Marital debt duty to have sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter chasingcars
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct, there really is nothing objective, let alone grave, to get guilty about. Sex is a wholly free choice by either party at any given time.
I believe Tafan’s view is only reasonable when it happens fairly consistently over a longish period of time.
 
tafan2 said:
They are always the same. I was initially surprised, would actually say shocked, that Catholics think it’s okay to refuse your spouse for any reason what so ever.
Click to expand...
I am shocked thay you believe you are sinning if you decline your spouse when she is in the mood while you are chilling out on a Saturday afternoon watching a great game.
 
What if one spouse is basically uninterested. Feels neither a special unifying spiritual or emotional connection to the other spouse through the act, derives no physical pleasure from it, and performs the act solely as fulfilling a part of married life.

If the “interested” spouse engages in the act with the uninterested spouse, the interested spouse is the only one enjoying it. Is this somehow a forbidden self-pleasure?
 
tafan2 said:
The church says an unreasonable refusal is a sin.
Click to expand...
I think some posters here brought up several unreasonable refusals (to manipulate, out of malice) that everyone here seems to agree with.
Because clearly the motive behind the refusal is a lack of love. We don’t really need a clear ruling on this specifically because a lack of love would automatically make it a sin.

However, reasons that doesn’t show this is where people get worked up over. Since it’s not clear. A spouse wanting to read a book still loves her husband, she just wants to read an interesting book that day. A loving husband would also let her have that.

Most married couples figure this out without worrying about whether they’re sinning or not. Hence why I think the concept is basically irrelevant besides showing that sex belongs in a marriage.
tafan2 said:
I will repeat, the Church leaves the determination of reasonable to our prudential judgement.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the issue.
tafan2 said:
Why would the Church have the teaching at all?
Click to expand...
I feel like there’s a post somewhere here that may explain this. Marriages weren’t always born out of romance, so I’m not surprised that sex and words like debt/contract went together in the past.
 
tafan2 said:
Objectively:. The church says an unreasonable refusal is a sin
Click to expand...
Meaningless statement sorry. One doesnt need the Church to tell us that immoveable objects cant be budged.

The issue is whether or not a single request for sex can be declined for trivial reasons such as not being in the mood, doing something else, being trivially annoyed with ones partner.

If you believe not please quote something Magisterial rather than verbal tautologies.
 
Last edited:
If one assumes the marital debt means you are deserving and needing of sex at every reasonable request you make and and if you decline you sinned, that’s tyranical. There can be reasonable requests just as much as reasonable declines. Even if it is a sin, it’s venial at best since we are talking about declining someone once not for months, so what’s the problem? It gets forgiven at mass.

This shouldn’t even be a thread for discussion, if someone’s argument to have sex with their spouse is “hey if you decline then you just sinned”, that’s very weak and clearly no love is involved. Sex isn’t a duty or a right. It’s a priveledge. Looks like we have to agree to disagree as we view sex fundamentally different.
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
What could happen is beside the point. But if she is sure I have no reasonable cause to refuse, then her request is, by definition , reasonable. Hence, you are saying that a reasonable request for sex is sexual assualt. I put no words in your mouth. It’s an absurd argument.
Click to expand...
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.
 
on_the_hill said:
. Is this somehow a forbidden self-pleasure?
Click to expand...
I do not believe so.
I think the point is that it is the the free choice of the passive partner to decline if she’s not in either a sexy or a self sacrificing mood…without guilt.
 
Its really a reverse example of what Tafan believes I suggest. That is, he is really talking about himself requesting not his wife.
 
Either way. What kind of a husband would distrub his wife who is peacefully reading a book. Especially in a Catholic marriage where there are kids. Chances are she doesn’t get quiet book reading time often. Seems selfish to me. Wait until later.
 
LOL! I’m trying to imagine warding off my amorous husband’s advances. "Not now, honey! This is the chapter when General Grant advances on Vicksburg . . . "

Ah, marriage! 😊
 
Sophie111 said:
I believe it is more accurate to say that it has done away with an old erroneous “Canon Law” type approach to the fundamental concept found in the NT and tradition.

Namely that Christian marriage involves freely giving/promising bodily rights to ones equally loving partner.

Now some ways of interpretting that are clearly wrong (eg marital rape whether it be physical or psychlogical).

But some issues accepted in secular society would not be acceptable to our Church. A partner does not have wholly autonomous bodily rights in a Christian marriage. To unilaterally decline to have sex or even children simply for personal reasons in the medium to long term would be highly problematic.
Click to expand...
I would disagree. Christ’s message is about love. In marriage, you make a free gift of self. This gift of self is about your whole self, not just your body sexually. And conjugal rights are just one teeny tiny aspect of the types of rights you have to simply be loved by your spouse.

When you start using language that denies bodily autonomy or even personal autonomy, you’re entering into an overly enmeshed relationship. You have to recognize that in Catholicism, you are not two half-persons who make up one whole. Rather you are two complete individuals who come together and form a third entity called the marriage. You mutually serve the good of the marriage. The other is not your servant to help you compensate for your lack of virtue. Rather, to get the most out of marriage, you have to challenge each other to grow and become more virtueous and complete individuals. Your marital problems thus are God’s way of challenging you to grow in holiness.
 
QwertyGirl said:
Either way. What kind of a husband would distrub his wife who is peacefully reading a book. Especially in a Catholic marriage where there are kids. Chances are she doesn’t get quiet book reading time often. Seems selfish to me. Wait until later.
Click to expand...
And we wonder why spouses have communications problems in the area of sex. If requesting sex is disturbing the other person, then our whole concept of sexuality is distorted.
 
iwritebooks said:
When you start using language that denies bodily autonomy…
Click to expand...
It wasnt me, it was St Paul and Christian tradition ever since.
you’re entering into an overly enmeshed relationship.
Click to expand...
Yes, becoming one flesh is quite the enmeshed relationship in Christianity.

BTW it isnt a denial of bodily autonomy when you freely gift it to an equally gifting partner for life I would think.
Should one never so gift?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If requesting sex is disturbing the other person, then our whole concept of sexuality is distorted.
Click to expand...
Requests for most important things require considered context and good timing as a mark of charity and respect surely?
So yes, sexual requests from younger men can be unreasonable at times because concupiscence downstairs often overrides thinking upstairs and are sometimes blissfully unaware of the inopportunity due to self interest.
Female headaches will be found most frequently at these times. And reasonably so.
 
Last edited:
stinkcat_14 said:
If requesting sex is disturbing the other person, then our whole concept of sexuality is distorted.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying requesting sex is general is a disturbance.

They’re saying if you interrupt someone in the midst of an enjoyable activity, you’re obviously disturbing them.

A simple definition of ‘disturb’ can mean interfering with a normal arrangement/routine or interrupting someone.
 
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.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
And we wonder why spouses have communications problems in the area of sex. If requesting sex is disturbing the other person, then our whole concept of sexuality is distorted.
Click to expand...
Not sure what communication problems you are talking about. The communication would be very clear. Not right now honey, I’m reading my book. We will get together later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top