Question about a sexual intimacy problem

[clem456]

What you are describing is a quid pro quo and it does not conform to the Church’s teaching. If a spouse requires romance in order to exchange the marital embrace, that spouse is in the wrong in the first place. That’s why it’s called an obligation.

This is just not true. Common consideration for the spouse is part of the “exchange of the gift”. Please read Theology of the Body. If people can get over the word romance, we could make some progress.

Some of the Catholic laity have been imbued with a very negative viewpoint of sexuality, one that exalts obligation as the definition of sexuality. It is a very negative and minimalistic viewpoint.

For instance you say “if a spouse requires romance”. In a way yes, a spouse needs romance. Should they demand it? No. What is romance? It is unfortunate that romance is defined narrowly as an appeal to base emotions. That is not as it should be. Why don’t you substitute the words consideration, appreciation, anticipation, sacrifice etc…

If a man for instance, is not going to give himself to his wife in a fully dignified way, by treating her with courtesy, by bathing and brushing his teeth, helping around the house, she is not obliged to have sex with him. That is just not what the Church teaches in it’s fullness. And please don’t pull a sentence out of scripture or the catechism to reduce marriage to a contract. MARRIAGE IS NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT. IT IS A COVENANT. There is a huge difference.

 

[thewanderer]

What you are describing is a quid pro quo and it does not conform to the Church’s teaching. If a spouse requires romance in order to exchange the marital embrace, that spouse is in the wrong in the first place. That’s why it’s called an obligation.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Where did I ever say anything about requiring romance for in order to havve sex??? I am not talking about that and thought that I had already clarified in earlier posts that that is not at all what I am talking about. Heck, even in my last post I said

…
Whether or not they are fulfilling your personal needs, you still owe it to them. …

in reference to both sex and romance and just whateever your spouse needs to feel loved in general. In other words, I have specifically said that yes, your spouse has a duty to have sex with you whether or not she feels loved by you, however, you also have a separate duty to do whatever it takes to make her feel special and loved, and if that means writing her love letters and buying her flowers then so be it, thats what your duty is. I am in no way shape or form talking about a quid pro quo and I have already explained through a very clear syllogism exactly how what I am saying is part of Church teaching. I will restate it in case you missed it.

How can one possibly claim to love their spouse with sacrifical Christ-like love while at the same time refusing to make their spouse feel loved? It is impossible. Since it is clearly taught by the Church that it is the duty of every married person to love their spouse with this kind of endless sacrificial love then it is clear that it is the duty of every married person to perform whatever actions make their particular spouse feel loved.

In other words,

1. It is impossible to love ones spouse with sacrificial Christ-like love without doing what is necessary to make ones spouse feel loved.
2. It is a teaching of the Church that every married person has a moral duty to love their spouse with sacrificial Christ-like love.
   → Therefore it is a moral duty of every married person to do whatever is necessary to make their spouse feel loved.

If you wish to disagree with what I am saying you have to somehow disprove one of my above statements labeled 1 and 2. Anything else is ignoring my argument.

An example of this in action? Just this weekend my fiance was upset with me for something I did, but I was very upset and emotional at the time. Instead of letting his frustration show he spent his time doing everything he could to cheer me up, even though he was frustrated, and only after I was in a slightly better mood did he bring up his (justified) frustration. I was floored by this self-control and self-sacrificing way of acting. later that evening I brought it up and told him that I really appreciated that, his response " Well thats my job" Of course he is absolutely correct about that, but I still can’t help feeling unbelievably grateful to him, and unworthy of being able to marry such a wonderful person. This is what I’m talking about above, the self-sacrificing love we owe to our spouses, no matter what form that takes, and whether or not they are fulfilling their obligation to sacrificial love in return.

 

[TechMan]

This is what I’m talking about above, the self-sacrificing love we owe to our spouses, no matter what form that takes, and whether or not they are fulfilling their obligation to sacrificial love in return.

You are stating very clearly and eloquently exactly what I tried in vain to get through to hurting, especially the point I highlighted. Unfortunately, he keeps bringing the quid pro quo back into the discussion. I suspect it is because he is, well, hurting. He has to let go of his right to sexual intercourse, and her obligation to service his sexual needs, before he will ever be able to see his own obligation to love his wife in the way she needs and wants to be loved, whether or not she is keeping her part of the bargain. That obligation on his part is every bit as much official Church teaching as is her obligation to have intercourse with him. And when he discovers that truth, and commits himself to living it, he will discover the true meaning of nuptial love.

But it’s a process. A painful process. As is all true love.

 

[Debora123]

My advice to your wife, as a wife myself, is this: A woman can have a whole range of responses to making love, from initiating a passionate encounter herself, to quietly welcoming her husband quite passively, to meet his need and enjoyment. Unless I feel unwell I do not turn my husband away, and though I may be almost passively engaged with him, I still greatly enjoy his enjoyment. So, sometimes he has a passionate wife, and sometimes a passive wife, but we almost always make love when he wants to. It is not necessary for a woman to climax (which can be exhausting if she is already tired), so if the husband is happy to have a variety of responses from his wife, loving is possible more often than if he wants red hot passion every time. After all, it is about love and bonding.

I think this is a great response and I can relate to this 100%. I hardly ever turn my husband down for sex. When I don’t feel “in the mood” for it, I just let him have it without trying to have an orgasm of my own… and I just enjoy his enjoyment, and he knows that.

 

[fpt]

In the catholic marriage, each member of couple has the moral obligation, as possible as of rendering happy the other spouse. The conjugal happyness, in all dimensions coming from the soul with all corollaries, and coming from the body with all corollaries, is an obligation of means for each spouse toward the other.

The wife is the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity: The " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ";

The husband is the Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity: The" New Adam of his wife" and the " Holy Beloved of his wife" ;

All dimensions:

the right of the body, the right on the body, the right to the body: the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies
And
As possible as, the union of souls (male soul and female soul with their own corollaries), of wills, of hopes, of wishes, of desires. Body and Soul, and Soul and Body.
**
The catholic romance: yes, yes, yes ,yes.

But, the secular romance: no, no, no, no, no**

 

[fpt]

Wife has to receive the virility of her husband in all dimensions and husband has to receive the feminity of his wife in all dimensions.

Wife has to give her own feminity to her husband in all the dimensions of womanhood and husband has to give his own virility to his wife in all the dimensions of the manhood.

These are the rules of marriage.

 

[The_Bucket]

He has to let go of his right to sexual intercourse, and her obligation to service his sexual needs, before he will ever be able to see his own obligation to love his wife in the way she needs and wants to be loved, whether or not she is keeping her part of the bargain.

This so, so true for every spouse regardless of gender. And honestly, it goes beyond that. It goes to every single person out there. We have the obligation to love others as Christ loves others even if we never receive love back from anyone. Even if we receive hatred back from everyone.

“Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you.” “Lend without expecting anything in return.” These are Christ’s commands to us! Sometimes it can be a great cross to bear when we have to do this in a marriage. We don’t really expect anything from strangers and even less from our enemies, but we do expect things from those who have pledged to love us. Christ basically tells us that we can’t do that. We have to love for the sake of loving. He died for us. And yes, He asks us to love Him in return. But his death and subsequent resurrection that redeemed us all came without the prerequisite that we all love Him in return. So must we do for one another and even for our spouses.

I know I’ve got plenty of work to do in this regard.

 

[fpt]

In the catholic marriage, each member of couple has the moral obligation, as possible as of rendering happy the other spouse. The conjugal happyness, in all dimensions coming from the soul with all corollaries, and coming from the body with all corollaries, is an obligation of means for each spouse toward the other.

The wife is the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity: The " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ";

The husband is the Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity: The" New Adam of his wife" and the " Holy Beloved of his wife" ;

All dimensions:

the right of the body, the right on the body, the right to the body: the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies
And
As possible as, the union of souls (male soul and female soul with their own corollaries), of wills, of hopes, of wishes, of desires. Body and Soul, and Soul and Body.
**
The catholic romance: yes, yes, yes ,yes.

But, the secular romance: no, no, no, no, no**

**
FOR INFORMATION:**

I would like to ask if the romantic kind of love is an emotional thing or a duty. Thank you.

It is not an either on or the other, it is both a duty and emotional.

Romantic love is something married couples are bound by duty to give to each other. “Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband” (I Corinthians 7:3). But at the same time it can be a duty filled with emotions. When the young woman in the Song of Solomon realized that the king was truly in love with her, she said, “Sustain me with cakes of raisins, refresh me with apples, for I am lovesick” (Song of Solomon 2:5). In her later years, she described love very passionately: “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave; its flames are flames of fire, a most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love all the wealth of his house, it would be utterly despised” (Song of Solomon 8:6-7).

lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVanswers/2007/05-12.htm

 

[hurting]

You are stating very clearly and eloquently exactly what I tried in vain to get through to hurting, especially the point I highlighted. Unfortunately, he keeps bringing the quid pro quo back into the discussion. I suspect it is because he is, well, hurting. He has to let go of his right to sexual intercourse, and her obligation to service his sexual needs, before he will ever be able to see his own obligation to love his wife in the way she needs and wants to be loved, whether or not she is keeping her part of the bargain. That obligation on his part is every bit as much official Church teaching as is her obligation to have intercourse with him. And when he discovers that truth, and commits himself to living it, he will discover the true meaning of nuptial love.

But it’s a process. A painful process. As is all true love.

I mention the quid pro quo aspect because it is exactly what you’ve described. I have loved and do love my wife despite all of the devastation that she has wrought both within and beyond the boundaries of our civil marriage.

You have never refuted my very initial assertion - that indeed the OP’s wife was failing in her very real obligation to render the debt.

 

[thewanderer]

I mention the quid pro quo aspect because it is exactly what you’ve described. I have loved and do love my wife despite all of the devastation that she has wrought both within and beyond the boundaries of our civil marriage.

You have never refuted my very initial assertion - that indeed the OP’s wife was failing in her very real obligation to render the debt.

Was that ever his intention?