Question about a sexual intimacy problem

[BlueEyedLady]

I truly feel for you. This was a huge problem in my marriage. I make the point from the view that few people would hesitate for a minute to chastise a spouse, particularly a man, for failing to live up to his end of the marital bargain in terms of say, earning a living to support his family. Yet the obligation between spouses regarding the marital embrace is much more explicit in the Church’s teaching and as others have pointed out, much more important in terms of the hazards it avoids.

I have heard every excuse under the sun, and frankly, they are usually offered on behalf of women who don’t want to honor their obligations. They are just that - excuses. While a man owes his wife respect and honor, he in fact does not owe her even one date night or any of the other feminist tripe offered up to earn something that his wife promised him on their wedding day. The Church uses the terms ‘debt’ and ‘obligation’ for a reason. The OP deserves the support of his pastor to counsel his wife that she is sinning is a bad way by withholding the marital embrace from him.

He can buy her all the flowers and rub her feet till the cows come home, but what it all boils down to is that his wife will either decide to honor her vows or not.

I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but I think that they way you’re saying it is crass and heartless. First, I would like to know exactly how many women you’ve been with that you have heard every excuse under the sun and that you know that these excuses are usually given by women? Furthermore, how many men have you been with to know that they don’t do the same thing?

I agree, a man should not have to spend the day putting on a production to get sex. Sex is in and of itself a romantic thing, and I think that too many women have bought in to the whole idea that sex is something that they do to please their men, and that if a man wants to be happy he needs to make her happy in return. But that isn’t feminist tripe. In fact, quite the opposite. That’s one of the mindsets that modern feminists are working to get rid of. This myth that “proper ladies don’t want sex, they want love and romance” is just that, a myth. And sadly too many women have bought it. Until we make it ok for women to really want sex, then this will continue to be an issue.

I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone in a non abusive relationship (male or female) who doesn’t want to have sex with their spouse. None. If you are to the point where you can’t even happily honor one of the most basic parts of your vows then its time to look in to counseling or even separation.

Now about date nights and such. No, those aren’t a prerequisite for sex. But, both partners need to be doing everything that they can to keep their relationship happy and strong. That means setting aside time to focus only on each other and make each other feel loved, special, wanted, and needed. So no, a man isn’t obligated to plan date nights and special occasions for sex, but both partners will be happier and the marriage will be healthier if they both put forth an effort to do so.

 

[hurting]

I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but I think that they way you’re saying it is crass and heartless. First, I would like to know exactly how many women you’ve been with that you have heard every excuse under the sun and that you know that these excuses are usually given by women? Furthermore, how many men have you been with to know that they don’t do the same thing?

*I’m using the examples of these forums as well as the zeitgeist. It can not possibly be crass or heartless to portray a sacred vow as anything less than it is. To not describe the marriage debt as an obligation is to purposely not convey the gravity of the matter. To not convey that gravity does great harm to marriage. *

I agree, a man should not have to spend the day putting on a production to get sex. Sex is in and of itself a romantic thing, and I think that too many women have bought in to the whole idea that sex is something that they do to please their men, and that if a man wants to be happy he needs to make her happy in return. But that isn’t feminist tripe. In fact, quite the opposite. That’s one of the mindsets that modern feminists are working to get rid of. This myth that “proper ladies don’t want sex, they want love and romance” is just that, a myth. And sadly too many women have bought it. Until we make it ok for women to really want sex, then this will continue to be an issue.

*Uh, this is not it at all. Women have largely been conditioned to use sex as a means to get what they want from men, including their husbands. Your juxtaposition of modern feminism with some other kind of feminism is a distinction without a difference. *

Now about date nights and such. No, those aren’t a prerequisite for sex. But, both partners need to be doing everything that they can to keep their relationship happy and strong. That means setting aside time to focus only on each other and make each other feel loved, special, wanted, and needed. So no, a man isn’t obligated to plan date nights and special occasions for sex, but both partners will be happier and the marriage will be healthier if they both put forth an effort to do so.

This is more modernist claptrap, and I’m not the only one saying it here. Married couples do not take vows to make each other happy as that word is defined in the temporal, secular sense. This focus on happiness is a flaw not a feature of modern marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say hurting. Total lunacy. Marriage is about self-sacrifice, which means each spouse is trying to make the other feel loved and, yes, happy. I guess a better and more Catholic term would be “joyful.”

It’s not all roses and rainbows, but I think we all know that. Nevertheless, my job as a husband is to do all I can to serve my wife. I must help fulfill her emotional, spiritual and yes, physical needs. She must do so likewise for me.

Obviously the chief duty in marriage is for spouses to pull one another towards heaven and to create and raise children strong in the faith. We’re all trying to pull one another to heaven. But how can we do that without a smile? “Rejoice in the Lord always, again, I say rejoice!” Did Christ not tell us to cast off our anxieties and place our trust in Him? Did He not command us to be at peace? How can we be at peace while at the same time not be joyous? How can we bring the Light of Christ to others without being joyful in our hearts? How can we bring our spouses to the Lord without first bringing joy to them?

Maybe happiness just isn’t the right word. It’s really more about bringing a small reflection of the joy that God gives to us to one another. That’s a better term. And it’s our greatest duty as spouses.

 

[hurting]

That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say hurting. Total lunacy. Marriage is about self-sacrifice, which means each spouse is trying to make the other feel loved and, yes, happy. I guess a better and more Catholic term would be “joyful.”

It’s not all roses and rainbows, but I think we all know that. Nevertheless, my job as a husband is to do all I can to serve my wife. I must help fulfill her emotional, spiritual and yes, physical needs. She must do so likewise for me.

Obviously the chief duty in marriage is for spouses to pull one another towards heaven and to create and raise children strong in the faith. We’re all trying to pull one another to heaven. But how can we do that without a smile? “Rejoice in the Lord always, again, I say rejoice!” Did Christ not tell us to cast off our anxieties and place our trust in Him? Did He not command us to be at peace? How can we be at peace while at the same time not be joyous? How can we bring the Light of Christ to others without being joyful in our hearts? How can we bring our spouses to the Lord without first bringing joy to them?

Maybe happiness just isn’t the right word. It’s really more about bringing a small reflection of the joy that God gives to us to one another. That’s a better term. And it’s our greatest duty as spouses.

I stand by what I said. I clearly qualified the term ‘happy’ to connote the worldly, temporal definition of that word. You essentially make my argument for me by recognizing that the word is shot through with notions of fulfillment in the mortal world that are often in conflict with the afterlife as I believe you and I understand that to be, however imperfectly.
The sacrifice of spouses to one another often involves actions that when viewed from a secular bent do not evoke feelings of happiness in the context I have been discussing, yet the culture encourages the pursuit of such fleeting emotion at the expense of the everlasting joy you describe. I am afraid there is no better example of this than the one that begat this entire forum, the withholding of the marital embrace by one spouse to another and the wrongheaded view that downplaying the obligatory nature in favor of romance/perpetual courtship is an acceptable alternative.
As to your assertion that ‘…we all know that…’ marriage is not all ‘…roses and rainbows…’, I beg to differ and offer the plethora of examples on this thread alone as evidence. To even suggest that a spouse who is failing in his/her obligation to render the marital debt absent some legitimate reason should be coerced by way of ‘date nights’ and the like is to feed the beast that is killing marriage.
An integral, perhaps the integral element of the duty of fidelity one spouse owes to another is in the marital embrace. Any suggestion that one spouse must earn the right by way of romance is antithetical to the Church’s teaching and will only lead to heartache for all involved eventually. It is tantamount to telling the victim of an adulterous spouse that it was his/her fault the unfaithful spouse cheated.
We could not agree more that spouses are called to get one another to heaven and to procreate.
While my wording was indeed strong, it was in no way ‘absolutely ridiculous’ or ‘lunacy’.

 

[PaulGH]

Wooooooooh, sorry to post all of that. I know it was a drudge to read. Does anyone have any advice for us? She was the one that suggested making this post, by the way. Because we would like some outside perspective.

My first thought is why couldn’t she be willing to be intimate when you initiate, even if she is not in the mood? Now, that doesn’t mean that I think you should initiate every day, and expect her to be ready and willing every time. But perhaps that three times per month could at least be doubled? Would she be willing to do that, for you?

Now, I do know that marital intimacy is much more enjoyable when both spouses are in the mood, but isn’t less-than-perfect intimacy better than no intimacy?

 

[PaulGH]

I read through some of the other responses, and I like the suggestion of scheduling a specific day and time for intimacy – even if you set up the scheduled time only a day in advance or even a few hours in advance. It seems to me that this could take some pressure off of your wife, in that she knows you do not expect her to be ready and willing immediately with no advance warning.

 

[fpt]

Any suggestion that one spouse must earn the right by way of romance is antithetical to the Church’s teaching and will only lead to heartache for all involved eventually. It is tantamount to telling the victim of an adulterous spouse that it was his/her fault the unfaithful spouse cheated.

Could you explain to me, excactly, what you want to mean, in the details? I am not sure, because English is not my mother tongue.

Before responding to you, I wish to be sure of my understanding. Because spontaneously, I have a reaction, but before posting it, I would like to be very certain to understanding deeply your thought.

 

[fpt]

Don’t worry, not so explicit.

Here’s an age old problem: I (as husband) desire far more frequent sexual intimacy than my wife.

I’m not going to put a particular number on how often I would so desire, but suffice it to say that it would be plenty higher than my wife. We usually end up being sexually intimate 3 times a month, or so. I would like it if that were a lot higher.

HOWEVER, that is not really the problem. I can absolutely deal with the waiting, the lesser amount, etc.

The REAL problem that my wife and I have been discussing is related, but not the same.

Basically what’s happened is that I no longer try to “initiate” an encounter with her. This is because 9 times out of 10, I know she is going to turn it down. And when she turns it down, it stings me on a very deep level. Rationally, I know that she always loves me and she just has a lower sex drive than I do, but emotionally and on an instinctual level it just hurts. It hurts bad.

And so, I have not been initiating. I’ve been initiating less and less and now, finally, I am not initiating anymore. Since that has happened, here’s where I finally get to the heart of the problem: since that has happened, I have been having deep feelings of discontent.

I wish that I could better explain the emotions that I’ve been feeling, but I don’t know how. My wife and I have been talking about these feelings I’m having but it’s been tough to get down to the core of the matter. I think that it might be a kind of resentment. Like, she and only she gets to decide when we get the green light and I kinda feel like: “maybe if I’m a good boy, I’ll get a cookie tonight!”

Sorry, I’m just trying to write it down, hoping that it will help me get to the heart of the matter. I guess it’s just that I feel like we’re not equal partners in our sexual intimacy because she gets to dictate it 100% of the time.

We’ve been working on how to get around this - and we just can’t find a way. Help!

Some notes:

-I’m very aware of her needs within the relationship for romance and such, and being a born romantic, this is never a problem for me. I’m always doing little gestures - roses, surprise nights out on the town, little love notes and “I miss you!” texts and so on. We have both agreed that our relationship is not lacking in emotional intimacy, so to speak.

-The sex, according to her, is great. So it is not a matter of it being un-pleasurable. It doesn’t hurt and she says she feels satisfied “99.9%” of the time. So there’s no problem there, she just doesn’t feel up to it as often.

-She has tried making sacrifices as far as giving it a shot even when not in the mood. The problem is that, when she “fakes it” so to speak, she feels like she is being dishonest with me. Also, when she does this, it tends to be so transparent that I can tell, and that turns me off so I cannot keep going with it.

-To our knowledge, there are no medical issues with either of us.

Wooooooooh, sorry to post all of that. I know it was a drudge to read. Does anyone have any advice for us? She was the one that suggested making this post, by the way. Because we would like some outside perspective.

Questions for you and her in order to help.

Your wife has a moral obligation to try to make a work on herself for understand the “why”, the reasons, the causes of her feelings about conjugal sex, about sexual intimacy. It is her conjugal moral obligation, a obligation of mean. Does she agree with that? Does she want to think of that? Is she ready to force herself to do this intellectual, moral, medical, psychological exercice??? Do you ask her to try to do that? Are you okay with that? What is the position of your spiritual director about that? What is the position of her spiritual director about that?

What are her reasons for not initiating the marital act? Does she have objective and realistic reasons for not initiating the marital act? Does she know that it is possible that her reasons are morally wrong, unfair, not serious, thus probably sinful?
What are her reasons for not saying yes to the marital act? Does she have objective and realistic reasons for not saying yes to the marital act? Does she know that it is possible that her reasons are morally wrong, unfair, not serious, thus probably sinful?
Does she know that the unilateral continence or abstinence without fair reason is not very catholic?

By principle, your marital request for the union of bodies is the rule. By nature, the marital request for the union of bodies is for every day. It is your moral right. do you agree with? Does she agree with?
The question is only, what are the serious reasons for not requesting, morally speaking? Do you know the reasons? Does she know the reasons? The question is only, what are the serious reasons for not saying yes to the request , morally speaking? Do you know the reasons? Does she know the reasons?

Is she annoyed and more by your requests of marital act? And why? What are her reasons? What are her private issues about marital act? Does she share with you? Is she free to have a sex talk with you? What are her own issues about the fact of making one flesh?

IF NO OBJECTIVE AND SERIOUS REASONS, SHE NEED TO DO SEXUAL EFFORTS, SEXUAL SACRIFICES FOR YOU. IT IS HER JOB.

THE RULES OF MARRIAGE ARE LIKE THAT.

 

[thewanderer]

This is more modernist claptrap, and I’m not the only one saying it here. Married couples do not take vows to make each other happy as that word is defined in the temporal, secular sense. This focus on happiness is a flaw not a feature of modern marriage.

She agreed with you that each spouse owes sexual intimacy to the other even if they aren’t in the mood. She was just pointing out that your way of expressing this truth was overly harsh and not very helpful. She pointed out that it is wrong to blame this false and harmful view (that men are required to provide romance if they want to have relations) on feminists, because they have also been trying to get rid of this unfortunate way of looking at things. And finally she brought up the fact that even though it would be wrong for a wife to deny her husband just because he didn’t provide her with enough romance beforehand, it is also important for both man and wife to do everything they can for their spouses wellbeing, and that includes romantic acts. In other words. Yes, it is wrong for one spouse to deny the other just because they aren’t in the mood or weren’t “romanced” enough, but it is also true that both spouses have a duty to show affection to each other in all sorts of ways, including romantic acts and other acts of kindness and affection. I really don’t understand how this is “modernist claptrap” it is perfectly in line with Church teaching, and, honestly, just makes sense.

 

[fpt]

She agreed with you that each spouse owes sexual intimacy to the other even if they aren’t in the mood. She was just pointing out that your way of expressing this truth was overly harsh and not very helpful. She pointed out that it is wrong to blame this false and harmful view (that men are required to provide romance if they want to have relations) on feminists, because they have also been trying to get rid of this unfortunate way of looking at things. And finally she brought up the fact that even though it would be wrong for a wife to deny her husband just because he didn’t provide her with enough romance beforehand, it is also important for both man and wife to do everything they can for their spouses wellbeing, and that includes romantic acts. In other words. Yes, it is wrong for one spouse to deny the other just because they aren’t in the mood or weren’t “romanced” enough, but it is also true that both spouses have a duty to show affection to each other in all sorts of ways, including romantic acts and other acts of kindness and affection. I really don’t understand how this is “modernist claptrap” it is perfectly in line with Church teaching, and, honestly, just makes sense.

I am on the same line than you. The catholic doxa is like you are saying. Here the message of this member of CAF seems to be only in reaction to radical feminism and seems to be very old fashion in his view to understand the conjugality. In the past, all was not good. All heresies, all ideologies, the machism, the sexism from husbands…etc.

I am happy to be in now, because there is the balance in the official teaching from the Vatican. (the unity of doctrine).

Have a good time in couple: the moral obligation to give conjugal happiness to the other in the marriage is a moral obligation of means.

BE CAREFUL TO SIMPLISTIC REACTIONISM

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is more modernist claptrap, and I’m not the only one saying it here. Married couples do not take vows to make each other happy as that word is defined in the temporal, secular sense. This focus on happiness is a flaw not a feature of modern marriage.

Fine, try to raise children in a bitter, unhappy environment, where one or both spouses feel like the other doesn’t even care enough to try to make them happy and where the spark and connection that was once there has long faded away due to neglect.

That never turns out poorly for everyone involved

 

[hurting]

Any suggestion that one spouse must earn the right by way of romance is antithetical to the Church’s teaching and will only lead to heartache for all involved eventually. It is tantamount to telling the victim of an adulterous spouse that it was his/her fault the unfaithful spouse cheated.

Could you explain to me, excactly, what you want to mean, in the details? I am not sure, because English is not my mother tongue.

Before responding to you, I wish to be sure of my understanding. Because spontaneously, I have a reaction, but before posting it, I would like to be very certain to understanding deeply your thought.

As I understand tthe Church’s teaching on the subject, the spouses owe one another the marital debt almost unconditionally - meaning absent a serious problem, e.g., a medical impediment, one is not to deny the other. To the extent that a spouse wrongly denies his/her partner (denial in the absence of the serious problem) the denying spouse is harming the marriage in a very significant way. The advice often given to couples (as can be seen on these forums) typically focuses on the spouse who is being denied to do something differently to earn the intimacy that is already owed.

In my mind this is analagous to counseling a faithful partner to a marriage to take responsibility for his/her spouse’s infidelity.

 

[hurting]

I am on the same line than you. The catholic doxa is like you are saying. Here the message of this member of CAF seems to be only in reaction to radical feminism and seems to be very old fashion in his view to understand the conjugality. In the past, all was not good. All heresies, all ideologies, the machism, the sexism from husbands…etc.

I am happy to be in now, because there is the balance in the official teaching from the Vatican. (the unity of doctrine).

Have a good time in couple: the moral obligation to give conjugal happiness to the other in the marriage is a moral obligation of means.

BE CAREFUL TO SIMPLISTIC REACTIONISM

fpt,

I sincerely hope yu are not accusing me of sexism - that is an ad hominem attack that is not supported by anything I have posted. Please do not impute motives to me.

 

[TechMan]

As I understand tthe Church’s teaching on the subject, the spouses owe one another the marital debt almost unconditionally - meaning absent a serious problem, e.g., a medical impediment, one is not to deny the other. To the extent that a spouse wrongly denies his/her partner (denial in the absence of the serious problem) the denying spouse is harming the marriage in a very significant way. The advice often given to couples (as can be seen on these forums) typically focuses on the spouse who is being denied to do something differently to earn the intimacy that is already owed.

In my mind this is analagous to counseling a faithful partner to a marriage to take responsibility for his/her spouse’s infidelity.

I hear what you’re saying, and I agree with you for the most part. However, your last statement doesn’t quite work, even in the situation you’re describing. For example, suppose the husband consistently refused to have sex with his wife, but he also remained “faithful” in the sense that he himself did not commit adultery. Precisely because he is denying his wife the sexual intercourse he promised at their wedding, he may be leading her into sin, whether it’s masturbation, pornography, or adultery. He bears at least some of the guilt. It goes the other way around, too.

This is precisely why I agree with the first part of your post.

And it’s also why I agree with the others in this discussion who believe that spouses do have an obligation to romance each other. It’s not only refusing to have sexual intercourse that can harm the marriage, but also the perception that one is using the other’s body only for sexual intercourse. Romance can help avoid that perception.

Our wedding vows weren’t only to have sex with each other. They also included the vow to love each other. It is a strange love that doesn’t strive to make the beloved feel loved, especially in something so intimate as the marital embrace.

 

[fpt]

fpt,

I sincerely hope yu are not accusing me of sexism - that is an ad hominem attack that is not supported by anything I have posted. Please do not impute motives to me.

No, no, I do not accuse you of sexism, of course. It is not my deep thought.

If you read my message i use the word (the verb) “to seem”, I am very prudent. And I talk only about this writing, not about your deep thought. In my mother tongue, the French, the subtility is here. I am so sorry, if you take this as a personal attack, again so sorry.

I say only, that in the world there are, today like in the past, many heresies, many ideologies and many wrong practices. Thus, the fact of having the very fair reaction is not easy for everybody.

In Domino,

See you on Caf.

 

[fpt]

As I understand tthe Church’s teaching on the subject, the spouses owe one another the marital debt almost unconditionally - meaning absent a serious problem, e.g., a medical impediment, one is not to deny the other. To the extent that a spouse wrongly denies his/her partner (denial in the absence of the serious problem) the denying spouse is harming the marriage in a very significant way. The advice often given to couples (as can be seen on these forums) typically focuses on the spouse who is being denied to do something differently to earn the intimacy that is already owed.

In my mind this is analagous to counseling a faithful partner to a marriage to take responsibility for his/her spouse’s infidelity.

In the marriage, there are the marital act (the marital debt, the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies, the right on the body or the right of body, the moral right to the marital request for marital act, the moral obligation to say yes to this marital request, sometimes the moral permission to say no, sometimes the moral permission not to ask, sometimes the moral obligation not to ask, some times the moral obligation to refuse).

The obligation to love the other, to render him happy (catholic happiness in the respect of natural moral law) in the conjugal life by the conjugal love: conjugal charity is a moral duty to try, an obligation of means.

If you read the canon law, each spouse is responsible of the other for avoiding the bad effect of concupiscence (sensual, erotic, sexual, affective, mental, emotional).

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery**, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery. **

Here, the “innocent spouse” has to question himself for discerning the why of adultery: all conjugal issue have to be analysed.

In the marriage, each spouse has to tru to fulfill sensual needs, sexual needs, spiritual needs, affective needs, emotional needs and the different needs of conjugal love.
Romantic love is one of part, but not the only, of course. But, the fact of trying is important, it a conjugal charity.

 

[hurting]

I hear what you’re saying, and I agree with you for the most part. However, your last statement doesn’t quite work, even in the situation you’re describing. For example, suppose the husband consistently refused to have sex with his wife, but he also remained “faithful” in the sense that he himself did not commit adultery. Precisely because he is denying his wife the sexual intercourse he promised at their wedding, he may be leading her into sin, whether it’s masturbation, pornography, or adultery. He bears at least some of the guilt. It goes the other way around, too.

This is precisely why I agree with the first part of your post.

And it’s also why I agree with the others in this discussion who believe that spouses do have an obligation to romance each other.** It’s not only refusing to have sexual intercourse that can harm the marriage, but also the perception that one is using the other’s body only for sexual intercourse.** Romance can help avoid that perception.

This is an entirely false dichotomy. You presume that a faithful spouse who expects his spouse to render the marital debt as implicit in the marriage vows is ‘using’ the other.

Our wedding vows weren’t only to have sex with each other. They also included the vow to love each other. It is a strange love that doesn’t strive to make the beloved feel loved, especially in something so intimate as the marital embrace.

The Catholic marriage vows contain an implicit promise to surrender one’s body to one’s spouse, among other things. No one suggested that the marital debt was the only one.

Sorry, even a denying spouse is not guilty for the sins of the denied. This is an exceedingly slippery slope and provides cover for the offending spouse.

You (and whomever else) can believe that spouses have an obligation to romance one another, but that belief would be inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. It makes an unconditional promise to honor an obligation contingent upon some future condition - it totally bastardizes the concept in the first place.

 

[TechMan]

The Catholic marriage vows contain an implicit promise to surrender one’s body to one’s spouse, among other things. No one suggested that the marital debt was the only one.

Sorry, even a denying spouse is not guilty for the sins of the denied. This is an exceedingly slippery slope and provides cover for the offending spouse.

You (and whomever else) can believe that spouses have an obligation to romance one another, but that belief would be inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. It makes an unconditional promise to honor an obligation contingent upon some future condition - it totally bastardizes the concept in the first place.

Above all, all Christians have the obligation to love one another. This is especially true of spouses, who take a solemn, public vow to do so. You may claim that this love does not necessarily include the obligation to keep “the spark” alive through romance, but talk about slippery slopes! You may be technically right, but grace builds on nature, and if you don’t think the desire for romance is in our nature (both men and women), then don’t be surprised at the results you get. I don’t mean to be cruel, but it seems like you’re living with the results, and yet you refuse to see.

I think the reason God uses marriage as the image for His relationship with the Church is precisely because this desire for romance is so universal. Even celibate priests and nuns speak of their marriage to the Lord. It is not a relationship devoid of passion. Quite the contrary.

It is true that feelings come and go, and that by themselves they are not love. But I can’t imagine that a lover would not want his beloved to feel loved, at least some of the time.

Many saints and great theologians speak of the Christian spiritual life as a great romance. Romance is not an invention of 20th century Hollywood. It goes back pretty far in human history, and is part of the way God made us. It is not a result of Original Sin!

 

[fpt]

The Catholic marriage vows contain an implicit promise to surrender one’s body to one’s spouse, among other things. No one suggested that the marital debt was the only one.

Sorry, even a denying spouse is not guilty for the sins of the denied. This is an exceedingly slippery slope and provides cover for the offending spouse.

You (and whomever else) can believe that spouses have an obligation to romance one another, but that belief would be inconsistent with the Church’s teaching. It makes an unconditional promise to honor an obligation contingent upon some future condition - it totally bastardizes the concept in the first place.

The natural conjugal love is the natural conjugal goodness between the wife and the husband what means the love coming from the soul with their natural own corollaries, and the love coming from the body with their natural own corolaries. The natural conjugal love is coming from the body and the soul: they are not negotiable, it is like that. Each one has to love the other, in acts and in thoughts;

In general, there are the conjugal spiritual love, the conjugal moral love, the conjugal mental love, the conjugal sentimental love, theconjugal effective love, the conjugal romantic love, the conjugal physical love, the tenderness of conjugal love.
And
In the context of marital act there are the conjugal sensual love, the conjugal erotic love, the conjugal sexual love, the conjugal orgasmic love.

**Are you against the personalism in the marriage? You seem to want to do a separation between the conjugal love and the conjugal passion, why??? **

 

[fpt]

The Catholic marriage vows contain an implicit promise to surrender one’s body to one’s spouse, among other things. No one suggested that the marital debt was the only one.

Sorry, even a denying spouse is not guilty for the sins of the denied. This is an exceedingly slippery slope and provides cover for the offending spouse.

I am not totally okay with you, it is function of each case and if the refusal of marital request is morally licit or not. Indeed, if you read the canon law, each spouse is responsible of the other for avoiding the bad effect of concupiscence (sensual, erotic, sexual, affective, mental, emotional).

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

Here, the “innocent spouse” has to question himself for discerning the why of adultery and more about the other issues of conjugal sexual morality; and also on all the other conjugal issues: all conjugal topics have to be analysed by this “innocent spouse”.

In the marriage, each spouse has to try to fulfill the sensual needs, the sexual needs, the spiritual needs, the affective needs, the emotional needs, the roimantic needs, and the different needs of conjugal love. **Romantic love is one of part, but not the only, of course. **But, the fact of trying is important, it a conjugal charity or natural conjugal goodness. The obligation to love the other, to render him happy (catholic happiness in the respect of natural moral law) in the conjugal life by the conjugal love is the conjugal charity that is a moral duty to try, **an obligation of means. **