"Marriage is Not Consent"

[CroCatholic]

I will admit to finding this whole concept of “sacrificial sex” with a spouse rather bizarre. I think if a spouse is not enjoying sex, the other is doing something wrong and they need to work it out. Sex being a sacrifice? Its like saying: I don’t want to eat this candy bar, but since its lent I guess I will.

You must be a man

It has nothing to do with my spouse and everything to do with me. I am tired, I don’t feel like it. I don’t view these as good enough reasons to withhold intimacy from my spouse so I made the decision to be available to him anyway because I love him and care about his feelings.

After spending a day dying to self ie taking care of 6 kids, homeschooling, vacuuming, laundry, preparing meals, cleaning up spills, dishes, making beds, trying not to vomit on yourself because you are 14 weeks pregnant and can`t stomach anything but toast, getting up 3 times a night to pee and once to shut off an iphone alarm set to go off at 3:30 am because your 8 year old fancies himself quite the prankster, the only thing I would like to do is sleep. A lot. All night, and all the next day. My husband, after helping me feed the kids dinner, bathe them and get them to bed lays down next to me and wants to be intimate. After all this I just know his performance is going to suck so I grit my teeth and bear it. Can you not see how ridiculous your assumption is?

It has nothing to do with him, and certainly nothing to do with his performance It has to do with the fact that at this point in our married life, more often than not, I am absolutely worn out by the time we have a chance to connect in that way. I lose nothing by being intimate with him even when I don’t feel like it. As a matter of fact, often times I am very happy to have been intimate with him even if I didn’t feel like it at first. This doesn’t change the fact that sometimes, it does demand that I sacrifice some sleep, some energy (that is already sparse to start out with) it can absolutely be a sacrifice. And I willingly make that sacrifice because I love him. He is not unreasonable, demanding or selfish when it comes to intimacy which makes it all the easier for me to dye to self once again, on the occasions where I dont particularly feel like being intimate. I havent posted all of this in complaint or to be boastful but rather to show that you are missing the bigger picture and this topic is much more complex than just either enjoying or not enjoying intimacy.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

So, there’s no need for gratitude?

That’s kind of bad.

There is always appreciation for the things my wife does, even if they are expectations of a healthy Christian marriage. That’s all. I said nothing of a lack of gratitude.

I just think there is so much discussion on whether sex is rightly to be expected, and no discussion on the numerous other equally important facets of a Christian marriage where such allowances are made or considered.

Again, I don’t want my wife to do anything for me under pressure, but the fact is we are to always put our spouses needs above our own. There are numerous times I do things I have no desire to do simply because I think it would help my wife. Other times, I fall short of true, self-sacrificial love. In theory if we do always put our spouse first, we would still have all our needs met simply because of a considerate, Christ-like spouse.

Human nature and weakness of course kick-in and we all at times end up putting ourselves first, but that doesn’t mean it is supposed to be that way ideally.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have read differing views on this exact point, I would tend to agree with you. It does seem that moral theologians differ on this.

Edited to add:
I think this misses the point. Yes, it may be ok to have sex even though the spouse is insisting on using birth control. I think that is your point. However, its not what is being discussed. The issue is if its reasonable to refuse sex in that scenario. And I would say it is.

I think all that is being suggested is that to permanently refuse sex purely on the ethical ground of a contraceptive intent by the husband is not considered a good enough ground to qualify as “reasonable”.

 

[pnewton]

While this topic is surely interesting, I think it important to remember that withholding consent in marriage, which may or may not be immoral depending on more circumstances than we can possibly cover here, or should cover, still does not constitute a right to rape, which is always immoral. Men must respect the withholding of consent, even it is done immorally.

However, both husbands and wives must bear some moral burden of causing the other a near occasion of sin if sexual consent is withheld unduly long. No, the would not be forcing the other part into sexual sin, but they could be a cause of stumbling.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, I do not believe that. I have said so several times, once directly in response to you. A husband may think his desire to have sex is reasonable. The ultimate decision though is not his, and he can certainly be wrong. That’s why the reasonableness is determined by the conscience of the woman (the person who is refusing).

I don’t believe it for a single or a regular refusal, this is now the third time I am telling you so.

I am at a loss to understand what you meant as follows then:
“Again, my consistent point is:, the unreasonable refusal of sex is morally wrong, grave matter. Each and every refusal. That is the clear church teaching.”
By “reasonable” you fairly clearly meant what the husband believes to be reasonable.

If you didn’t mean that then your statement is simply a tautology (like noone may stop an irresistible force) and while true provides no new or practically helpful insights into the matter at hand and I don’t know why you made the point so strongly.

Nor have you supplied a Magisterial quote so we might better understand what Church Teaching you are actually basing this on?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Sex is a really big part of a marriage, I think one is treading on thin ice when one starts telling oneself it is a sacrifice.

This may be the difficulty.
People are different. And people are different at different stages of their own life.
Regular sexual intercourse is not a big deal or needl for significant numbers of married people, often for women rather than men.

If you assume everyone loves or even likes the same food as you then your expectations re your partner enjoying what you enjoy are going to be mistaken.
We all understand surely that food must be eaten even if we don’t like it. The same with medicinal remedies that taste bad.

Yet you seem like you would be put out if your partner had sex (aka sacrificial) because of your need not because, for reasons not of her making, she personally enjoyed it.

That seems to be a mistaken perspective to me.
If I had the miseries and my wife saw this and “sacrificially” and lovingly gifted me all the same I would be touched. But you would decline and be put out if she later told you she was not really into it but that was OK with her?

Would you refuse medicine from a doctor if he told you (or get the grumps if he didn’t tell you) it wasn’t going to taste like chocolate?

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

This may be the difficulty.
People are different. And people are different at different stages of their own life.
Regular sexual intercourse is not a big deal or needl for significant numbers of married people, often for women rather than men.

If you assume everyone loves or even likes the same food as you then your expectations re your partner enjoying what you enjoy are going to be mistaken.
We all understand surely that food must be eaten even if we don’t like it. The same with medicinal remedies that taste bad.

Yet you seem like you would be put out if your partner had sex (aka sacrificial) because of your need not because, for reasons not of her making, she personally enjoyed it.

That seems to be a mistaken perspective to me.
If I had the miseries and my wife saw this and “sacrificially” and lovingly gifted me all the same I would be touched. But you would decline and be put out if she later told you she was not really into it but that was OK with her?

Would you refuse medicine from a doctor if he told you (or get the grumps if he didn’t tell you) it wasn’t going to taste like chocolate?

All true, but again, we are supposed to focus our desires on the needs of our spouses, not our own in every case. Likewise true is that reasoning could apply to any number of requests in marriage that would leave spouses fulfilled in many other ways beyond sex. I don’t feel like a good night kiss, I don’t feel like date night, I don’t feel like saying I love you, I don’t feel like praying with you, etc.

 

[tafan]

I am at a loss to understand what you meant as follows then:
“Again, my consistent point is:, the unreasonable refusal of sex is morally wrong, grave matter. Each and every refusal. That is the clear church teaching.”
By “reasonable” you fairly clearly meant what the husband believes to be reasonable.

First of all, my quote is uses the word unreasonable, not reasonable. Under the assumption you are implying the husband is requesting and wife is the one who is refusing, “the unreasonable refusal” must pertain to the wife’s action (ie the refusal), not the husbands. So no, just by saying reasonable as an adjective of refusal, it has nothing to do with what the husband believes.

Nor have you supplied a Magisterial quote so we might better understand what Church Teaching you are actually basing this on?

I have provide one quote and explanation from a very good moral theology book by Germain Grisez which has both a Christian Moral Principles and a Nihil obstat . (twotlj.org/)
Please see post #130.

Sorry, I have to run right now.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So you think gratitude is only needed for gifts? . That’s strange, I thank people all the time for things that are not gifts. Most people do.
I too disagree with the statement that these things, including sex, are not gifts. We give ourselves in marriage, so it’s always a gift. But I wouldn’t read into his comment that gratitude is not needed.

Tafan let’s revisit your expression:

“And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed”.

Now we can all see this can be read in two completely different ways…but you phrased it in such negative terms that we naturally assume that you seem to see everything in marriage as something other than ongoing gifts.

May I suggest that many of us here see everything our spouses do for us in marriage as unexpected surprises we are always grateful for and consequently would never have penned the above sentence. Instead we would say:

“And I would treat sex within marriage as a gift no less than the other things listed.”

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Tafan let’s revisit your expression:

“And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed”.

Now we can all see this can be read in two completely different ways…but you phrased it in such negative terms that we naturally assume that you seem to see everything in marriage as something other than ongoing gifts.

May I suggest that many of us here see everything our spouses do for us in marriage as unexpected surprises we are always grateful for and consequently would never have penned the above sentence. Instead we would say:

“And I would treat sex within marriage as a gift no less than the other things listed.”

I think I said that, and the point is not one of being unappreciative because even normal expectations can be diffifult to live up to as humans with flaws, but that a gift implies something I didn’t necessarily deserve, at least to me.

I think all those things listed are expectations and part of the entire package of a Catholic marriage. Gift comes to close to reward for my taste. My wife has a reasonable expectation that I will put her needs above mine. I don’t give it as a gift, but because that’s what Christ expects me to do.

 

[tafan]

Tafan let’s revisit your expression:

“And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed”.

Now we can all see this can be read in two completely different ways…but you phrased it in such negative terms that we naturally assume that you seem to see everything in marriage as something other than ongoing gifts.

May I suggest that many of us here see everything our spouses do for us in marriage as unexpected surprises we are always grateful for and consequently would never have penned the above sentence. Instead we would say:

“And I would treat sex within marriage as a gift no less than the other things listed.”

May I suggest to you that I am sick and tired of you misreading, mistaking, and/or lying
in about what I say and don’t say. .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

First of all, my quote is uses the word unreasonable, not reasonable. Under the assumption you are implying the husband is requesting and wife is the one who is refusing, “the unreasonable refusal” must pertain to the wife’s action (ie the refusal), not the husbands. So no, just by saying reasonable as an adjective of refusal, it has nothing to do with what the husband believes.

I really do not know what you just said here!
Clearly when I said “By “reasonable” you fairly clearly meant what the husband believes to be reasonable” I also meant “By “unreasonable” you fairly clearly meant what the husband believes to be unreasonable.”

I have provide one quote and explanation from a very good moral theology book by Germain Grisez …

GG is not the Magisterium and is a controversial theologian.
This should alert you to the reality that the Magisterium may in fact hold a contradictory view but allows debate for a variety of reasons. Just as is the case with many matters of faith and morals such as whether Mary ascended to heaven from earth alive or dead.

I think you would be wise to accept the possibility you have simply cherry picked a less than orthodox theologian who simply reinforces your own personal views on the matter and whether or not this view is truly “Church Teaching” is far from proven.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

May I suggest to you that I am sick and tired of you misreading, mistaking, and/or lying
in about what I say and don’t say. .

I can only go by what your actual words seem to say Tafan.
I politely play them back to you to provide you the opportunity to correct my understanding or perhaps your poor penning of your thoughts.

I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think I said that, and the point is not one of being unappreciative because even normal expectations can be diffifult to live up to as humans with flaws, but that a gift implies something I didn’t necessarily deserve, at least to me.

I think all those things listed are expectations and part of the entire package of a Catholic marriage. Gift comes to close to reward for my taste. My wife has a reasonable expectation that I will put her needs above mine. I don’t give it as a gift, but because that’s what Christ expects me to do.

Yes these are interesting subtleties aren’t they.

The bottom line for me is I am so grateful for any sign of love my wife provides me.
I do the same for her, or try to, but for me it has nothing to do with obligation or even the expectations of Chist. If we are one it is as natural as the rhythms of life itself.
I am grateful for waking to the sun each morning. It is not something I deserve or merit.

 

[tafan]

I can only go by what your actual words seem to say Tafan.
I politely play them back to you to provide you the opportunity to correct my understanding or perhaps your poor penning of your thoughts.

I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language?

I did not write the words “And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed”. I don’t know who did, but I did NOT. you can go back in the thread and figure out who did. They even contradict my statement “I too disagree with the statement that these things, including sex, are not gifts”, which you also posted.
Blue Horizon:

…Clearly when I said “By “reasonable” you fairly clearly meant what the husband believes to be reasonable” I also meant “By “unreasonable” you fairly clearly meant what the husband believes to be unreasonable.”

Maybe I cannot explain parsing the English language clearly enough. But nothing I said fairly clearly means what the husband believes to be reasonable. And I have denied it explitly multiple times to you when you have accused me of it.

Post 141
"So what lets keep it simple (like the Germain Grisez) did and simply say an unreasonable refusal is wrong. The person refusing is making the moral act here, so it is that person’s reason that matters, not the person requesting sex.
"

Post 182
"No, I do not believe that. I have said so several times, once directly in response to you. A husband may think his desire to have sex is reasonable. **The ultimate decision though is not his, and he can certainly be wrong. That’s why the reasonableness is determined by the conscience of the woman (the person who is refusing).
"

and the post you cannot understand:

Under the assumption you are implying the husband is requesting and wife is the one who is refusing, “**the unreasonable refusal” must pertain to the wife’s action **

(ie the refusal), not the husbands. So no, just by saying reasonable as an adjective of refusal, it has nothing to do with what the husband believes.

I admit the last sentence was typed quickly, but note the bold parts that I have added.
That in conjunction with my previous posts address directly to you, should make my denials of your accusations clear.

GG is not the Magisterium and is a controversial theologian.
This should alert you to the reality that the Magisterium may in fact hold a contradictory view but allows debate for a variety of reasons. Just as is the case with many matters of faith and morals such as whether Mary ascended to heaven from earth alive or dead.

I think you would be wise to accept the possibility you have simply cherry picked a less than orthodox theologian who simply reinforces your own personal views on the matter and whether or not this view is truly “Church Teaching” is far from proven.

I understand one theologian is not the magisterium. But he is not unorthodox. His statement of the teaching in question is quite clear, please show me a statement from the magisterium which contradicts his words.**

 

[nodito]

I can only go by what your actual words seem to say Tafan.
I politely play them back to you to provide you the opportunity to correct my understanding or perhaps your poor penning of your thoughts.

I am beginning to wonder if English is your first language?

You quoted tarfan as saying something which was actually written by Wedge Antilles. This has happened a couple of times in this thread; I believe that if why he is getting frustrated.
Wedge Antilles:

And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed. They are all part of the package in saying “I do.” I would never pressure my wife nor she me, but that applies to most aspects of marriage, not just sex, correct?

Blue Horizon:

Tafan let’s revisit your expression:

“And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed”.

Now we can all see this can be read in two completely different ways…but you phrased it in such negative terms that we naturally assume that you seem to see everything in marriage as something other than ongoing gifts.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I did not write the words “And I wouldn’t treat sex within marriage as a gift any more than the other things listed”. I don’t know who did, but I did NOT. you can go back in the thread and figure out who did. They even contradict my statement “I too disagree with the statement that these things, including sex, are not gifts”, which you also posted.

My sincere apologies Tafan. I have retraced things and people quoting people has confused me (using a tablet doesn’t help).

 

[Blue_Horizon]

"So what lets keep it simple (like the Germain Grisez) did and simply say an unreasonable refusal is wrong. …

I understand one theologian is not the magisterium. But he is not unorthodox. His statement of the teaching in question is quite clear, please show me a statement from the magisterium which contradicts his words.

I don’t believe I need to Tafan, you are the one who says both that Grisez is NOT the Magisterium and also “its the Church’s clear teaching.”
I do not believe I have misquoted you here.

If YOU are unable to find Magisterial teaching that clearly confirms Grisez then you really have no basis for exaggerating that Grisez’s words are “the clear teaching of the Church”.

Now not only are some of your assertions not Church Teaching… I do not think Grisez is saying what you conclude from his quotes that you have provided.

Let’s re-look at all your quotes re your strong assertion that declining for “not being in the mood” is objectively grave moral matter each and every time.
Actually you go even further and say it is not only “grave matter” but an actual sin each time also. (Hopefully you mean venial sin, which is erroneous enough, rather than mortal sin ).

“I think an unreasonable refusal is a big deal each and every time. It is grave matter. See the quote from Germain Grisez’s book I gave above.”

“Let me be clear, each and every single unreasonable rejection is wrong, gravely wrong.”

“the unreasonable refusal of sex is morally wrong, grave matter. Each and every refusal.”

“So I will try to be clear, I initially said that a reasonable request cannot be refused. What I meant that it is only a reasonable request if the other spouse has no reasonable cause to be excused. I may think that having sex tonight is a good idea, but I have no idea my wife has had a really bad headache all day. When she reasonable says no, my request is immediately unreasonable.”

“Assuming you have no reasonable cause for refusal, it is a sin. You may not think it is heinous, but that is the teaching of the Church as I understand it:”

“I have a big problem with the often used words like “regularly”. A reasonable request for sex cannot be morally refused. Moral theology is about individual acts. It is a major sin against chastity ever to unreasonably refuse sex to a spouse. …But assuming the refusal is unreasonable, (IMO, simply not being in the mood certainly qualifies as unreasonable), it is a sin each and every time it occurs. How often it occurs does not matter”

“If one knows that one’s spouse is doing something morally wrong, it becomes the responsibility to bring it to their attention.”

By “a grave matter” Grisez is I believe simply saying its a “serious concern”.
Somehow you have turned this into a technical moral theology term, “grave matter” on each and every occasion. That is a huge and unjustifiable jump.
It would put such refusals up there with the grave matter listed in the Ten Commandments. And if a person did so with full understanding and free choice would damn them to hell and lose the life of God within.
This is not clear Church teaching my friend, sorry.

And even if it were it would not be anybody’s self-righteous obligation to counsel their wife on this at any time - unless perhaps there was a very regular pattern of “headaches”.

I would also disagree with you that “not being in the mood” is never a reasonable excuse.
This is a prudential applied judgement re the abstract principles that even the wisest of theologians likely disagree over. The Magisterium has never come close to ever suggesting such a thing as far as I know.
I would really like to see a referenced quote from GGrisez on this point if you have one.
Sure, a regular pattern of “not being in the mood” and declining may be judged to be getting seriously unreasonable - but each and every rare occasion, I don’t think you will get many women or even men agreeing with you sorry.

Finally, from a moral theology perspective you may like to reflect on the well established concept of “parvity of matter” when it comes to the “grave matter” of certain types of sins.

Theft for example. Generally it is considered to be a sin of “grave matter”, hence it is one of the Ten prohibited Commandments. Yet the Church clearly does teach that circumstances can often render the objective matter from grave to light (eg the item is of relatively trivial value). This means that small acts of theft even if done knowingly and freely can never be considered actual mortal sins, only venial at most.

I suggest our wives can on specific occasions decline for absolutely no good reason (eg not in the mood) and not only may we not physically force ourselves on them or badger them … we may not even consider in our hearts that they have objectively (let alone personally) sinned by doing so.

And I certainly wouldn’t think there is any basis in Church Teaching for somewhat self-righteously finding the right time to counsel them that they have engaged in “grave matter” for a relatively one-off “I am not in the mood” rejection.

So I am sorry, I totally disagree with you that:
(a) frequency does not matter in a moral analysis
(b) “not in the mood” is always unreasonable
(c) we are always dealing with “grave matter” for an unreasonable decline
(d) such is always personally “sinful”.
(e) the Church clearly teaches the above.

I don’t think Grisez is really saying any of these things that you seem to be putting on his lips either. Though I await your full quotes from him on these matters.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What I personally find to be contradictory are 2 statements:

If this is true:

A husband may think his desire to have sex is reasonable. The ultimate decision though is not his, and he can certainly be wrong. That’s why the reasonableness is determined by the conscience of the woman (the person who is refusing).

Then how can this also be true:

If one knows that one’s spouse is doing something morally wrong, it becomes the responsibility to bring it to their attention.

If the refused spouse is not to be the ultimate decision maker about whether a request for sex is reasonable, or a refusal of sex is unreasonable, then how can they know the refuser is doing something morally wrong?

ETA: Unless I suppose a refusing spouse actually states “I know I don’t have a reasonable reason to refuse sex right now, but I don’t care, I’m still not saying yes and that’s not a sin at all.” Then, I guess, the refused spouse has justification to offer “fraternal correction”.

 

[Rau]

What I personally find to be contradictory are 2 statements:

If this is true:

Then how can this also be true:

If the refused spouse is not to be the ultimate decision maker about whether a request for sex is reasonable, or a refusal of sex is unreasonable, then how can they know the refuser is doing something morally wrong?

The one who takes it on himself to “fraternally correct” the other claims to know objectively the reasonableness of the other’s decision to decline. Generally, that’s not possible.