Question about withholding sex from your spouse

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WannabeSaint

Guest
There is a teaching that is kind of bothering me.

It is the teaching that if a spouse refuses to have sex with their partner, it is a mortal sin.

So what is being said that the spouse MUST have sex upon the other’s request, even though the spouse doesn’t want to…

…basically the spouse isn’t having sex by their own free volition…

…isn’t this a subtle form of rape?
 
If there’s a good reason to withhold sex then it’s not a mortal sin. If every now and then you are tired, have a headache, just don’t feel like it, etc. that’s also not a mortal sin.

The problem comes in if you deny your spouse for long periods without a good reason. Sex isn’t really “optional” in marriage. It’s part of the deal. There are times when it isn’t possible, but it shouldn’t be omitted completely without a good reason.
 
What is the reason for denying sex? Is it an absolute denial, in that one partner has no desire for it at all?

Context makes all the difference.

Were expectations of sexual activity talked about prior to the marriage, and has one of the spouses changed their position after marriage from what was discussed prior to the marriage? If so, what is the reason for the change?
 
WannabeSaint said:
So what is being said that the spouse MUST have sex upon the other’s request, even though the spouse doesn’t want to…

…basically the spouse isn’t having sex by their own free volition…

…isn’t this a subtle form of rape?
Click to expand...
It does sound like it based on some scenarios people give.

The spouse should not pressure the other into sleeping with them.

A healthy relationship would have times where their libidos don’t match and they would say, “no not now.” and the other would back away without having their ego bruised. Or a spouse is still upset over an argument and doesn’t want to have sex until they feel better. Similarly, sometimes a spouse doesn’t feel like it but decides to just do it to make the other happy, not because they’re scared of sin.

We are “entitled” to sex in a marriage in general. As in, when you chose to get married, you’re saying that there will be a sexual relationship (unless you’re in a josephite marriage), and your partner would be wrong if they simply decide to not sleep with you ever. Even then, it’s wrong for you to rape that person (obviously). You work it out.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it’s advising not to use sex as a manipulation tool. Example: “If you don’t clean the garage today, you won’t get any tonight.” Or “If you gain any weight, I’m going out and getting it from someone else.” ??
 
Source for this “teaching”, please. Is there a section of the current Catechism addressing it?

I was always taught that spouses were to be considerate of each other in this respect. It’s expected that they will discuss and come to a reasonable mutual understanding.

The Church certainly doesn’t condone spousal rape, and I can’t imagine any loving spouse doing that to the other spouse. In addition, there are dozens of situations, such as illness, pregnancy, grief etc where a spouse could reasonably not feel “in the mood” or even be told by their doctor not to have sex. The other spouse is supposed to respect that.

As someone else mentioned, you seem to be asking all kinds of questions about marital sex lately. Does this have to do with your own personal situation?
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a lack of specific Catholic teaching condemning rape in marriage. I may be wrong but I can’t find it. I can find this, but this depends on what ‘violation’ and ‘intimacy’ means:

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them
 
FiveLinden said:
Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right.
Click to expand...
Consent is part of what is violated here. You’re stripping someone of the right to consent willingly to sex. Even in marriage, that’s not okay: Consent to marriage is not consent to sex.
 
FiveLinden said:
Well yes. But why does the Church not say so clearly?
Click to expand...
Because rape is rape, even in a marriage. No special privileges are given to spouses to not need consent before relations, anywhere. If someone says no, it’s no, period. That’s what the Church teaches. You don’t need to single out every situation if you just give a general statement.
 
Insensibility is a vice opposed to chastity, just like lust.

The fact is that by signing up for marriage, you are signing away the rights over your body. Paul says it clearly… See 1 Corinthians 7.

There must be a proportionately grave reason to deny your spouse’s right to your body… If it’s just a fleeting moment of desire, that’s one thing, but it is another if it is a more serious request. For what it’s worth, St. Thomas did not even think leprosy would count as sufficient for denying a truly serious request, though it would suffice for not living under the same roof.

You’re bound to get a lot of objections to this, about how that’s “objectifying” and “crazy” or what have you, but I think it is missing the point (marriage is designed by concession - to help with the vice of lust! - or else we should all just be celibate or at least perfectly and perpetually continent in marriage), and by entering marriage one does indeed become an “object” insofar as one becomes one flesh with the spouse… (Besisdes, this neo-Kantian and personalist language is, to be honest, not always the most useful…) While one’s own body is not an “object,” it is also subject to one’s own will. Of course, each spouse remains a person, but with regards to sexuality, it is given over to the use of the other spouse, by his or her will. Ideally, it is not an issue - but it is indeed an issue for some people who have bad communication skills or are just not having a happy marriage. But the rights and duties are the rights and duties.
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
marriage is designed by concession - to help with the vice of lust! - or else we should all just be celibate or at least perfectly and perpetually continent in marriage
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with this part. Marriage and, by extension, sexuality are not just made to deal with lust as some sort of dumping ground for sinful desires. Sex in marriage is supposed to bring the husband and wife closer together and closer to God. This, I believe, shows the true horror of marital rape as a betrayal of the purpose of sex as a unifying force and instead its use for vain, selfish pleasure.
 
Yes, well, St. Paul again stands in the way of that interpretation, as does the counsel of Our Lord to perfect continence in celibacy. If you can go without marriage, you ought, as the mind is more easily raised up to spiritual things in contemplation, for multiple reasons.
 
Let me clarify that “marital rape” does exist and is bad. Also, of course chaste marital relations are more than “getting out urges.” It’s a wonderful thing to procreate and have children.

It’s just better to go without and to focus on the life of prayer and contemplation and the apostolate.
 
kapp19 said:
It’s just better to go without and to focus on the life of prayer and contemplation and the apostolate.
Click to expand...
As far as I remember, the Church does not teach that marriage is an inferior vocation to religious life.
 
That is true in one sense - we are all called to Heaven. But it is in Trent… Virginity is clearly superior. Canon X, Session 24.
 
Last edited:
I suppose my main problem with all of that phrasing is that it makes it sound like those called to marriage are more deficient in some way than those called to celibacy, as if marriage and sexuality are lesser and to be avoided at all costs unless one “cannot control themselves.” At this moment, I can’t bring myself to agree with such a thought, though I will, of course, defer to the Church and her guidance on this matter.

I just don’t think said guidance means what you think it does.
 
FiveLinden said:
There seems to be a lack of specific Catholic teaching condemning rape in marriage. I may be wrong but I can’t find it.
Click to expand...
The Church condemns rape, period. It doesn’t care if the victim is your spouse, your long-term partner, or the person up the street. It doesn’t need to spell out that it’s bad in marriage, any more than it has to spell out that killing your spouse is bad in marriage.

I have never seen an official church teaching that says withholding sex from your spouse is a mortal sin, and that is what I’m expecting the OP to provide here.

OP, I’m still waiting for you to provide the official church teaching that says “Withholding sex from your spouse is a mortal sin.”
 
Last edited:
WannabeSaint said:
It is the teaching that if a spouse refuses to have sex with their partner, it is a mortal sin.

So what is being said that the spouse MUST have sex upon the other’s request, even though the spouse doesn’t want to…
Click to expand...
The farther away Catholics get from a proper understanding of matrimony, the more these sorts of “problems” with marriage will come up.

Yes, when you marry you make vows and exchange rights, chief among them the vow of fidelity and the right of conjugal relations.

The right is tempered with charity on the part of both spouses, and we should not rebuff reasonable requests for marital intimacy, nor should we make unreasonable requests.
 
1ke said:
The right is tempered with charity on the part of both spouses, and we should not rebuff reasonable requests for marital intimacy, nor should we make unreasonable requests.
Click to expand...
This is a lot different from “withholding sex from your spouse is a mortal sin”, though.

Obviously there are many situations where a request for sex might be “unreasonable”. I believe I mentioned a few of them above.

Also, we cannot declare any sin “mortal” because whether a sin is mortal requires not only an act, but also full knowledge that the act is a sin and is grave, and full consent of the will of the person committing the sin.

Wherever the OP is getting his information, it does not appear to be a good source.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top