Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, and ideally both spouses will be practicing Catholics and fully embrace the concept of the marital debt. What happens if one spouse does not?
I would never dream of “demanding” sex from my wife, even though I have had to go without for months at a time sometimes… even if I technically have a right to demand it, to do so, while your spouse clearly has no desire for it, seems incredibly loutish.
 
Last edited:
Yea, that was a mistake on my part, as it’s a hypothetical scenario that would not occur.

But, the point that was made l by others was that a spouse has no loving obnligatio to suggest a postponement, but is perfectly justified to just say no, and that’s the end of it. No consideration at all to one’s spouse’s feelings or desires. Just “nope, were are not having sex”.
 
twf said:
What happens if one spouse does not?
Click to expand...
That is why this discussion should be focused on our own attitude towards marital relations and not as a means of judging our spouses. I have not lived this scenario, but if I did, I would never (or at least try not yo, we all sin) arbitrarily reject my wife’s advances and I would assume she always had a just reason if she was to say no.

In other words, pretty much the same behavior I have been advicocating.
 
QwertyGirl said:
What kind of wife would want to disturb her husband’s peaceful enjoyment of watching a football game by requesting he turn off the game and get busy with her? The game doesn’t last forever, afterall. This whole scenario seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...
Right. A loving wife who knows what a big football fan her husband is, would probably wait until the game is over before making her move anyway. It’s a win-win for both. A loving husband, if the request is made during a game he was really looking forward to watching, would ask for a deferral until the end of the game. Surely, the wife would find that reasonable.
 
Sophie111 said:
When you can demonstrate that freely gifting your body to each other in marriage is a sign of personal immaturity (as opposed to personal maturity) through authoritative studies I would be interested.
Click to expand...
A gift, by definition is not something you have a right to take. The gift is handed by the giver and they have every right not to give you the gift. It’s not a gift if you deny their right to refuse it and gain a sense of entitlement over it.
 
Denying sex one time is irrelevant to the marital debt in my opinion. Over the course of an extended time, perhaps. Marriage is about a lot more then sex, sex isn’t and shouldn’t even be the priority. Anyone who thinks this way clearly hasn’t studied Theology of the Body. Sex on command has nothing to do with temples of the Holy Spirit.

If denying one time is sinful, we are going down quite the pharasitical route. This scenario is exactly what Jesus warns of in Matthew 22:18
 
Last edited:
Its Christian marriage, not sure about natural marriage though. Do you have a Magisterial source for this opinion?
 
Last edited:
Please.
This reminds me of painful TV romancss where a chauvenistic male surprise his girlfriend with a public wedding proposal.
 
tafan2 said:
BTW, I also said that it’s always ok to respond, honey how about later? That wasn’t well received by you guys either.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t square with what you stated in your previous post. You stated that refusal, for reasons other than health or fatigue, equates to sinning.
 
It squares perfectly. I stated refusal for only a trivial reason is sinning (there are other reasons for reasonable refusal besides fatigue and illness), but requesting a postponement is not a refusal. What is so difficult to understand about that?
 
tafan2 said:
It squares perfectly. I stated refusal for only a trivial reason is sinning (there are other reasons for reasonable refusal besides fatigue and illness), but requesting a postponement is not a refusal. What is so difficult to understand about that?
Click to expand...
Talking in circles. I’m going to bow out now. I don’t really have a dog in a fight, since I don’t subscribe to the Catholic teachings on human sexuality or marriage. I just hate to hear about unhealthy things in marriages based on perceived religious teachings which are based on personal interpretation only.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
BTW, I also said that it’s always ok to respond, honey how about later? That wasn’t well received by you guys either.
Click to expand...
Which would be fine, but I think where we’d disagree is whether the spouse who asked can then legitimately say, “hm…no, sorry. I’ve considered your request for a postponement and that just doesn’t work for me. We’ll be doing it right now.”

The question comes is the refusing spouse making some kind of request for amnesty or is he/she exercising a legitimate right to say no, not right now? I say the latter, you seem to be saying the former
 
I do not understand your point. I have been very clear about how I feel one should respond to a spouse declining an request. Over and over again I have said one should always assume one’s spouse has a just cause for declining. Yet you continue to accuse me of other behavior or ideas. It is both extraordinary rude on your part, and shows a very weak ability of debate.
So argue my points or be quiet, but stop bring in stupid red herrings. You can flag this post if you want, but I am sick and tired of having to repeat myself and again and again being accused of boorish behavior.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, thinking one has an obligation to not lightly shun their spouse is unhealthy.
 
QwertyGirl said:
40.png
Ryan1:
She made public vows, giving her husband certain rights over her body. That’s what natural marriage is.
Click to expand...
Please tell me where this is said in the vows. I have been to many Catholic weddings and I have never heard this , or anything even close to it, spoken during the vows exchange.
Click to expand...
Christian marriage is in a context of well known Christian values. If everything had to be in black and white contractual style in the vows ifself then the video below would probably make sense. Such teaching is found in the nuptial readings and prayers for example (to say nothing of the wedding prep course).

Yes I agree many Christian marriages these days are ill informed. That causes issues such as we see on this thread. That does not in itself deny the ideals for Christians, proposed by the Church, which come from Jesus.

Yes I get it that they may sometimes be beyond the credibility or even ken of secular society, especially highly individualistic ones such as the US.
But then so is the immorality of Capital Punishment. We all need foils to challenge our possible immaturities.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I am too legalistic, but this concept is a pretty specific and intense one. If it isn’t in the vows, specifically, then it doesn’t exist as far as I am concerned. I understand all about the Church teachings of Catholic marriage. However, teaching a concept is one thing, promising it to another until death do us part is a very different thing.

I fulfill my vows every day. They were broad, and open to interpretation. Love, honor, and cherish. I do the very best I can with them. I expect Catholics do the same. But neither my husband nor I “gifted each other with our bodies” or have a right to eachother’s bodies. Our bodies belong to each of us, respectively. We share our bodies with eachother. “Love, honor, and cherish” doesn’t mean we own each other’s bodies. That would be a pretty serious circumstance, and I find it hard to believe if the Church intended for its married couples to make such a promise, it would not be included in the vows specifically.
 
Last edited:
iwritebooks said:
A gift, by definition is not something you have a right to take.
Click to expand...
Noone, except Tafan perhaps, disagrees with that. Perhaps you havent read the whole thread.

But making a free promise has further meaning regardlesss. A promise maker or giver is being dishonest with not only their partner but themselves if they consistently later act as if the free gift was never made at all.

I get it you see such free gifting in marriage as somehow indicative of codependent immaturity.

That is simply an unproven assertion on your part.
Personally I see your view as indicative of extreme US style individualism.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
Noone, except Tafan perhaps, disagrees with that
Click to expand...
Cut the crap, I stated in my very first post that no one has a right to demand sex, either physically or emotionally. Your accusations are false and based on zero evidence. You have no other means of discussion besides lies and deception and dishonesty. Please quit mistepresenting and lying abouty my viewpoints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top