Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CrangesMcBasketball said:
40.png
MillenialCatholic3:
Personal discipline to go beyond any church discipline, for sanctity, spiritual health, progress, all those things.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to decide what “personal discipline” other people should exercise.
Click to expand...
Correct, the Church does.
It does not agree with MC3s attempt to tell us that married couples have an obligation not to have sex in Lent!
Does he really understand what he stated above?
Here it is again:
Married couples I do know have the obligation to abstain from sex during lent.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Holiness is no place to be reached. It is not a destination that X amount of prayers will let us enter. Holiness is a lifestyle. There is no validity to your comments
 
MillenialCatholic3 said:
Discipline requires the practice of chastity regardless if you are married or not, it reinforces the sanctity of marriage in its duties to God and to one another… It is highly recommended by saints to abstain from sex like during lent, holy days…Vatican II relaxed many things on fasting like ember days of fast. To reach holiness requires to go farther beyond what the Church recommends.
Click to expand...
Highly recommended by some saints is a far cry from obligated to abstain. You cannot impose on others what the Church does not impose.
 
There’s a difference between living how God wants and being heretical and acting as if our standard’s are higher than God. We aren’t called to flagellation just because it seems “above and beyond” to you. Seriously, it’s not realistic. Everyone ever living has sinned
 
Last edited:
40 days of abstention. Not even remotely realistic. It’s counter to Theology of the Body in many ways and a bit pharasitical
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
Maybe I take things too literally, but if it isn’t specifically in the vows then I don’t think it exists
Click to expand...
I sugggest you read Augustine on this topic. You do literally vow sexual fidelity in perpetuity. Refusing the marital embrace with your spouse continually and unreasonably, who is bound to you and no other, can tempt them to adultery and masturbation.
 
Well yeah, they are sinless. But aside from them. But my point is, Saints have sinned, and so have devout Catholics. Don’t assume you don’t because of your piety(I don’t mean you Fauken when I say you)
 
Last edited:
Yes, I have read Augustine. My comment more relates to the specificity of the vows taken during a Catholic wedding. They aren’t that specific, which means it is a leap (for me) to go from the vows as they are written and spoken, to the concept of a “marital debt”.
 
Last edited:
Is anyone here honestly talking about a marriage where two people don’t have sex for months or years? It seems like some people are talking extremes on one side and extremes on the other but nobody is even talking about those. This seems like a thread that shouldn’t even be a thread IMO
 
I am discussing the concept or belief that the sharing of one’s sexuality with another is perceived by some as a fulfilment of a debt.
 
Do you believe that in marriage on has the right to withhold sex for any reason and for any length of time?
 
I find that my wife is pretty good at changing what I’m in the mood for.
 
I don’t really think that side of the equation is the issue. If someone is withholding, it is for legitimate cause. Nobody just wakes up one day and says it is a good day to withhold. If withholding is taking place for psychological reasons, then together the couple should work it out. I believe none of us should do anything with our bodies in that way that we aren’t comfortable with (mentally, or physically). So in answer to your question, yes, I believe there are times it is appropriate to withhold. But these times are also when spouses have a responsibility to each other to resolve whatever the issue is between them, so withholding isn’t a problem.

My concern is more on the other side of the equation…why would anybody want to have sex with someone who didn’t want to have sex with them? That, to me, is a bigger issue than someone withholding for a specific reason.

I understand Church teaching. I just don’t believe in it. I don’t think it is based in reality. Human relationships don’t work that way, as far as I know. The believe that “the debt” prevents infidelity and masturbation is absurd. Single, celibate people don’t need that in order to stay chaste. Why would a married person require that in order to stay chaste?

I have been married 30 plus years to the same person. I think healthy sex is part of a healthy marriage, so I am not big on the concept of withholiding. But I haven’t had a lot of issues that others may have. I have been lucky. With all that said, I can’t imagine thinking about sex as “a debt”. I find it to be a very unhealthy concept.
 
Last edited:
It’s a very objectifying and degrading concept also. Sex isn’t an obligation or a duty, it’s the reaffirmation of the marital vows, it’s love. No definite rule is going to incapsulate love since God is love and God is beyond the bounds of words.
 
QwertyGirl said:
Single, celibate people don’t need that in order to stay chaste. Why would a married person require that in order to stay chaste?
Click to expand...
Maybe there are aspects of male sexuality that only men can fully understand … these sentiments dont resonate well with many men I suggest. Paul was bang on that for many men it is better to marry.
 
It is possible for anyone (male or female, married or not) to stay chaste with God’s help…nobody NEEDS sex
 
Last edited:
QwertyGirl said:
understand Church teaching. I just don’t believe in it. I don’t think it is based in reality. Human relationships don’t work that way, as far as I know. The believe that “the debt” prevents infidelity and masturbation is absurd. Single, celibate people don’t need that in order to stay chaste. Why would a married person require that in order to stay chaste?
Click to expand...
Agree. Couldn’t this be then used to justify priests getting married?
 
The argument sex prevents guys from masturbating is stupid and disrespectful to guys who actually struggle with masturbation.

If you think having sex prevents someone from masturbating that is a sin, you are using sex in a sinful way. Two wrongs don’t make a right. And if you are that dependent on lust to need sex to not masturbate, see a therapist. Seriously, this is disrespectful to guys who actually have struggled
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top