishness. A spouse may have depression, or be under stress, or physically tired from their job.
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, some couples just aren’t that focused on sex.
It’s not a problem if both of them have sex as a low priority.
It’s only a problem if sex is a high priority for one and not for the other.

And as Irishmom said, the person who’s wanting sex all the time when the other person is tired or unwell or stressed or grieving or whatever might very well be seen as selfish also.

If a couple is having a problem in this area, the best thing would be medical checkups to see if there is a medical cause, and then counseling, without a bunch of name-calling (as in “you’re selfish”), so they can work out a compromise and understand why sex is/ is not important to the other party.

I know some people who claim to have a physical need for sex, and others who see sex as a very important way of their spouse showing love for them or confirming their attractiveness. I myself would never marry such a person as I would quickly find them tiresome.
 
By the way, where did you get this article? Is it from a Catholic website? Is it your own work? If this is someone else’s article and you’re reposting it here, it’s best to provide the source so we have some idea where it came from and so the author is properly credited.
 
Believe it or not, some couples just aren’t that focused on sex.
It’s not a problem if both of them have sex as a low priority.
It’s only a problem if sex is a high priority for one and not for the other.
In addition to recognizing that people can naturally have varying libidos, we also have to recognize that libidos can change over time. A couple may be very active sexually as newlyweds, then taper off if they have young kids. When you’re sleep deprived and knee deep in dirty diapers, no one feels super sexy. And then, of course, there might be a renaissance when the kids are older.

All that to say, as @Irishmom2 said, there can be a lot of reasons for a sexual slowdown that have nothing to do with “selfishness.”
 
By the way, where did you get this article? Is it from a Catholic website? Is it your own work? If this is someone else’s article and you’re reposting it here, it’s best to provide the source so we have some idea where it came from and so the author is properly credited.
Yes, please @ManofGod1, please could you provide a link, and some backstory about why you’ve quoted this?

I do find it slightly concerning that the author states:
If you have worked hard to be understanding, kind, clean, attractive, affectionate, patient, an initiator, etc., and your spouse still won’t have sex with you, this blog is for you.
The best thing this blog could do is to recommend offline help ASAP, whether that be a doctor, Priest, a marriage counselor, or anything else. As the other posters have pointed out, there’s a myriad of reasons as to why sex decreases in a marriage, and it isn’t honest (nor especially helpful) to label that reason as “selfishness”.

If a spouse is finding sex painful or unpleasant, I don’t believe they should be expected just to suck it up for the sake of the other party. I do believe they should communicate with their spouse, and work to overcome pain or unpleasantness, as much as that is possible.
 
Hello!

This is from an article. I tried to share the link originally but it would let me share it.

Also, this is only a portion of the article.

The article is:

What Do I Do If My Spouse Won’t Have Sex?​

  • October 5, 2012
  • By: JenniferDegler
 
Jennifer Degler is some Protestant “Christian” counselor and “life coach” who has written a book on rekindling sexual intimacy in marriage. Her website has a Statement of Faith that’s basically universalist/ nondenominational. The fact that she’s Protestant also explains all the “Giving Authority” language and other garbage about “abstaining from sex” in the stuff you posted. That’s not Catholic talk.

A Catholic shouldn’t be turning to this lady for advice on marriage or anything else. You put your faith at risk reading stuff by Protestant hucksters. Talk to a priest, deacon, or Catholic counselor.

https://www.jenniferdegler.com/about/
 
Last edited:
Is the following article in line with the Catholic View on sex?
More or less.

Catholic teaching does include the marital debt, and the serious obligation spouses have to fulfill it when reasonably asked.

St. Augustine wrote extensively on this topic.
 
I’m asking simply because I wanted to see if the article itself was in alignment with church teaching.

I’m not following her, I just found this information and wanted to see if it was viewed as correct in the light of the church.
 
There’s a lot wrong with the article:
  1. The idea that it’s only “permissible” to abstain for a “limited time” in order “give yourself completely to prayer”. As we have posted, there are a lot of reasons for people to abstain other than prayer, and the Church is fine with that, and also has no time limitation on it as long as the spouses mutually agree. Jennifer Deglan’s interpretation of Scripture does not tell us what is “permissible”.
  2. The idea that in sex each spouse is supposed to have “authority” over the other one’s body and each spouse is suppposed to “fulfill” the other’s “needs”. Technically, we don’t “need” sex and this statement could be read as saying that if a particular sex act is painful, against medical advice, or even sinful, then you still have to do it if your spouse decides they “need” it.
  3. There’s no mention of the procreative purpose of sex in any of this, or its being open to life.
  4. The idea that if you go without sex too long, Satan will tempt you because your sex drive is just too strong to avoid that. That’s baloney. Even if he did tempt you, you’re supposed to be strong enough to say no.
In short: Protestant gunk.
Read a Catholic article instead.
 
And I’d say selfishness goes both ways. If something is a fundamental aspect of a marriage, it should be given some priority in terms of willingness. A pestering spouse who does not respect that their spouse does not want to do something right now for good reason is likely being selfish.

Likewise, a spouse who constantly prioritizes their own current reasons for not wanting to in rebuffing a spouse may be acting selfishly.

There is no hard and fast rule about which spouse is being selfish; it is a couple to couple and spouse to spouse determination.

However, I think if we changed “having sex” to “spending quality time together” or “going out on dates”, we would not always (my impression) be so quick to defend the spouse who was doing all the rebuffing. Respect needs to flow in both directions.
 
Last edited:
There is no hard and fast rule about which spouse is being selfish; it is a couple to couple and spouse to spouse determination.
I don’t disagree. I think the problem is that the language of “debt” is poorly chosen. Sorry St. Augustine.

But yeah, I agree the spouses have an obligation to care about each other’s sexual fulfillment. Where it goes off the rails, I think, is when people interpret that as “my spouse is my sex slave and is never allowed to not be in the mood.”
 
Agreed. The general advice is usually wrapped up “the spouse requesting sexual intimacy is being selfish.”

A) That may be true.

B) The other spouse may be acting selfishly, but this point seems to not be discussed nearly as often.
 
Spouses should not regularly deprive one another of sex.

1 Cor. 7:1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
 
Abstaining from sex is permissible for a period of time if you both agree to it, and if it’s for the purposes of prayer and fasting—but only for such times.
Bold mine.

Only for such times is definitely not a a Catholic view.

Could not be because the Catholic way of spacing children involved abstience.

Defintitely a Protestant view (only Scripture as source) .
 
but, practically speaking, in this case it may be best to leave it (religion) outside the bedroom door.
I wouldn’t say we should leave religion outside the bedroom. Religion touches on all aspects of our lives. That said, I agree that “the Baltimore catechism says you have to have sex with me” is not likely to be the most fruitful approach.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top