Sin to deny sexual relations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JuneBugJulene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"buffalo:
…a man communicates with his wife through lovemaking. It is a special language. It won’t help a relationship to deny a form of communication.
I agree with this statement. To be denied this communication is a heavy cross to bear with the one you love and want to share your most intimate communication with.
dear Junebug,
May I speak to you Woman to woman. I am 40ish and My Husband has not touched me in over a year. I am the one with the higher sex drive and it has truly been a tough cross to bear…

…Trust me ,being denied intimacy leads to serious temptation. It takes all my faith, prayers and will power to remain a faithful wife and I continue to be with God’s help.
Let’s pray for each other.
Please add me to your prayers. My wife has denied me sex for four years. I have not cheated on her with another person but have sinned in other ways. It is a very heavy burden. God is helping me through it though.
 
There is nothing in the OP’s post that indicates there was an error in person or deception. Please refrain from making up huge hypothetical situations. Royal archer asked if the woman simply withdrawing (“the lack of intimate relations alone”) would be grounds for nullity. The answer to that is "no.
Have to disagree again. Royal archer’s question can only be answered (in general and in particular) by knowing all the facts. Defective intentions are always grounds for nullity.

There is nothing in the OP’s posts that tell us anything. She’s 40ish and a mother. So, did she marry when she was 21 and have 5 kids and now doesn’t care for sex becuase her husband is a selfish brute and totally disregards her sexual needs and wants? Or did she marry at 41,have a child within a year, and having satisfied a desire to be a mother, but not really a wife in the fullest sense, she is now showing her true colors to a husband who is patient, caring, and gentle? Big difference.

You say they have children. Children is plural, more than one. Where do you get that from? Did I miss something in a subsequent post?

Most of your suppositions are based on what you perceive the OP’s situation to be, and there is little to go on except presumption.

Besides, this whole conversation should be between her, her husband, and a good, competent, priest. Unless someone here is a marriage counselor, that’s where this one belongs.
 
There is nothing to indicate such a conversation occurred. And, before marriage how would one know if one “enjoyed sex” since one is not having sex? Hmmm…
So, every person who contemplates marriage is a virgin, and all single people have no knowledge that sex is fun and pleasurable?

Thanks for the chuckle with my morning coffee. I don’t even need to read the funnies this morning.

Oh, and who’s to say that the people having that conversation aren’t divorced with an annullment, or widows or widowers?

Again, … all the facts…
 
I agree with this statement. To be denied this communication is a heavy cross to bear with the one you love and want to share your most intimate communication with.

Please add me to your prayers. My wife has denied me sex for four years. I have not cheated on her with another person but have sinned in other ways. It is a very heavy burden. God is helping me through it though.
I am very sorry for you. I will say a prayer for you.

Have you tried any form of counselling? I have heard there are good Catholic programs to help repair marriages.

If you start a thread, I’m sure someone could provide you more info.

God Bless
 
Sigh… another simple question turned into a platform of personal debate. Many thanks to those that tried to keep focus on the OP’s question and her well being. I really wouldn’t blame the OP not to return. Some have been less than kind. We have Non-religious people attempting to answer religious questions. Posters postulating and debating scenarios we neither know of to be true or relavent to the OP but could easily be seen as insults or rudeness.

We don’t need non-Catholics on CAF to drive people away from the Truth. From the PM’s I’ve recieved, apparently we have enough rude Catholics here to do a fine job of that. :mad:
 
I am very sorry for you. I will say a prayer for you.

Have you tried any form of counselling? I have heard there are good Catholic programs to help repair marriages.

If you start a thread, I’m sure someone could provide you more info.
My spouse was sexually abused as a child. She has been getting Catholic counseling. I’m hopeful we can have counseling together someday. I’m taking it one day at a time.

Years ago it was a struggle getting her to even consider Catholic council. But the Lord has been patient with both of us. The pastoral care I have received in confession has been a tremendous help as well.

Thank you for the prayers. Lately I have been considering my struggle as a great gift actually as strange as that may sound. God is transforming me. I pray for my wife as she struggles more than I.
 
This is a view I find abhorrant and revolting.

It means a woman should give her body to her husband, wether or not her free will is involved.

You claim a woman MUST give herself WILLINGly.

That is a contradiction in terms and a complete and utter lack of respect for female needs.

This is why so many woman have rejected religion.
Works both ways. The man may not reject the woman without just cause either. I think you might be enlightened by reading a book called Love and Responsibility by our former Pope written when he was much younger.
 
My question is: is this a real marriage? It seems that one person already backed out of the marriage when they shut off intimacy. If the marriage is over the remaining spouse has a right to be remarried, right?
A marriage once it IS a marriage is not “back outable” of.

A marriage that ever was a marriage then it is never over, and if it’s not over then the parties still must abide by what being a marriage means.
Based on the OPs post both parties agreed to the relationship and then years later one party made a unilateral decision that they would not have marrital relations. It seems like the one being denied should have some redress in the situation, right?
The “redress”, the “setting things right”, for the one denied is to have the “opportunity” to bear the cross of being chaste and charitable in their “being denied” situation.
Of course this is a hypothetical discusion since we don’t have all of the background details.
OP I don’t mean to be harsh towards you but I feel I can better relate to your husbands point of view than yours given my being on the oposite side of a similar situation.
Please research the sacrament of matrimony. indissolubility means what it says it means.
 
Yeah but you need to eat no matter how much you hate it unless something is seriously wrong with you mentally eventually hunger will win over and you will eat. I do think she needs to go to the doctor though…course the funny thing is with me going to the doctor I think is what caused many problems in that um area. But I am sure I am an unusual case.
Hmm, I don’t know that you should consider yourself unusual. There are probably plenty of bunk-doctors in sexual therapy. :eek:

I didn’t want to come across as harsh to the OP, but I did want to point out a different perspective here. Why jump to the conclusion of abstaining indefinitely, possibly for her entire married life? Wouldn’t you naturally want to find out what is wrong or how to find unity w/ your spouse?

To me, this suggests not only a trip to the family doc for a check-up, but also the need to enlist a spiritual advisor, a psychologist, therapist, maybe some books, couple counseling, retrouvaille, etc. In short, it sounds as if the marriage might be hurting more than the body during sex.
 
I am a 40ish mother. I have never experienced an orgasm and have very little interest in sex. This has been a problem in my marriage, as my husband’s drive is significantly higher than mine.

During a recent discussion he said that it was sinful to deny sexual relations to a spouse without a good reason. Is that true? I have never heard that. Is my inability to get pleasure from sex a good enough reason to deny him sexual relations?
Hello, JuneBugJulene.

I do not know if you have stopped following all the threads since enough information was shared that you have an idea what to do. I echo the recommendations to talk to a counselor and/or a priest. If, however, you are not comfortable talking about this issue face to face with anyone, I pray that some of this information found in the various postings was of use.

I will offer my nickel based on what limited information you provided. Love is not love unless it is expressed in words and actions. Words should edify and actions should nurture. Words should comfort and actions should inspire. I hope and pray that you and your husband find what is missing or an obstacle to your happiness in this area and any other area where a gap exists, with either medical or counseling assistance.

In the meantime, I pray you both reach an agreement on what level of expression and what frequency of expression is going to help the two of you “meet somewhere in between” his preferences and your preferences.

In His Peace,
Dan
 
I’ve got to say I’m a bit shocked at many of the responses here and many of the assumptions made about me, my husband and our marriage.

Besides 1ke’s reference to Familiaris Consortio and Casti Connubii, not many of the answers were very responsive or helpful.

My husband is not an insensitive brute who doesn’t care about my needs. He’s probably more frustrated about my lack of response than I am.

We were both the first partner for the other, so neither of us has a wealth of knowledge about sex.

I am not taking contraceptives. We use the sympto-thermal method, if you must know.

My husband isn’t seeking a separation, divorce or annulment and neither am I. By the way, a person who thinks his (or her) marriage is defective may not licitly seek relations from his (or her) spouse without sinning.

We engage in intimate relations. We just differ in the frequency. I’d prefer not to get much more specific than that.

I lost my thyroid to cancer many years ago, and there is an established connection between thyroid problems and female sexual response. My husband knew about the thyroid problem when we married, but I doubt he knew about the connection with sexual response. When we got married, the internet was still a glimmer in Al Gore’s eye, so he couldn’t have even googled it if he wanted.

I have read Christopher West’s book. Guess what. He does not address this question that I recall. I’d be thrilled to hear his response, though. If he’s addressed it elsewhere I’d like to know.

I have look at JPII’s TOB book, and I could not find that he addressed the issue, either. If I missed it, please cite chapter and verse. I’ve never read the earlier book, though. If the issue is addressed there, I’d like to know that.
 
Of course it is a real marriage.

A marriage is not over until one spouse dies.

There is no such thing as remarriage.

No. There is no “redress” in the way you mean. Marriage is for life. Marriage is for life, for better or worse, in sickness and in health. The husband must stand by his wife, help her through the issues, but ultimately remain faithful no matter what.
Keep in mind this has evolved to be more phylosphical than addressing the OP.

Not to dig into semantics but I would consider a loving mariage to be, among other things, a loving realtionship between adults. Intimacy being a something you would find in a loving relationship that you would not find in close friendship. While unilatteral termination of intimacy may not technically define the end of a marriage. such a relationship is not what most people would consider to be a traditional marriage.

If a spouse dies, the surviving spouse can get remaired.

As for “Redress”, I was intentionally vague and fishing for options.
 
JuneBug,

You have to take most of the info you receive on a forum such as this with a grain of salt. Most people mean well, but threads tend to go all over the place in both assumptions, content, and helpfulness. It can be frustrating, especially for someone who comes looking for information on such a personally painful topic.

I hope you will let all the off-topic, presumptuous stuff just roll off your back.

Do you think the two of you might benefit from either Retrouvaille and/or Marriage Encounter? It seems like you are both faithful Catholics who love each other and have a specific issue you both want to work through to improve your marriage. I’m sure you already pray together, but if not then start praying about this together daily.

Certainly counseling with a competent Catholic therapist or priest might be helpful and having a talk with your doctor regarding what can be done from their end is also in order. I know that there are drugs like synthroid and such for those with thyroid conditions, but I don’t know if those synthetic drugs help in this area. Do talk to your doctor to see what is available, and also if there have been any recent developments that can help you. You never know what may have transpired in the medical community since your surgery.

Since you were both each other’s first partners, some clinical assistance regarding technique could also help immensely even with the thyroid situation in play-- don’t be ashamed to seek out those resources.

Regarding Chuch teaching, the only things I know of that are specific to this topic are the ones I already posted.

But, again, they have to be applied within the framework of a well-formed conscience AND with the exercise of the virtues. So, even though your husband may have a “right” to relations doesn’t mean he has to exercise it-- he can choose to sacrifice on your behalf and exercise the virtues of temperance and forebearance. Likewise, you can do the same and choose to engage even when you aren’t “in the mood”.

I don’t think there is an answer out there that anyone can give you. It’s something you and your husband will have to keep working through. I do hope you will come to some mutually acceptable solution.

I know this is a cross for both of you to bear.
 
A marriage once it IS a marriage is not “back outable” of.

A marriage that ever was a marriage then it is never over, and if it’s not over then the parties still must abide by what being a marriage means…
please understand the perceived difference between the technical marriage and the conseptual active married lifestyle.
The “redress”, the “setting things right”, for the one denied is to have the “opportunity” to bear the cross of being chaste and charitable in their “being denied” situation.

Please research the sacrament of matrimony. indissolubility means what it says it means.
Sorry, this is hard to deal with: It seems like for all the worlds needs and desires that can be solved with money people have no problem taking money from me to solve the problems. In the process they tell me I need to be gracious and give in and am continually hounded to give more than others because I can. But there are a few areas where I have needs and desires, which can’t be solved with money, and since I am married I can not seek to address them but instead of advice on how to deal with the situation all I hear is it is my burden to bear. I am sorry for venting I hope you will understand how dealing with this double standard is very draining.
 
I appologize if my posts were upsetting or less than helpful. When you said “deny” I intrepreted that to mean shut off. As I stated earlier, I have been on the opposite side of related situation and acknowledge I have made assumptions on your situation and the scope of this thread based on my situation.
 
I’ve got to say I’m a bit shocked at many of the responses here and many of the assumptions made about me, my husband and our marriage.

Besides 1ke’s reference to Familiaris Consortio and Casti Connubii, not many of the answers were very responsive or helpful.

My husband is not an insensitive brute who doesn’t care about my needs. He’s probably more frustrated about my lack of response than I am.

We were both the first partner for the other, so neither of us has a wealth of knowledge about sex.

I am not taking contraceptives. We use the sympto-thermal method, if you must know.

My husband isn’t seeking a separation, divorce or annulment and neither am I. By the way, a person who thinks his (or her) marriage is defective may not licitly seek relations from his (or her) spouse without sinning.

We engage in intimate relations. We just differ in the frequency. I’d prefer not to get much more specific than that.

I lost my thyroid to cancer many years ago, and there is an established connection between thyroid problems and female sexual response. My husband knew about the thyroid problem when we married, but I doubt he knew about the connection with sexual response. When we got married, the internet was still a glimmer in Al Gore’s eye, so he couldn’t have even googled it if he wanted.

I have read Christopher West’s book. Guess what. He does not address this question that I recall. I’d be thrilled to hear his response, though. If he’s addressed it elsewhere I’d like to know.

I have look at JPII’s TOB book, and I could not find that he addressed the issue, either. If I missed it, please cite chapter and verse. I’ve never read the earlier book, though. If the issue is addressed there, I’d like to know that.
Some additional reference points:

From Corinthians we see:

1 Corinthians 7: 4-5

4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.

5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

From Pope John Paul II:
John Paul II also says that if the only reason a couple is having sex is to transmit life, then they may be in danger of using each other rather than loving each other (see Love & Responsibility p. 233).

Also, John Paul describes the “beatifying experience” of conjugal union as a foretaste of the joys of heaven (see TB, Dec 16, 1981 and Jan 13, 1982). In Love & Responsibility, by his detailed discussion of the husband’s responsibility - out of authentic love for his wife - to see that she achieves sexual climax (see Love & Responsibility pp. 270-278).

CCC States:

V. THE GOODS AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONJUGAL LOVE

1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values."152
The unity and indissolubility of marriage

1644 The love of the spouses requires, of its very nature, the unity and indissolubility of the spouses’ community of persons, which embraces their entire life: "so they are no longer two, but one flesh."153 They "are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving."154 This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony. It is deepened by lives of the common faith and by the Eucharist received together.

1645 "The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection."155 Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.156
  • The fidelity of conjugal love
1646 By its very nature conjugal love requires the inviolable fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which they make to each other. Love seeks to be definitive; it cannot be an arrangement “until further notice.” The "intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving of two persons, and the good of the children, demand total fidelity from the spouses and require an unbreakable union between them."157

1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

III. THE LOVE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143

"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh
 
My question is: is this a real marriage? It seems that one person already backed out of the marriage when they shut off intimacy. If the marriage is over the remaining spouse has a right to be remarried, right?
The point is: IF it was EVER a real marriage, then “the marriage” is NEVER over, until death of one of the couple.

IF it never WAS a marriage, then one doesn’t get REmarried, but rather simply MARRIED.
Based on the OPs post both parties agreed to the relationship and then years later one party made a unilateral decision that they would not have marrital relations. It seems like the one being denied should have some redress in the situation, right?
How does one agree to something indissoluable, then later want it to be dissolved?

“Redress” means “making right”. The “convenient” desire that people have is for GOD to do the “redressing” by allowing the indissoluable thing to be dissolved, when in fact it is the couple AS A UNIT (two persons of one flesh) that must redress what is “not right”. We don’t sluff off our responsibilities onto God when God specifically gave THAT responsibility TO US.
Of course this is a hypothetical discusion since we don’t have all of the background details.
OP I don’t mean to be harsh towards you but I feel I can better relate to your husbands point of view than yours given my being on the oposite side of a similar situation.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
A marriage once it IS a marriage is not “back outable” of.

A marriage that ever was a marriage then it is never over, and if it’s not over then the parties still must abide by what being a marriage means…

please understand the perceived difference between the technical marriage and the conseptual active married lifestyle.
Civil marriage is not Catholic marriage, which I absolutely agree with you on. But the subject is about Catholic marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs
The “redress”, the “setting things right”, for the one denied is to have the “opportunity” to bear the cross of being chaste and charitable in their “being denied” situation.
Please research the sacrament of matrimony. indissolubility means what it says it means.
Sorry, this is hard to deal with:
Someone told you that marriage (the Catholic type) was going to be easy?
It seems like for all the worlds needs and desires that can be solved with money people have no problem taking money from me to solve the problems. In the process they tell me I need to be gracious and give in and am continually hounded to give more than others because I can.
But there are a few areas where I have needs and desires, which can’t be solved with money, and since I am married I can not seek to address them but instead of advice on how to deal with the situation all I hear is it is my burden to bear.
One “deals” with a situation from within it’s requirements, it’s FACTS.
  1. The FACT is that marriage, if it EVER was a true marriage, is indissoluable.
  2. The FACT is that we are all called upon to be chaste at all times (and remember, chaste does not mean celibate).
Those two facts dictate the bounds within which one is to act in the “situation” of marriage. Is there REALLY any question about what is permissible and not within those bounds?
I am sorry for venting I hope you will understand how dealing with this double standard is very draining.
There is no double-standard. Where do you see a double-standard?
 
I’ve got to say I’m a bit shocked at many of the responses here and many of the assumptions made about me, my husband and our marriage.
One of the “problems” of this type of forum is the tendency of an ongoing discussion to “wander out into right field.” Especially in conjunction with a topic like yours.

Your situation as you described it in your original post, almost invariably, on a forum such as this, will engender a discussion of the nature of the sacrament of matrimony, its permanence and its non-existence as defined by the church. Reading all the posts it seems to me that many of them, mine included, were not directed to your immediate situation, but rather to the topic in general. Having read a lot of threads, it is a common occurrence on this forum. Having said that, a previous poster lamented that the post got off track and was not all that charitable to you. I have to agree.

From what you posted above, especially regarding your thyroid and endocrine system problems, your situation is so much clearer. It sounds like you have a good marriage with a significant problem. But all the resources that other posters have mentioned are available to help you overcome it.

Apologies if any of my earlier posts were hurtful. Please be assured that they were not directed at you personally, but only to the perceived topic in general.

Prayers for a successful resolution of the difficulty you currently face.
 
Yeah, well, you sure cleared a lot of stuff up with your second post. Based on your first posts, were the responses really off the wall? Maybe to you, but no one knows you, just what you post.

I for one know that my response would have been different to your second post. Asking if you can deny relations versus the second post are two very different things.

🤷

That being said, it is still rather telling that you’d want to find out if you can stop having sex with your spouse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top