- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
hhmmm - this could be tricky…possible “skeletons in the closet” here.
I don’t want to make any assumptions but you might want to consider carefully how far you want to pursue this…
But - That said…If you do want to pursue it with her,
I would ask her how she thinks that “forcible sex” even within marriage, squares with the command to Love our neighbor as ourselves. That’s a pretty old quote seeing as how it comes from the Gospel of Matthew. See how she responds to that and maybe go from there.
Peace
James
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Nate13:
The wife did not consent to being forced into sex. That is certainly not Christian marriage vows are about. So it is rape as well as breaking a sppecial trust.
So since civil/secular law should not make any distinction, it would be rape in criminal law as you yourself agree.
Exactly--
N
Nate13
Guest
Could you please explain what you take the meaning of 1 Cor 7:3 to mean then? What does it mean to give your conjugal rights to your spouse? Disagreeing with me without providing an alternative meaning to that passage is counterproductive. You are giving the politically correct response, and not so much the response in line with what the Bible is saying.
J
Jane_of_Arc
Guest
You want a quote from the Church Fathers, but common since is all that is needed here.Of course it’s not Okay to rape anyone at any time. Using force against one’s spouse, to obtain what you want, is a sin, just as beating one’s wife is a sin. A wife is not someone who belongs to you, she is a partner in life. She is both a person, in her own right, & a person who CHOSE to join with you on life’s journey. She is not a possession to do with as you want.
An excerpt from “Theology of the Body”.
“The intimate partnership of married life and love** has been established by the Creator** and qualified by his laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of** irrevocable personal consent” (GS 48).
**
Taken from:
L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
26 November 1979, page 1
B
Bookcat
Guest
No. I would say often it is worse than rape
E
exnihilo
Guest
Excellent thoughts on the matter.
It is these days. But it was not so in my state until 1993. This was true of most other states I believe. It was not obvious to people in living memory that a husband could rape his wife just as it was not obvious to them that killing a baby in utero was not wrong. It might good for us to look into how they viewed this in the past.
N
Nate13
Guest
Yeah I don’t give the secular’s much credit in figuring it out and there is no legal agreement that conjugal rights have been given to each other. Thus in the eyes of the law it should be considered just like any other rape.
S
severus68
Guest
Making a promise to love one another in all ways including the physical is not promising to agree being physically forced to have sex. The promises are bound together and I would think bound by love, the greatest commandment. With force, there is no love and no such promise was binding with no love.
Anyway, no one has any right to use any form of coercion, physical or otherwise, to do anything.
A theologian would be better able to give you what that passage means. I do not need to even go there, I prefer to go straight to what Christ taught.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Does the husband and wife have a serious obligation to marital relations??
(there are exceptions and more to be said here on this -such as spouses can agree (when there is not a near occasion of mortal sin) to postpone or such as when it can be a lighter sin or when the obligation is not there (like the person is drunk or has committed adultery etc) or when there is no sin etc)
Yes. Most certainly. catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32752
Can there be sin within the sexual relations of husband and wife? Yes.
Can there be the sin Adultery per se? No. Is that sin Fornication ? No.
Why not? because they are married to each other.
They can only engage in "adultery per se " with someone who is not their spouse.
(There be a kind of “adultery of heart” but it is not per se “adultery” in the sense of having relations with another while one is married or they are married)
They can only engage in fornication – PRIOR to marriage. Even relations with another person here would not be “fornication” it would be “adultery” (which is much worse and would need to be confessed as such).
But there can be sin within the sexual relations of husband and wife --and indeed within the marital relations. There can be sins. Venial sins and even grave sins.
Now we come to the question of say a husband physically forcing his wife to have relations. Such would be rather not “marital” relations. But such would not be called here I think (along with St. Thomas and others) “rape” (except perhaps by “analogy”)—just as it would not be called “fornication”.
This is getting into what “term” to use -not in anyway making light of the evil of this sort of action --which should NEVER take place.
It is an act of sexual violence or sexual assault committed against ones spouse! Against the one whom one has promised before God to love and honor …the one whom one is to have given oneself to in love and family…an act of violence against one that one is joined in a sacrament with --a form one could say argue even perhaps of “desecration” (just a thought at the moment I leave such to the theologians). Such is not a “marital act” but an act of sexual violence/assault against ones very spouse. Such could be argued I think to be often worse than “rape”.
(there are exceptions and more to be said here on this -such as spouses can agree (when there is not a near occasion of mortal sin) to postpone or such as when it can be a lighter sin or when the obligation is not there (like the person is drunk or has committed adultery etc) or when there is no sin etc)
Yes. Most certainly. catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32752
Can there be sin within the sexual relations of husband and wife? Yes.
Can there be the sin Adultery per se? No. Is that sin Fornication ? No.
Why not? because they are married to each other.
They can only engage in "adultery per se " with someone who is not their spouse.
(There be a kind of “adultery of heart” but it is not per se “adultery” in the sense of having relations with another while one is married or they are married)
They can only engage in fornication – PRIOR to marriage. Even relations with another person here would not be “fornication” it would be “adultery” (which is much worse and would need to be confessed as such).
But there can be sin within the sexual relations of husband and wife --and indeed within the marital relations. There can be sins. Venial sins and even grave sins.
Now we come to the question of say a husband physically forcing his wife to have relations. Such would be rather not “marital” relations. But such would not be called here I think (along with St. Thomas and others) “rape” (except perhaps by “analogy”)—just as it would not be called “fornication”.
This is getting into what “term” to use -not in anyway making light of the evil of this sort of action --which should NEVER take place.
It is an act of sexual violence or sexual assault committed against ones spouse! Against the one whom one has promised before God to love and honor …the one whom one is to have given oneself to in love and family…an act of violence against one that one is joined in a sacrament with --a form one could say argue even perhaps of “desecration” (just a thought at the moment I leave such to the theologians). Such is not a “marital act” but an act of sexual violence/assault against ones very spouse. Such could be argued I think to be often worse than “rape”.
J
Jane_of_Arc
Guest
This whole thread is missing the true meaning of** Catholic** marriage. Yes, it’s true that withholding sex from either partner without a** good** reason is wrong. However, there are times when if, as a Catholic, you have both agreed to practice natural birth control to space your children, there are fertile times when one must abstain. There are also times of physical illness, & times of simple exhaustion caused by dealing with a large Catholic family.
During these times, in a Catholic marriage, a good husband would not even THINK of raping his wife.
On the other hand, a good Catholic wife would never withhold sex from the man she loves without a GOOD reason.
S
severus68
Guest
What would you suggest the term be then to show how vile an act it is, being worse than rape?
S
severus68
Guest
So forcing your wife to have sex is good, right and holy like not having an abortion??
B
Bookcat
Guest
Nate knows this.
And I am sure agrees that one can not sexual assault ones wife.I would note here as further clarification that it it is yes if one has a serious reason one may practice period continence. And IF there is not a near occasion of mortal sin for one or both of the spouses. That is something that is at times forgotten. Though I could imagine perhaps very serious reasons --like the spouse could die that such near occasion could be a “necessary near occasion”.
And aside from the agreed upon NFP – one would need not just any good reason but one that would weigh in against the obligation here.
S
severus68
Guest
I am confused by what you are saying. Are there times then when a ‘good’ husband may think of raping his wife?
J
JRKH
Guest
Nate…your quote comes from Scripture so I am going to offer a Scriptural reference for understanding this passage. Read Carefully the following passage:
Mt 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, "
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, Your shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”Note the sentence I Bolded…ALL the Law and Prophets depend on the Law of Love.
Later Jesus gives a “new command” - That we Love one another as He has Loved us.
Note the common theme here?? It is Love NOT rights.
So - since all the Law depends on the great commands to Love, 1 Cor 7:3 must be understood within this “Law of Love”. “Rights” conjugal or otherwise cannot override the Law of Love, which in this case would be to Love the other as yourself.
To understand this in the Law of Love one needs to recognize that the marriage “rights” are mutual and interactive. Their use, frequency, refraining from etc. must be by mutual love and consent. Anything else becomes violence, domination, inordinate lust and other things that stem, not from Love, but from Evil.
Please consider this prayerfully and I think you will come to a better understanding.
Peace
James
B
Bookcat
Guest
I am afraid I am not one to “coin terms”. It is possible that such a term already is in use.
I have been calling it spousal sexual assault or the like.
And I am not saying it is always worse than rape…but that it could be argued that it can be. Certainly I think one could have cases of rape that far exceed a case where a spouse forced their wife to have intercourse in (by comparison) a less aggressive way.
I go with the “rape” involving the forced intercourse of persons one is not married to. Similar to “fornication” involving intercourse between two unmarried persons and “adultery” involving at least one married person…or in other areas “abortion” is the intentional killing of the unborn…“theft” is “usurpation of another’s goods against the reasonable will of the owner.”…etc etc.
Now could others argue otherwise? Sure. I am not aware of some Church teaching per se here.
In any case – Husbands should always love and honor their wives – such violence is contrary to marriage! And of course wives should always love and honer their husbands --which includes never using “relations” as something to “hold over their heads” etc etc
B
Bookcat
Guest
Rights still remain. As do obligations. We are to goto Mass out of love…but there is also the Obligation there.
I think that Nate’s posts have been misread here. He is not saying the husband has the right to “force” his wife to have intercourse. Or to “sexually assault” her.
(not to say you are saying he said as much)
In noting the conjugal rights --the reality of the “marital debt” --he is not saying that either spouse has the “right” to do such. I think his posts have been misconstrued somewhat. He is arguing what I have been arguing that the simply the “term” here is misapplied. Such as calling the act of a husband having intercourse with another woman --“fornication” would be to misapply the term. For he is Married. Thus his action there is not fornication but rather “Adultery”.
While there is the reality of rights and obligations --there is no question in his mind or in mine that the what must be of great importance in marriage is “love”. They must live the vocation of Marriage which involves love…self gift …self sacrifice etc.
As you would note-- Jesus tells us this is his commandment --love one another.
L
Luna_Lovecraft
Guest
I think we need to be very careful in this thread not to intertwine a discussion of the sexual obligations/duties/responsibilities that occur in Catholic marriage with a discussion of the morality of marital rape.
The OP’s having a discussing with this mother (of all people), a mother who seems - according to the OP - to think one spouse raping another spouse is Okay. This rightly troubles the OP, whose then come here looking for evidence that spousal rape is not Okay.
My :twocents: the thread should be limited to helping assure the OP that marital rape is immoral without clouding the waters with matters of sexual obligations, withholding sex without just reasons, etc. lest we wrongly give the impression that Catholic married sexuality somehow includes marital rape.
If that makes sense.
Luna
The OP’s having a discussing with this mother (of all people), a mother who seems - according to the OP - to think one spouse raping another spouse is Okay. This rightly troubles the OP, whose then come here looking for evidence that spousal rape is not Okay.
My :twocents: the thread should be limited to helping assure the OP that marital rape is immoral without clouding the waters with matters of sexual obligations, withholding sex without just reasons, etc. lest we wrongly give the impression that Catholic married sexuality somehow includes marital rape.
If that makes sense.
Luna
S
severus68
Guest
That makes a lot of sense.
- Status