Question regarding the marriage debt

[AdvanceAlways]

Last year, my friends and I went to a local university Newman Center for a lecture on theology of the body. The topic got me interested in moral theology in general. In something I was reading “the marriage debt” came up so I began searching around CAF for info on this topic. I’ve seen that it has been addressed numerous times, but I’m still confused over certain aspects of the idea behind the marital debt.

My question is over the definition of “refusing” the debt. I’ve seen it said that either partner must render the marital debt if requested, providing that it is reasonable. The word reasonable seems confusing though.

If one spouse is simply exhausted (long day, taking care of kids, etc) and requests to wait, with the full intention of engaging in intercourse perhaps in the morning or the next day, is that considered “withholding the debt”?

What if the other spouse doesn’t take no for an answer? I was reading on another Catholic source that since the sacrament of marriage involves giving each other to one another, then the spouse has every right to force sex upon the individual saying no. I had a real sticking point with that… it just does not seem Catholic, or right.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Bookcat]

My question is over the definition of “refusing” the debt. I’ve seen it said that either partner must render the marital debt if requested, providing that it is reasonable. The word reasonable seems confusing though.

If one spouse is simply exhausted (long day, taking care of kids, etc) and requests to wait, with the full intention of engaging in intercourse perhaps in the morning or the next day, is that considered “withholding the debt”?
Husband and wife can agree to wait …no worries --unless there is a near occasion of sin there in. They just need to discuss it.

What if the other spouse doesn’t take no for an answer? I was reading on another Catholic source that since the sacrament of marriage involves giving each other to one another, then the spouse has every right to force sex upon the individual saying no. I had a real sticking point with that… it just does not seem Catholic, or right.
NO the other can not “force” the marital act …that would be sinful due to the force…etc.

But there is a real oblgation --it can be sinful on the part of the one refusing to refuse…if they do…for one has given (past tense) the right …in getting married…this usually works itself out fine in practice I would think --among Christians seeking to live a Christian life. Just as does the obligation to feed ones Children and other obligations of the married state.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Bookcat]

There are of course also limits to the various obligations --and even some exceptions (like the person is drunk or insane or has committed adultery etc)

And there can be mutually agreed upon postponements (aside from a near occasion of sin). One spouse may feel rather tired…

Also if one say looks at the older works one finds too it noted that while it is a grave obligation it can admit of parvity of matter (meaning there can be venial sin too involved…perhaps an example could be if it is briefly postponed and no near occasion for mortal sin is present…but discuss this with ones confessor perhaps…)

Interestingly one such author (Prummer OP) notes -it is when the person asks “reasonably and seriously”…

And he notes that the request is not considered “serious” if made in the form of a desire rather than a definite will…

see 1 Cor 7:3 for the Scripture

 

[AdvanceAlways]

Thanks Bookcat. So are you saying that it is a venial sin to mutually postpone relations? Again, just so I’m not confusing anyone, the scenario I’m talking about entails a perfectly healthy and functioning marriage, not one where sex has been weaponized or a partner is withholding with no reason for extended periods of time. I’m primarily referring to the matter of “not tonight, dear, but tomorrow?”

Thanks again for the info. Since I’ve been discerning a vocation to the priesthood for so many years, I haven’t ever studied the sacrament of marriage as much as I should have. So I’m just trying to learn all I can.

 

[Corki]

Thanks Bookcat. So are you saying that it is a venial sin to mutually postpone relations? Again, just so I’m not confusing anyone, the scenario I’m talking about entails a perfectly healthy and functioning marriage, not one where sex has been weaponized or a partner is withholding with no reason for extended periods of time. I’m primarily referring to the matter of “not tonight, dear, but tomorrow?”

Thanks again for the info. Since I’ve been discerning a vocation to the priesthood for so many years, I haven’t ever studied the sacrament of marriage as much as I should have. So I’m just trying to learn all I can.

It is not sinful to postpone relations if by mutual consent - not even venially. Marriage is based on self-giving and the timing will not always be perfect for both spouses. It’s give and take. Both spouses have to realize that sex drives are different and change through the years; that conditions will change and affect enjoyment (lights on/off, kids sound asleep, etc.). If one spouse uses the lack of “perfect conditions” to deny his rendering the marital debt, that could be selfish. If one spouse does not try to understand the other’s preferences, that could be selfish.

 

[Bookcat]

Thanks Bookcat. So are you saying that it is a venial sin to mutually postpone relations? Again, just so I’m not confusing anyone, the scenario I’m talking about entails a perfectly healthy and functioning marriage, not one where sex has been weaponized or a partner is withholding with no reason for extended periods of time. I’m primarily referring to the matter of “not tonight, dear, but tomorrow?”

Thanks again for the info. Since I’ve been discerning a vocation to the priesthood for so many years, I haven’t ever studied the sacrament of marriage as much as I should have. So I’m just trying to learn all I can.

It is not ANY SIN to mutually postpone relations (aside from say if either would be in a near occasion of sin or one was say practicing NFP to avoid a new conception without serious reason).

One may even mutually agree to abstain say for Prayer (as per St. Paul–see above Scripture).

It can be sinful to postpone *without *agreement etc …(as to mortal sin…the debitum is a grave obligation per se – but as I noted I have read that it can admit to parvity of matter…so can be venially sinful depending on what is involved)

 

[Ron_Conte]

In order to be moral, any knowingly chosen act (including the act of deciding to refuse marital relations) must have three good fonts:

1. only good in the intention
2. only good in the moral object
3. and the reasonably anticipated bad consequences must not outweigh the reasonably anticipated good consequences.

The spouse who refuses must have only good intentions.
The refusal is generally not intrinsically evil.
So the morality of this choice would be based on the circumstances. And one of the main considerations is the length of the refusal, and whether or not that length would result in a near occasion of mortal sin for either spouse.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I take it the same then must be said for the one making the request. Their intentions must be good as well. The spouse requesting relations cannot be motivated by lust or other sins of the flesh?

 

[He_Man]

My wife and I paid off our marriage debt earlier this year, thank goodness. Whew.

 

[severus68]

Last year, my friends and I went to a local university Newman Center for a lecture on theology of the body. The topic got me interested in moral theology in general. In something I was reading “the marriage debt” came up so I began searching around CAF for info on this topic. I’ve seen that it has been addressed numerous times, but I’m still confused over certain aspects of the idea behind the marital debt.

My question is over the definition of “refusing” the debt. I’ve seen it said that either partner must render the marital debt if requested, providing that it is reasonable. The word reasonable seems confusing though.

If one spouse is simply exhausted (long day, taking care of kids, etc) and requests to wait, with the full intention of engaging in intercourse perhaps in the morning or the next day, is that considered “withholding the debt”?

What if the other spouse doesn’t take no for an answer? I was reading on another Catholic source that since the sacrament of marriage involves giving each other to one another, then the spouse has every right to force sex upon the individual saying no. I had a real sticking point with that… it just does not seem Catholic, or right.

Thanks for the help.

I would just like to add that the source you read that said force is right can’t be a true Catholic source as it is wrong and a sin to force your wife to have sex even if she unreasonably refuses sex. Marriage and sex within is about love and force is never about love.