Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You don’t need to be ill. If a woman isn’t turned on enough, sex can hurt. And it isn’t so easy for a woman to be physically aroused if she isn’t mentally.

Edit: which also explains why women may find sex to be too painful during her first time. It isn’t a ‘normal’ thing, she isn’t physically relaxed enough.

Sexuality is a tricky topic because some may be unable to have sex if they’re mentally not in the mood (including men), but there are others who would respond to the physical (which explains why some rape victims orgasmed or physically responded to the sexual abuse) and not the mental.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
By the time a spouse is refusing both sex and counseling, and skeptical that guilt trips over a “moral obligation” will remedy the situation in any meaningful or sustainable manner. Intimacy is still lacking, and simply “putting out” at this point is slapping a band-aid on a severed artery.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree with you at all. If a spouse is unreasonably withholding marital relations and refusing to do anything about it, there is not much the injured spouse can do about it. Like I have said before in these types of situations, the best the injured spouse can likely hope for is a shorter time in purgatory. On the other hand, this type of situation is not likely to be solved without the refusing spouse being convicted of his or her immoral behavior.
 
I have read this thread in its entirety. Boy there are some major unhealthy attitudes about what marriage is and how sex is a part of it. Hard for me as an outsider looking in, but it seems to me the Church doesn’t teach half (or more) of what people here thinks it does.

Again, I go back to the vows people take. I don’t agree that “things are implied within the context of the vows”. The vows are to be taken, word for word. Much of what people here say Catholic marriage is all about isn’t spoken specifically or even implied in the vows spouses take. I am not sure where a lot of these ideas are coming from.

In my secular marriage, sex is a way to show love and to have a good old time. Nothing more, and nothing less. It works well for us.
 
QwertyGirl said:
Hard for me as an outsider looking in, but it seems to me the Church doesn’t teach half (or more) of what people here thinks it does.
Click to expand...
Believe me, it’s hard for me as a cradle catholic looking around!

I guess sex is generally understood to be part of marriage in both secular and religious marriages unless told otherwise. Most atheists I know would agree that a spouse saying ‘no sex forever sis’ would be wrong 😅

I do think the idea of some stuff being implied is a little weird though.
 
Lea101 said:
People who insist on the marital debt may also refuse to accept reasonable requests because they are against feminism and autonomy reminds them of that. Perhaps.
Click to expand...
I would argue that this is pure speculation on your part. If you want to bring up some data to back it up, then perhaps we can have a conversation.
 
I am going to bow out of this conversation with this last post. I will just clarify my position. I will write it all in the first person, so as to show that it is a) my judgement and b) this is how I judge myself, not how one should judge others : sex is very important to a healthy marriage. The unreasonable refusal is sinful against towards my wife, it is indeed treating her very poorly. If my spouse does not want to have sex for whatever reason, I should ALWAYS assume she has a reasonable cause for saying no. Reasonable causes for refusing sex include illness and fatigue. To this point, all I have said in this post, I believe to be part of the Church’s teaching on the marital debt. I will now add that I do not think it is moral for me refuse sex with my spouse just because I “am not in the mood” or I have a trivial activity I want to do. That I believe is inline with Church teaching but part of prudential judgement. I believe this to be sinful because of how important sex is, and refusing my wife for a trivial cause makes absolutely no sense to me. I used to be surprised that anyone thinks it is ok to do so. But sense this is not the first thread on this subject on this forum, I am not longer surprised.

Good day, and Merry Christmas to all of you.
 
Last edited:
1ke said:
Plus you wouldn’t even having kids “at the moment” not almost a year later, IF you actually conceived.
Click to expand...
This is just pedantic. Obviously she doesn’t think you have sex and go into labor five minutes later. Come on.
 
1ke said:
Desire for your spouse in marriage is natural and normal . It is good. Sexual intimacy between spouses is natural and normal and good .
Click to expand...
Desire is not a lack of self-control. Desire is just desire.

The Catechism (paragraph 2339)
“Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”
Click to expand...
Lust, like all vices, exists in two extremes. There are those with strong libidos who struggle with self-denial. There are those with low libidos who struggle with non-spontaneous sex, always waiting for lust to hit.

As someone might struggle with self-denial, someone might struggle with making themselves sexually available when they’re not feeling particularly sexual. The temptation is for the person with the high libido to not see themselves as lustful until they’re tempted to masturbate. The temptation for the person with the low libido is to not see themselves as lustful at all because they may not be tempted to masturbate and may have an attitude of “I can take or leave sex, so I’m morally superior to other people.”
It is normal to desire your spouse. It is wrong for a spouse to repeatedly rebuff and thwart their spouse sexually, because then that natural desire can become something disordered. And that can lead to sin.
Click to expand...
It already is something disordered if it leads to sexual sin.

The partner with the higher libido wants reciprocal sex, not just sexual availability. The rejection persists when someone just goes through the motions. The language of the body will always express what is really happening in the marriage. The solution is not as simply as shaming someone out of refusing sex.
 
iwritebooks said:
The rejection persists when someone just goes through the motions.
Click to expand...
Good point. I don’t know how someone can be okay with a spouse going through the motions just for their pleasure. Seems pretty…unenjoyable in the first place.
 
Perhaps virginity is your calling? It is a higher calling, as the Church teaches.

Marriage creates the marital debt, so the only way to avoid it is to not get married. Joseph and Mary owed the surrender of their bodies in the marital embrace to each other but never called for the payment of the debt, though each had a right to it.

There are legitimate reasons to withhold payment of the marital debt, such as non-support on the part of the husband.
 
Lea101 said:
40.png
iwritebooks:
The rejection persists when someone just goes through the motions.
Click to expand...
Good point. I don’t know how someone can be okay with a spouse going through the motions just for their pleasure. Seems pretty…unenjoyable in the first place.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the spouse requesting sex is owed better.
 
The concept of the marriage debt springs from the 12th century! And note what viewpoint it springs from:

From wikipedia
During the later medieval period (10th to 15th centuries), a new scholastic way thinking allowed the Church to solidify doctrine, leading to the formation of ecclesiastical law. This new wave of thinking stemmed from the revival and codification of some Roman laws. Particular works from Irneius and his students in 1112 and 1125 in particular, reconstructed some laws of Justinian’s Code.[1] Work on laws allowed scholars to debate the issues like marriage as a sacrament.[2][3] Biblical references to marriage, like that found in 1 Corinthians 7 alludes to it as a preventative measure for “sexual immorality.” Scholars like Gratian of Bologna were quick to posit their theories on marriage. His 12th century work, Decretum Gratiani, became an early text example for other canon law studies and it is here where the earliest account for marital debt is found. In it, he writes that marriage arose from wishing to prevent further sin through fornication. Gratian is also quick to point out four main reasons people may have for getting married: that is for offspring, to pay the debt, or the obligation of sex, for incontinence, or to satisfy lust and for the sake of pleasure.
Click to expand...
Please note, we’re talking about a period where arranged marriages were the norm, where it wasn’t expected that spouses could even be friends, and where romantic love (eros) was considered a form of lust that left false promises of longevity.

It took the witness of saints with healthy relationships with their spouses to be a witness to the dignity of marriage, rather than seeing it as simply some remedy for lust.

This is our current teaching:
The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
Click to expand...
 
As a nonmarried 20YO male who hasn’t had sex, I am confused on the comments of “no meaning no… but with the possibility of being convinced.” This comment was made by a few people. Is this implying that the marital debt and fear of sin is causing people to switch their yes from a no but really they didn’t consent?

They only consented due to fear of sin or coercion? How is this not the same as fear or coercion leading to consent in a rape? Yes can still be a no if coercion, fear, or intoxication/drugs are involved yes? So can someone explain this here?

Not being argumentative or attacking on this, truly interested in understanding the difference here - thanks
 
Ugh, right?

The OP isn’t married. Maybe best he or she get married first, and find out first hand how this works in real life. Edit: Not sure about the OP, but intended for those who aren’t married who are responding. Will make WAY more sense then.

Although I’m only allowed to give you one “like”, in the spirit of the 309 responses on this thread, I virtually give you 308 more.
 
Last edited:
You are correct in what you wrote. As I stated in a previous post, I am seeing a whole lot of unhealthy attitudes about sex and marriage in this thread.

If you aren’t married and aren’t currently sexually active, I would mute the thread and move on to something more productive. Seek out wholesome, accurate information when you need it with regards to this topic. Not sure where you should go for that, but be wary of your sources.
 
Last edited:
Paul wrote his Epistles in the 12th century?

St Augustine also taught the marriage debt.

Rabbinnic Judaism also taught the marriage debt, albeit I have been told it only applied to the husband (he could not refuse his wife).

It certainly originated a long, long time before your claim.
 
Last edited:
Right. As I’ve said before I’m not a priest or a nun and I’m not yet a parent so I wouldn’t want to start telling people in those vocations how to live those vocations out. I have not got that experience so I would not be that presumptuous
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top