Marital Obligations

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackEveryInchASailor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JackEveryInchASailor

Guest
My spouse and I seem to be in constant disagreement on this specific matter as it has popped up a few times over our marriage. When one person is sick or suffering pain, enough to actually limit their mobility, but the other spouse still feels amorous, is the spouse that is unwell still under obligation to fulfill the marriage debt? Or should the amorous spouse accept a brief period of abstinence until the other is recovered? Is one (or maybe “either” is a nicer word) person being selfish? That’s the next and final question.
 
JackEveryInchASailor said:
When one person is sick or suffering pain, enough to actually limit their mobility, but the other spouse still feels amorous, is the spouse that is unwell still under obligation to fulfill the marriage debt?
Click to expand...
No.
JackEveryInchASailor said:
Or should the amorous spouse accept a brief period of abstinence until the other is recovered?
Click to expand...
Yes.
JackEveryInchASailor said:
Is one (or maybe “either” is a nicer word) person being selfish?
Click to expand...
If a spouse is pushing for something when the other spouse is clearly ill and not up to it, yes, the one pushing is being selfish.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate this is not what you’ve asked, but if this is a recurrent issue in your marriage, I recommend talking to your Priest, and seeking out a Catholic counselor to help you. I would suggest talking to a counselor separately as well as together.

I believe if a spouse is ill or in severe pain, they have no obligation and their spouse is selfish to request it. I would also be concerned about the issue of “marital obligation” being used to coerce or manipulate the ill spouse.
 
Is this question real?

“Honey, I hurt my back and can’t move.”

“Too bad, I need marital debt to be paid right now.”

Our spouses are supposed to be the closest person in the world to us. If they don’t feel well, maybe help them with something instead on your own needs.
 
Is “marital obligation” a thing in the Catholic church? Are you “obliged” to have sex with your spouse? The very idea of pushing my wife to have sex with me when she does not want to feels like sacrilege.
 
Yes? It can be a grave sin to deny your spouse, but it seems that would not be the case every time. I thought there were things on the matter written in the catechism, but I can’t find what I am looking for. Maybe it wasn’t there.
 
JackEveryInchASailor said:
Yes? It can be a grave sin to deny your spouse, but it seems that would not be the case every time. I thought there were things on the matter written in the catechism, but I can’t find what I am looking for. Maybe it wasn’t there.
Click to expand...
It’s not okay to deny your spouse for long periods without a good reason. I.e. if every once in a while you just don’t feel up to it, it’s okay to say no, and the other spouse should be understanding and accepting of it. However, if you “just don’t feel like it” and say no for an indefinite period of time, that’s not okay. But saying no due to debilitating injuries or health problem is absolutely not a sin and the non-injured spouse who insists on the marital act under these circumstances is being selfish.
F_Marturana said:
Is this question real?

“Honey, I hurt my back and can’t move.”

“Too bad, I need marital debt to be paid right now.”

Our spouses are supposed to be the closest person in the world to us. If they don’t feel well, maybe help them with something instead on your own needs.
Click to expand...
This ^^^
 
Last edited:
Lasse said:
Is “marital obligation” a thing in the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
I was just about to ask the same question. The only place I have ever seen the term “marital debt” is here on CAF. It strikes me as being a truly bizarre concept.

Anyway…to demand that a sick or injured spouse has to make an immediate payment on the “marital debt” is, in my opinion, way beyond just being a bit selfish. It strikes me as being completely self-centered and having no regard whatsoever for the one who is unwell. In my wildest dreams I can’t imagine treating my wife that way.
 
JackEveryInchASailor said:
When one person is sick or suffering pain, enough to actually limit their mobility, but the other spouse still feels amorous, is the spouse that is unwell still under obligation to fulfill the marriage debt?
Click to expand...
No of course not. Why would they even want to if the other spouse is sick??
JackEveryInchASailor said:
Is one (or maybe “either” is a nicer word) person being selfish?
Click to expand...
The one who is pressuring for sex is being selfish.

The “marital debt” was never meant to be used as a stick to beat each other with. It just means that either spouse should not “unnecessarily” refuse for long periods. Emphasis on unnecessarily.
 
ChuckB said:
I was just about to ask the same question. The only place I have ever seen the term “marital debt” is here on CAF. It strikes me as being a truly bizarre concept.
Click to expand...
Adam gave a good explanation in Post #12. I also offered an explanation in Post #9.
ChuckB said:
Anyway…to demand that a sick or injured spouse has to make an immediate payment on the “marital debt” is, in my opinion, way beyond just being a bit selfish. It strikes me as being completely self-centered and having no regard whatsoever for the one who is unwell.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church does not teach that one must “make an immediate payment” when the other spouse requests the marital act. And she most certainly does not teach that it is sinful for an injured or sick person to not have sex with their spouse.
 
If your spouse doesn’t feel well or is injured, why would you want to? I wouldn’t want to add to her pain or discomfort!
 
I’m curious as to what the Other side of your question looks like. Please provide the argument the spouse is using to argue the opposite. I don’t think this post adds up, I don’t think someone thinks they are owed the obligation from someone in pain or who is sick.
The idea is kind of odd. Please, what does the spouse’s argument who thinks the obligation extends to illness consist of?
 
That’s exactly it. The justification is usually it’s been X number of days since the last time and then an effort to use church teachings or whatnot to bolster the argument, then undermine the reasons of why the timing is selfish on the part of the “wanter”, to the point of trying to flip it around. Because it’s hard to have to go longer without. :roll_eyes: It isn’t months or weeks passing by, to be clear. I was seriously curious if there was any weight to this type of argument. I’m a convert, and I don’t have time to dive into theology and absorb the catechism like a sponge. Perhaps down the road, but not in the present. So genuinely I was not sure which one of us was right or wrong or if it was some weird mix.
 
So I too am a convert. There is no weight to that argument and you don’t have to delve into the CCC to just employ common sense. No, the Catholic Church does not force ill people to have sex. However, let’s say a wife is always ill, always not in the mood or always hurt, her duty is not to “have sex” but rather take care of the illness. She should make the effort to become healthy. I’m wondering why in your marriage this comes up all the time? . . .
 
Last edited:
JackEveryInchASailor said:
So genuinely I was not sure which one of us was right or wrong or if it was some weird mix.
Click to expand...
Does someone really think that the Catholic Church requires morally an ill person to have sex with a spouse? Not sure which one is right?
There’s more to this, there has to be.
 
The marriage act is meant to be one of love and self giving. In an ideal world the sick spouse will want to lay their life down for the well spouse and fulfill their desires, AND the well spouse will want to lay their life down for the sick spouse and not expect or even ask the sick spouse to participate when it is clearly uncomfortable.

Obviously this is all idealised, but we are called upon to be such sacrificial spouses in a biblical marriage. It’s a high calling to reflect Christ’s love. This problem would be completely solved if each asked themselves how they could love their neighbour as themselves, and I imagine in most cases the well spouse wouldn’t even ask.
 
Unless one of you has a chronic condition, maybe try having sex frequently when you’re both well? Then periods of sickness won’t cause much of a dry spell.

The “marital obligation” bit ultimately derives from 1 Corinthians 7, where it says that the husband’s body belongs to the wife and the wife’s body to the husband, and that you oughtn’t deprive each other.

But no, this doesn’t mean that if one spouse is shaking with fever and trying desperately not to throw up, the other should march up and demand marital rights then and there. Questions of “how sick” and “how long should abstinence last” are, of course, something to be worked out by husband and wife–with due lovingkindness and unselfishness to each other, hopefully.
 
If a person is ill or in pain, a loving spouse is not going to expect them to engage in sex.
I can’t imagine any loving spouse of either gender expecting a sick or injured spouse to have sex with them. Sounds cruel and abusive to me.
LumineDiei said:
There will be times in your life where it will be weeks and possibly months.
Click to expand...
Yep.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top