Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really get tired of questions like this. My wife is better with it now, but for the first decade of our marriage, she really struggled to enjoy or desire intimacy. I would have been very upset if someone had asked me this question, which presumes that I just wasn’t turning on the romance. I did all of the above, asked her to read Christian/Catholic books on intimacy with her, asked her to go to counseling, did surprise above-and-beyond stuff around the house and took her on dates.

When I posted about this on these forums, I got this type of glib response. Sometimes there are people who have psychological hang-ups about intimacy. We’ve gotten to a better place, but please don’t assume the husband is an ass when he comes to the forum and seeks advice or comfort. For me, I came to the forums so I could talk about it anonymously, as an emotional outlet so that I wouldn’t grow frustrated with her.
 
So I’ve read through the thread and still lack clarity. Where does the Catechism expressly mention and explain marital debt? Is refusing a spouse a mortal sin?
 
chasingcars said:
But it makes me angry. I believe that every woman (and man) has the right to bodily autonomy aka right to their own body which means that if they are not willing to have sex or get pregnant, they can refuse to do so and it is not a sin. I do not see any reason why getting married should change that. Women (and men) are human beings who have value and dignity, not objects that can be used like sex-dolls.
Click to expand...
Well, the whole use of the word “autonomy” sounds like a buzzword used by radicals in women’s studies departments.

However, what you are referring to is something St. Paul mentioned regarding not depriving one’s partner for too long for fear that it could be a source of temptation. After all, in regards to sexual matters and morality, St. Paul was a realist.
 
If one spouse repeatedly wants to have sex and the other refuses, they ought to consult their pastor as a couple and let him judge who’s being unreasonable. This is in addition to any other couples’ therapy they may be going through.
 
The church does NOT mandate that one has sex every time the other spouse wants it, but neither should one just arbitrarily say NO to their spouse. It is NOT wrong to have periods of abstinence from sex. The church does NOT permit the use of birth control and therefore requires couples to be open to having children when they have sex. The church encourage the use of Natural Family Planning to regulate how many children you bring into the world. (I know I addressed more than you asked but I felt it was important to say.)
 
Makes me feel like a Little Caesar’s Pizza. Nothing’s better than when a priest tells me who to be intimate with.
 
Marriage IS a Sacrament. Our pastors are the first place we go to talk about Sacramental matters.
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Nothing’s better than when a priest tells me who to be intimate with.
Click to expand...
Sex is part of marriage, only marriage. Marriage is a Sacrament. The Church, through the Holy Father, Bishops, Priests, very much inform us about “who to be intimate with”.
 
Last edited:
chasingcars said:
Marital debt duty to have sex
Click to expand...
The basic idea is that if you definitely don’t want to have sex, you shouldn’t be married in the first place. Turning it around, one could say it is a duty to have conjugal relations, but that’s kind-of an awkward way of putting it. No loving husband (or wife) would insist on sex when the other person clearly wouldn’t enjoy it. Without mutual enjoyment the intercourse wouldn’t be a proper conjugal act of love-making anyway, so in that sense there is no “duty”.

As for the inequality you perceive between husband and wife due to the fact that the wife is the one who might get pregnant, it bears pointing out that if you perceive pregnancy up-front as a burden and a sacrifice, that’s another reason you might not be particularly suitable for marriage. If you’re not capable of experiencing pregnancy as a blessing in spite of the practical diffulties and suffering it might entail, marriage is probably not your vocation.
 
I’m scared as all heck to have a baby and not sure at all but still married and we shall see what happens next year. People are at different stages with this and you can still be married and not desire kids but still be obedient to the teaching
 
If you aren’t a little scared by the prospect of having a kid, you just haven’t thought about it. It’s a complete change to your life and a ton of responsibility.

It’s also transcendently wonderful, but yeah, definitely scary too. Totally normal.
 
One spouse can refuse the other on any occasion for little or no reason. The marriage debt applies as the refusal continues for a period of time. Then it may be unfair to refuse, because the refused spouse might be tempted to sin, and also because sex is an integral part of marriage. The longer the period of time without sex, the weightier the reason needed to refuse without sin. A proportionate reason is needed, based on the length of refusal and the other circumstances (such as how likely it is the other person might sin).
 
Jerome7 said:
One spouse can refuse the other on any occasion for little or no reason
Click to expand...
This is wrong. A spouse may only refuse sex for a reasonable cause. Morality is about individual acts, not series of acts. It is not ok to rob a bank one time, as long as one doesn’t do it many times.
 
I really like this response. Thank you!

Sex can either unite or divide a marriage. It can be used for good or evil, love or manipulation, selflessness or selfishness, generosity or power.

I really take issue with marital-duty absolutism because the mentality that a husband should have unfettered access to his wife’s body - regardless or her health, needs, emotions, or risks she’s willing to take - is narcissistic to the core. On the other hand, using sex as a carrot-and-stick power trip is really unhealthy to a marriage.

Thank you for speaking some sanity.
 
“I’m not in the mood tonight” is a perfectly reasonable cause. Marrying someone does not turn them into your sex slave. You don’t get to pull out this “marital debt” trump card if your spouse just isn’t feeling it on some particular evening.
 
Honestly, can we get a show of hands to see who is actually married, so I know which replies to take seriously?
 
I can’t imagine a situation where a mentally healthy person would want to have sex with their spouse if the spouse didn’t want to, for whatever reason. How would that be enjoyable for either party?

If the spouse isn’t feeling it (psychologically) routinely, then there is a valid reason as to why. Resolving that is where the focus of the couple should be. The focus shouldn’t be on getting the goodies when the other person isn’t willing to turn them over.

If a spouse does still want to have sex knowing their partner isn’t interested, then that is a bigger problem than a “marital debt” issue.

I really don’t believe there is anything in the Catholic marriage vows about this. Maybe I take things too literally, but if it isn’t specifically in the vows then I don’t think it exists. Very specific things are promised in the vows, and some broader things are, too. This seems like a very specific thing that isn’t included.

(Married 30+ years)
 
Last edited:
I not married but just my sense of prudence would have to agree here. I’m sorry but I’ve also seen some people who are in a bad mood for thirty years… Oh welll too bad you married them now your forced to have sex with them even if they are being completely unreasonable/passive aggressive/irresponsible, and if you don’t they will be a total pain until they get what they want. Are they “abusive” … debatable. I think some degree of reason has to come into play. As an outsider, someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it a two sided obligation? Self giving… ?
 
Read my first post on the thread, before pulling out the “slave” garbage. The Church’s teaching is clear, on cannot unreasonably refuse. The previous poster said specifically “no reason”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top