Marital Obligations

  • Thread starter Thread starter JackEveryInchASailor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kapp19 said:
Well, then you can take it up with Augustine, Thomas, and the whole Catholic tradition on marriage - as if generosity only goes one way. Yikes.

I think all are reading more into the point than is actually being said… Let me try one more time. In brief, to leave your spouse to his or her own devices, “just because I don’t feel like it” in the midst of a bout of concupiscence - when it is more than just “yeah well I feel like it right now” - is unjust and contrary to the marital vocation of the spouse as such… The spouse’s body no longer belongs to him or her alone - the other has a right over it. You’ll find that this is backed up by pretty much every major thinker in the tradition on this point.

I’m happy to take it up in a new thread.

Peace…
-K
Click to expand...
The saints weren’t infallible. There’s also the possibility of misinterpretation of their words.

Sorry, but this reads like a spouse is nothing more than a device to prevent the other spouse from committing sexual sin. How is that not objectifying a person? This isn’t Church teaching. Please don’t put it out there as such.
 
You are guilting your spouse to have sex. It’s basically saying “if we don’t have sex I will masturbate and then you are in sin for making me masturbate.”

Wrong, don’t masturbate and control yourself. Good grief.
 
Maybe Thomas and Augustine (and many, many others) are more pastoral than you think. While this has not been a “hot topic” in the past 50 years in the Latin Church in the West, that does not mean it’s an unhelpful point. You must not have read Augustine’s condemnation of the exaction of the debt during pregnancy, for example… which he finds abhorrent. Thomas is a better guide though - more balanced overall.

Not to be too cheeky - but “I don’t feel like” continuing this discussion on this thread. It’s not going to go well. Need a new, fresh space.
 
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...
A spouse demanding sex when the above is going on— other spouse ill or in pain— needs their head examined.

And if they persist over time in such behavior,
maybe a good lawyer.

To be clear: NO, the right to the marital debt is not unlimited and a person who is sick or debilitated in some way is not sinning in any way. The spouse demanding relations in such a scenario should be ashamed of themselves.

Honey, I know you just had surgery, but I’m in the mood. Uh, no.
 
Last edited:
The ugly truth about marriage not only in Catholic marriages but secualr, protestant,athiest, gay, hindu Muslum or wiccan is that sometimes a spouse has sex when they don’t want to. Nobody wants to say it, but its true. It isn’t rape, it isn’t even a bad thing, it’s a loving act done to please another.
 
Lasse said:
Is “marital obligation” a thing in the Catholic church? Are you “obliged” to have sex with your spouse? T
Click to expand...
Not just Catholic.

Yes the obligation to the marital debt is real.

But not unlimited.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
The ugly truth about marriage not only in Catholic marriages but secualr, protestant,athiest, gay, hindu Muslum or wiccan is that sometimes a spouse has sex when they don’t want to. Nobody wants to say it, but its true. It isn’t rape, it isn’t even a bad thing, it’s a loving act done to please another.
Click to expand...
Sure. It’s one thing for the spouse who isn’t in the mood to say to themselves, “well, I’d rather watch tv, but I guess I can shake my libido awake…”

In that scenario, the one asking never knows there was hesitance. It’s quite another for the one asking to say, after hearing “not tonight” to go “well, I invoke my marital rights and override your no.”
 
Actually married couples often know when the other is hesitant or reluctantly gives in.
No one could “invoke” marital rights on a tuesday night, but if it is a running theme of months or years then the conversation about the marriage should take place.
Much like when God gave man dominion over nature and man can act in a loving way yet enjoy the fruits of that nature, he can also abuse it. And of course nature itself can be fertile, giving, and enjoyable, or nature can be a desert, harsh and ultimately killing man. Same with spouses and marriage.
Bottom line, try not to pick a desert, and try not to abuse the spouse to make a desert.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
Actually married couples often know when the other is hesitant or reluctantly gives in.
No one could “invoke” marital rights on a tuesday night, but if it is a running theme of months or years then the conversation about the marriage should take place.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but if you have a situation in which one spouse is saying “no” for an extended period of time without some reason, that should be a true conversation where the spouses try to figure out where the disconnect is happening and how to fix it. Not a demand letter to pay the debt or else.

If a spouse really were denying sex to their spouse for no apparent reason for an extended period of time, that would indeed be sinful. We have an obligation to care for our spouses fulfillment, including sexually. But that doesn’t mean that on any given night you have to jump into bed on command like a sex slave.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
The ugly truth about marriage not only in Catholic marriages but secualr, protestant,athiest, gay, hindu Muslum or wiccan is that sometimes a spouse has sex when they don’t want to. Nobody wants to say it, but its true. It isn’t rape, it isn’t even a bad thing, it’s a loving act done to please another.
Click to expand...
Please. That’s not what’s being discussed here. And I have a feeling you know that. What’s being discussed is:

“I’d like to have sex.”

“I’m not in the mood tonight, dear. Maybe tomorrow.”

“Well, if you don’t have sex with me right now I’m going to masturbate or look at porn, and that sin is going to be on you because you didn’t pay the marital debt.”

There’s a BIG difference.

And it’s even uglier when a spouse demands sex from a spouse who physically can’t provide it.
 
Last edited:
Then there would be no reason for this thread to be longer than two posts. No one thinks a disabled spouse has to provide marital relations on demand. No one.
 
Mrchatsworth said:
Then there would be no reason for this thread to be longer than two posts. No one thinks a disabled spouse has to provide marital relations on demand. No one.
Click to expand...
The thing is—while I think there’s a good chance the OP of this thread is a troll—when you have some misinformed Catholics carrying on about the “marital debt” and using words like “debt” “obligation” “grave sin” it’s not really that surprising that one might actually question whether a debilitated spouse does have an obligation to have sex. There’s a non-Catholic on this thread who is interested in pursuing Catholicism, and it sickens me that she came upon this discussion and gets the impression that the Church obliges married spouses to be sex slaves to each other.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I think the term and concept needs some serious explanation. But interested in becoming catholic or not, the idea of a marital debt, obligation etc is actually something that should be discussed. We live in a world that has redefined marriage and it’s purpose. To the point that even many Catholic married couples are confused.

I liken it to if the person interested said, well I can’t imagine not using artificial birth control, we would’nt just say, naw we don’t want to scare them away, ABC is fine. No.
 
Last edited:
RolandThompsonGunner said:
The spouse saying “no thanks” should still do so in a gracious, loving way. “I’m not really in the mood tonight, sweetheart, maybe tomorrow?”
Click to expand...
For the record - I would not say this is an immoral thing to do… I really regret the limits of internet forums. But I offer the opportunity to discuss this in detail on another thread.
 
There is a word for men who demand sex from unwilling partners - they are called rapists…Rapists who wield a bible to justify their behaviour, are of course utterly vile…
 
Pretty sure if your spouse says they don’t want to tonight and you say ”either sex or I masturbate“ or ”either sex or you are sinning” … you gonna be sleeping on the couch
 
Last edited:
“I don’t want to tonight”
“Either do it or I masturbate and you sin”

If these conversations happen in real life there is so much MORE going on in the marriage than the theological idea of a marital obligation. I can’t imagine this conversation happens with no context.
 
Again, this is why spouses need to handle things with kindness and understanding. Sexual needs ARE needs and should be taken seriously; at the same time, there are good reasons to abstain. This is why husbands and wives should talk to each other, preferably at a time when passions aren’t running high, and why they should both act in good faith and assume the other is so doing, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top