Responsible for spouse's sexual sin?

[Walking_Home]

What happened to people being responsible for themselves and their own actions? Apparently that’s something that no one gets anymore, either!

---

Each one of us is responsible for our own actions – and cannot hold another responsible for our own sin.

 

[twoangels]

I think something is amiss here. Certainly we have seen the effects of denying our spouses sexually on this forum. How many posts have I read where one spouse has refused sex for unusually long periods of time?

But at the same time, focusing on marital sex as merely a ward against other sexual sins seems terribly wrong. People are culpable for their own sins, and I’m sorry but too often these “rules” get directed at women. Too often men have rationalized abusing their wives insisting their rightfulness because “you are required to have sex with me.” Even if a woman his not physically forced to engage in sexual relations, rape can occur even in marriage.

I was actually rather suprised today when I found out that conjugal rights isn’t even a term used in the current Catechism. I think we have Sacred Tradition, definitely, about sex, but I think historically we have emphasized certain sexual sins over others and this can give a faulty impression about what God’s plan for sex is.

The way I see it, I need to strive to understand that denying sex to my husband could be something like forcing my husband to live in a marriage where there is no physical affection. He deserves to feel desired by me. He deserves to be intimate with me even when I’m not in the mood. He deserves that I clean even when I’m not in the mood, or that I take care of our children, when I’m not in the mood. All these things are expressions of love and if you love only when you feel like loving a person, how can you authentically call that love?

We have to affirm the dignity of sex if we are to affirm the dignity of the spouses.

 

[JoArtist]

Although I agree that men or women should be denying sex to their spouse for no reason, if there is good reason it should be denied. This could mean (but is not limited to) that one party is ill (or has some sort of medical condition that would hinder them), that one suspects the other of cheating (and is doing it to protect themselves), or even that they are really mad at the moment and aren’t in the right “loving” attitude to have sex (Not to be confused for witholding to “punish” your spouse).

I don’t think that it is right to ever blame the other spouse for the other’s infidelity. Whatever reasons contributed to one deciding to cheat, are NOT excuses and still leaves the cheater to blame.Instead of trying to work out whatever problem they had with their spouse (or with help of a counselor), they took the selfish road and only considered their temporal pleasure while betraying their spouse in a very dangerous way (with all the STD’s out there it even puts their sexual pleasure before their life and/or health and spouses life and/or health).

 

[AnneTeresa]

Although I agree that men or women should be denying sex to their spouse for no reason, if there is good reason it should be denied. This could mean (but is not limited to) that one party is ill (or has some sort of medical condition that would hinder them), that one suspects the other of cheating (and is doing it to protect themselves), or even that they are really mad at the moment and aren’t in the right “loving” attitude to have sex (Not to be confused for witholding to “punish” your spouse).

I don’t think that it is right to ever blame the other spouse for the other’s infidelity. Whatever reasons contributed to one deciding to cheat, are NOT excuses and still leaves the cheater to blame.Instead of trying to work out whatever problem they had with their spouse (or with help of a counselor), they took the selfish road and only considered their temporal pleasure while betraying their spouse in a very dangerous way (with all the STD’s out there it even puts their sexual pleasure before their life and/or health and spouses life and/or health).

Thank you. This is mostly what I meant. I get concerned of what some women will think when they read some of the stuff here about their “debt” to men. (and it could sometimes go the other way I suppose too) I don’t think the way people say things here could really be what the Church teaches sometimes. And if it is, then it is a very sick religion.

As one christian counselor said to me, “You do not have to be your husband’s sex slave.” Maybe this will help someone reading this.

 

[EasterJoy]

Could you please quote the relevant Gospel segments to support this.

If I was married and there was a lack of sex, it’s a serious issue, but to even insinuate that if I was to “wander” it’d even be slightly mitigated is just ****ing bizzare!

You’re saying that if two different people had been cheated on by their spouses, the spouse who never refused sex would not have far more cause to feel more hurt than one who was in the habit of refusing without legitimate reason? You’re even saying that a spouse who has been rejected without reason is not more vulnerable to seductions outside the marriage than a spouse who has not suffered that rejection?

I think I was fairly clear that while the choice to be unfaithful is squarely on the spouse who strays, rejection by one’s spouse obviously makes a person more vulnerable to choosing infidelity. Even in secular circles, who would find that observation bizarre?

 

[EasterJoy]

Each one of us is responsible for our own actions – and cannot hold another responsible for our own sin.

Is that what a spouse should tell her kids, “I refused Daddy sex, Daddy went elsewhere, but that’s not my fault?” Who cares whose fault it is? The question is whether or not every reasonable step is being taken to prevent infidelity.

When aviators look for safeguards that keep planes from crashing, it is to prevent tragedies, not so they’ll know which dead crew member to blame when the plane goes down. It is stupid for crew members to protest, “That’s not my job” when they’re asked to do things that will help ensure that they land safely every time.

Does any pilot get into a plane and just fly off with the attitude of “Hey, if I crash, I can just blame the mechanic?” Do aviators feel that rules that get them back on the ground safely take the “fun” out of flying, or resent having to check their aircraft before taking off? No! Rather, they realize that what they love to do and the thing that makes them feel the most free is also an undertaking in which failure has grave consequences.

How is this concept of the marital debt any different? If rejection of your spouse without reason makes him or her more vulnerable to infidelity, does it really matter who is to blame? Isn’t the goal of maintaining fidelity something that everyone in the marriage will feel compelled to work on, without reference to blame when there is a failure?

People attack the Church for being juridical and placing restrictions on them, but the rules are there for a reason. Maybe the Church realizes the consequences of crashes better than the people who are in a hurry to fly by their own lights and damn the consequences, so as long as the blame can’t be laid on them.

 

[EasterJoy]

What happened to people being responsible for themselves and their own actions? Apparently that’s something that no one gets anymore, either!

“I’m not my brother’s keeper”, is that it? I think the attitude of Paul is better:

“Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do. But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak. If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols? Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died. When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause my brother to sin.” 1 Cor. 8:9-13

What a different attitude than “if he sins, it is not my problem.”

Have we forgotten our marriage vows? Did we not hear the priest when he reminded us “He has already consecrated you in baptism and now he enriches and strengthens you by a special sacrament *so that you may assume the duties of marriage *in mutual and lasting fidelity.” Did we not know these duties included that we avoid rejecting our spouse when acceptance was a choice open to us? When we were asked by name “have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?”, did we not answer yes?

If we give without reservation, can we then reserve the right to withhold sex? If sex is not among the duties of marriage, what is? Why is the spouse who sins by commission the only one who is unfaithful, while the spouse who sins by omission is considered faithful? It does not make sense.

Honestly, I am floored that the act of willfully rejecting one’s spouse is getting such a hot defense.

 

[EasterJoy]

Sex is a personal matter between two people, surely there are different answers for each couple?

Different couples have different ways of working out when to have sex and how to approach each other for sex. That is not what is meant by the Church rules. The Church is talking about a situation in which a spouse who reasonably asks for sex is being denied.

When a person approaches his or her spouse for sexual intimacy in an appropriate manner and is rejected without good reason, that hurts. It even hurts if the spouse did not intend to hurt you. Being rejected because you don’t rise to level of being noticed may hurt more than being rejected for some particular reason. Even when you’re rejected for a reason you don’t think is just, at least it is a reason!

The hurt of being rejected on such an intimate level by someone you trusted to accept you is fairly universal. The hurt of being rejected leaves a person more vulnerable to flattery and seduction. That is also fairly universal. The Church is not making vulnerability into an excuse for adultery. Rather, the Church is recognizing that the vulnerability that results from spousal rejection is a real and often entirely preventable hazard to the marriage.

Each couple is unique, but the wheel does not need to be re-invented every time a couple marries.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Don’t know how it feels to a woman being denied, but here’s how it’s perceived by a man.

Woman says, “Honey, I just don’t feel like it tonight.” or something similar (Now? It’s late… ) and it’s part of a pattern not a one-time thing…

Man hears:
“I don’t love you,
I don’t need you,
I don’t want to be close to, … I don’t even want to feel close to you,
you are not a man to me,
you are not worth my time,
you are not worth effort on my part,
you are an inconvenience to me,
I do not appreciate you or what you do for me or the family.
Now. Shut up, go to sleep, get up and go to work in the morning and keep supporting the family and stop annoying me with your stupid desire to be close to me.”

Your marriage, do what you want but, is that what you want to tell your spouse?

Now, we had a miscarriage with our first. My wife was afraid with the next pregnancy that something would happen, we abstained quite joyfully out of our mutual desire to have that child and ease her worries.

 

[jimcook87]

Ephesians 5:21-32, 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 and Corinthians 3:18-19 provide the framework for everything in marriage. Wives should not be selfishly denying their husbands the God given gifts they bring into marriage. Husbands should love their wives the way Christ loved the Church.

Read those passages and spend some time in front of a Crucifix meditating on that perfect example of love. Dwell on how Jesus submitted and loved and ask for the grace to love your spouse the way Christ loves you.

Selfish denials or demands of anything in marriage are sinful in and of themselves.

 

[Walking_Home]

Walking_Home:

Each one of us is responsible for our own actions – and cannot hold another responsible for our own sin.

Is that what a spouse should tell her kids, “I refused Daddy sex, Daddy went elsewhere, but that’s not my fault?” Who cares whose fault it is? The question is whether or not every reasonable step is being taken to prevent infidelity.

When aviators look for safeguards that keep planes from crashing, it is to prevent tragedies, not so they’ll know which dead crew member to blame when the plane goes down. It is stupid for crew members to protest, “That’s not my job” when they’re asked to do things that will help ensure that they land safely every time.

Does any pilot get into a plane and just fly off with the attitude of “Hey, if I crash, I can just blame the mechanic?” Do aviators feel that rules that get them back on the ground safely take the “fun” out of flying, or resent having to check their aircraft before taking off? No! Rather, they realize that what they love to do and the thing that makes them feel the most free is also an undertaking in which failure has grave consequences.

How is this concept of the marital debt any different? If rejection of your spouse without reason makes him or her more vulnerable to infidelity, does it really matter who is to blame? Isn’t the goal of maintaining fidelity something that everyone in the marriage will feel compelled to work on, without reference to blame when there is a failure?

People attack the Church for being juridical and placing restrictions on them, but the rules are there for a reason. Maybe the Church realizes the consequences of crashes better than the people who are in a hurry to fly by their own lights and damn the consequences, so as long as the blame can’t be laid on them.

---

We should be teaching children – responsibility for their own actions and not to use another as a scapegoat. That is what we should be teaching.

 

[AnneTeresa]

Is that what a spouse should tell her kids, “I refused Daddy sex, Daddy went elsewhere, but that’s not my fault?” Who cares whose fault it is? The question is whether or not every reasonable step is being taken to prevent infidelity.

When aviators look for safeguards that keep planes from crashing, it is to prevent tragedies, not so they’ll know which dead crew member to blame when the plane goes down. It is stupid for crew members to protest, “That’s not my job” when they’re asked to do things that will help ensure that they land safely every time.

Does any pilot get into a plane and just fly off with the attitude of “Hey, if I crash, I can just blame the mechanic?” Do aviators feel that rules that get them back on the ground safely take the “fun” out of flying, or resent having to check their aircraft before taking off? No! Rather, they realize that what they love to do and the thing that makes them feel the most free is also an undertaking in which failure has grave consequences.

How is this concept of the marital debt any different? If rejection of your spouse without reason makes him or her more vulnerable to infidelity, does it really matter who is to blame? Isn’t the goal of maintaining fidelity something that everyone in the marriage will feel compelled to work on, without reference to blame when there is a failure?

People attack the Church for being juridical and placing restrictions on them, but the rules are there for a reason. Maybe the Church realizes the consequences of crashes better than the people who are in a hurry to fly by their own lights and damn the consequences, so as long as the blame can’t be laid on them.

I think there are two different conversations/concerns going on in this thread. You keep defending the church rule as necessary in a regular, fairly healthy marriage situation. I have several concerns regarding what you wrote here but feel we would just keep missing each other.

My point was regarding a marriage where one spouse is being really “used” or “abused” by the demands and then people using this “rule” to defend that.

Oh well.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think there are two different conversations/concerns going on in this thread. You keep defending the church rule as necessary in a regular, fairly healthy marriage situation. I have several concerns regarding what you wrote here but feel we would just keep missing each other.

My point was regarding a marriage where one spouse is being really “used” or “abused” by the demands and then people using this “rule” to defend that.

Oh well.

There are a lot of issues with respect to emotional abuse. For instance, people in abusive relationships that seemed to start out well will also avoid getting a divorce because they believe their marriages to be valid. As we would agree, that is not an argument against the Church’s stance on divorce, but it is a very good reason that people need to understand the nuances of that stance. It is not as black and white as is often thought.

I’d qualify the rule this way: If a person has gotten into the habit of refusing sex to their spouse, they would do well to seek counsel concerning the totality of their marriage and identify whether or not the “issues” are actually abuse or whether the problems have a deeper source that isn’t going to get solved by merely gritting one’s teeth and saying “Yes”. It is not always clear from the inside of a marriage! I’d like to say that every priest gets this, but that is not always so. But that is another conversation.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I think there are two different conversations/concerns going on in this thread. You keep defending the church rule as necessary in a regular, fairly healthy marriage situation. I have several concerns regarding what you wrote here but feel we would just keep missing each other.

My point was regarding a marriage where one spouse is being really “used” or “abused” by the demands and then people using this “rule” to defend that.

Oh well.

I disagree. The church rule is based on human nature. If a spouse begins to feel unappreciated, an inconvenience, and an annoyance to their partner it does make them more susceptible to an opportunity with someone who does seem to appreciate them and treat them as special.

Does that excuse adultery? No. Despite all their feelings, they are expected to stay in the marriage ‘for better or worse’. Even if it involves a lack of affection, appreciation or being taken for granted.

So, both partners need to respect the needs and feelings of each other. That’s what the church teaching is really about. Or as we say in flying

Crew concept applies… we all go swimming together if something goes wrong over water.

 

[EvelynEVF]

In a healthy marriage, I can see how people might start to drift apart a bit if they let sex fall by the wayside because they got too busy or whatever. So it makes sense to me that the church would say, “Hey! This is important!” the same way many people I know try very hard to have a date night once per week. Healthy marriages need upkeep. Part of being healthy is figuring out how to best love the other.

I don’t think the Church in her wisdom is addressing marriages where one or the other partner feels used sexually. In that case, there is something seriously wrong which needs to be addressed, and admonishing someone to “put out” is only going to make things worse. I don’t know about men, but when women have sex out of obligation, it is a slow devastation.

Anybdy not getting it as much as they would like needs to take a step back, stop trying to force the barometer to lie, and figure out what needs to be fixed.

 

[CatholicMom1907]

Some people cheat regardless. I never ever denied my husband and yet I was not enough for him. So he finds another excuse to blame me for his affairs. Someone can always find an excuse for their sins. Just because there is an explanation for the sin doesn’t mean there is an excuse. For example, if a man beats his wife and she realizes it was because he was beat as a child - well that still doesn’t excuse his bad behavior. It explains it but he’s still responsible for his own actions. We can’t use others as excuses. Yes, we should try to encourage eachother to be good and not sin, but some people choose evil anyway.

I agree with those that say we need to be responsible for our own actions. If a man (or woman) is not getting sexual relations as much as he’d/she’d like or the way he’d/she’d like from their spouse, it’s their responsibility to discuss this with their spouse, go to therapy or counseling and get help - not cheat! If something is wrong or a need isn’t being fulfilled, it should be handled the right way - not by sinning. We all have consciences and make our own decisions.