Marital Relations

[Saint_Eugene]

In reviewing an examination of conscience on Catholic-pages.com the following was listed under the sixth and ninth commandments: Have I denied my spouse his or her marriage rights? (I am assuming that “marraige rights” means marital relations.)

Does the Church define what these rights are? Is frequency defined? Where can I find this information?

How serious a sin is this? (e.g. if my spouse denied these “rights” for a one-time incident, a week, a month, or a year, would the length of time have any bearing on the severity?)

 

[1ke]

Yes, ‘marital rights’ means sexual relations.

Our bodies are not our own, as Scripture tells us. When married, we each belong to each other. Refusal, without just reason, is sinful. Yes, frequency of refusal would definitely impact the gravity. However, marital relations are not an *absolute *right, so illness and other reasons may be valid and just reasons to say “no” on any *individual *occasion.

This should be discussed with a priest.

 

[kevinsgirl]

My understanding is that denying your spouse for a selfish reason is a serious sin (as it goes against the vocation of marriage and giving yourself to your spouse). While the frequency should definitely be mentioned in a confession, you really may want to discuss this with your confessor to gain a little more clarity. Obviously this is something that a person might have scruples about and it should be understood that refusing marital relations because of fatigue, sickness, etc. are legitimate reasons. Refusing your spouse because you just don’t want to is not a good enough reason…

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

I think there’s a difference, too, between just not being in the mood on an occassion and actually cutting off sexual relations as a regular thing. Most spouses would be perfectly alright to hear, “Ugh. I’m sorry - I’m just really tired, tonight.” The problem is if the spouse is ALWAYS tired.

 

[housewife]

I think there’s a difference, too, between just not being in the mood on an occassion and actually cutting off sexual relations as a regular thing. Most spouses would be perfectly alright to hear, “Ugh. I’m sorry - I’m just really tired, tonight.” The problem is if the spouse is ALWAYS tired.

Makes sense.

 

[Seatuck]

V. OBLIGATION

BY marriage a man and woman grant to one another certain rights
over their bodies for the begetting of children, the increasing
of love, the healthy ordering of passion. The fulfilment of this
concession is a matter of justice, its denial an injustice,
though a couple who are still newly in love may smile at such
terms. Justice, however, is a living virtue and not confined to
cold legal forms.

The principle is this: whenever either the husband or the wife
seriously and reasonably asks for the marriage due the other is
bound to render it. Reasonably asks: no one in marriage engages
to become a convenience for another’s passion; neither must force
their every wish on the other; they are equal and, particularly
as regards the marriage act, have the same rights. It is most
desirable that the action should be mutual. This will not be too
difficult if the two love one another in a human way and are
ready to be considerate and make sacrifices, if each tries to
serve the other, and if it is realized that for their happiness
together the act should be the comfort and content of both.

There are exceptions to the obligation of rendering the marriage
due. A married person is not strictly bound to grant it if the
other has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery. Normal
relations are only re-established by the generous forgiveness of
the injured party. There is no obligation if there is a danger of
the infection of disease. Or if the request is unreasonable, if
it be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and
distressing, then it may be refused. This particularly affects
the woman; she has not promised to be the man’s slave, but the
sharer of his human life, of his control as well as of his ease.
It is commonly held that a woman to whom pregnancy would be fatal
or highly dangerous is not bound to render the due; the request
for it would be unreasonable. Finally, there is no obligation of
granting it, rather the reverse, if it is going to be abused by
the sin of onanism.

There is no obligation of asking for the due except when harm
would be done by abstinence, a weakening of love, a risk of
impurity. In this connection, husband and wife will learn to
interpret and anticipate the wishes of each other.

By mutual consent married couples may abstain from intercourse
either for a time or for ever, not as evading the obligations of
their state, but as an offering and sacrifice to God. They must
not deny the existence of the right, but may forgo the exercise
of it.

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

 

[Annibc]

What if I would like to “do it” every day and my husband only every 3-4th day. It is not that we dont have the time, it is just a question of different needs/wants. So what can I do, because it frustrates me a bit and I sometimes feel a bit rejected/sad.

 

[anonymousposter]

I am wrestling with this issue myself.

But if the husband or wife is to allow the other party to indulge themseleves, the other party is essentially using their spouse to masturbate.

Surely this is wrong and goes against the unitive aspect of the marital act.

So who is being more selfish? The interested party or the disinterested party? Personally I think it is the interested party.

The chaste response IMHO is that the interested party waits until a loving moment when the marital act is truly unitive.

Otherwise IMHO its masturbation.

 

[Annibc]

Dear anonymous
What you wrote really got me thinking. You may possibly be right. But to me it seems a bit more complicated. Often times being rejected leaves the rejected (me) sad and frustrated. I know I start fights sometimes, because I am so dissapointed that he does not seem all that interested. And for me it is really not all about the sex/pleasure but about the intimacy, the love, the recognition. It seems to me as a woman, that if he was really attracted to me (both physically and spiritually) that would result in a more frequent longing to be as close as close can be.
Any other thoughts, anyone???..

 

[FLCathMom]

Masturbation is an issue of gratifying one’s lust. Annibc, only you can judge your intentions. If your motivation is to be close to your spouse, then you are seeking unity and your spouse is bound to give it to you. We have the reverse situation in our marriage, and I never deny my dh, but he can tell sometimes that I am really tired, etc, and he will stop pursuing and try again tomorrow. That really only happens once in a while. I never want him to feel rejected! I am not allowing him to masturbate with me, I am giving him the physical closeness he feels he needs to stay connected with me, he responds by giving me what I need to stay connected. I need to talk to him a lot, and I know he doesn’t like to talk all the time, but he indulges me by listening even when he doesn’t feel like it. I feel I owe him the same courtesy in responding to his needs.