The Marital Debt

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LawyersGunsAndMoney said:
I hereby move that we all stop saying “the marital act” and just say “sex.” We’re not Victorian ladies on the fainting couch here. “Sex” is not a dirty word.
Click to expand...
I disagree because “the marital act” implies chaste sex.

Just using the word sex is not specific enough and leaves room for assumptions.
 
Marital act is far more descriptive of the union we are talking about. I like it because it puts sex in the context of marriage and stresses the holiness of the act. And I like that it defines marriage as the fullest expression of sex and it’s purpose. Something just the use of “sex” has failed to do. In fact it has perverted and clouded our understanding of it on the world.
 
CilladeRoma said:
This is true, and the problem usually has nothing to do with sex.
Click to expand...
Correct, USUALLY it has nothing to do with sex. But sometimes, it does. Sometimes one spouse simply doesn’t like sex, they find it “icky and gross,” or something along those lines, while the other spouse desires physical closeness to the spouse via sex.

The spouse who doesn’t like sex, should engage in it from time to time out of love for the other spouse. And if the spouse who doesn’t like sex is the wife, she should try her best to engage in it frequently enough so it doesn’t become physically painful for her to do so.

However, that does NOT mean that the spouse who craves sexual unity should expect to receive it whenever he/she wants it. But should be able to feel free to express to his/her spouse when he/she is starting to suffer from “sexual withdrawal,” as it is scientifically proven that we do become sexually bonded (or “addicted”) to our sexual partners (with is great when it’s a spouse).

To me, this is where the “marriage debt” really comes into play in real life.

God Bless
 
Sex, it’s frequency and all things pertaining to such should not be relegated to “rules” and payment of a “debt”. Intimacy is so much more than sexual intercourse, but sometimes you wouldn’t know it from these threads
If a couple cannot talk about what their desires for their sex life is after marriage, IMHO, they have no business being married.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don’t see that at all. The Church has a rule about fasting before communion. If someone posts a question about it, and people answer, that does not mean they do not realize there is so much more to receiving the Eucharist besides knowing about fasting for one hour. The Church has many teachings about sex, answering any one of them should not imply we think it’s all about that “rule”.

Like most of the Church’s teachings, the marriage debt is not about a rule, rather it is an instruction of how we are to act. In particular, if my wife desires to have sex, I cannot arbitrarily refuse her. If anything, that teaching shows how important sex is to a marital relationship, how important intimacy is.

As to the statement that people should be able to talk about their sexual desires before marraige, or they shouldn’t be getting married. Yes and no. It does sound logical, but I doubt if many people know what their desires will be throughout their marraige. Furthermore, having been involved in marraige prep for quite sometime, it is more important that they understand the various Church’s teachings and understanding about human sexuality than having long discussions about their desires.
 
The thing is, there are rules. And there needs to be. As with any sacrament. But I want to focus on this. It might feel like I’m picking on you but this is an important point.
CilladeRoma said:
If a couple cannot talk about what their desires for their sex life is after marriage, IMHO, they have no business being married.
Click to expand...
Ok. Here’s the problem. Yes, communication is key. But we are speaking of marriages that have already been entered into. This “no business being married” idea is a horrible sentiment and lends itself to the throwaway divorce culture we have today. Most married couples have different ways of communication and different sexual times in their marriage. People need help in a real time PERMANENT marriage.
 
Last edited:
It’s also possible for somebody to not be thinking about sex and not in the mood “at the moment” their spouse asks, but still be open to suggestion.

And it’s valid to need some time to de-stress from the day and clear your mind of all the distractions.

But if somebody is deeply unhappy at the idea of having sex, and it’s persistent and not due to things like illness or grief or chronic work stress or what have you, I will maintain that the couple need to work out what the problem is.

Sometimes the person has baggage or their upset with their partner or too many accumulated disappointments that didn’t get addressed or resolved.

But this is all just retread of stuff we already know.
 
As long as it is tactful and reasonable there shouldn’t be a problem. Maybe I’m missing something, but that could probably be worked out too.
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
“not feeling like it” is totally fine during individual instances. But when a spouse refuses to have sex for months or years because they are “not feeling like it” for months or years at a time, then something is really wrong with the marriage
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

It’s just that there are people who would find an individual incident of a refusal as unreasonable if the spouse doesn’t have a “good reason”.

It can be as something as trivial as ‘oh I just taken a shower and I don’t want to get messy’ or ‘I’m watching the game’, I genuinely can’t see the problem.

The main thing that’s boggling to me is that how can someone be okay with having sex with an unwilling party in the first place? Obviously there’s a difference in not feeling like it, but is willing to be convinced vs someone genuinely not in the mood, and I’m talking about the latter. Are Catholics really okay with having sex with someone who’s faking enthusiasm, or is lying there? How can an act be unitive if someone doesn’t want to sleep with you?
 
The linked article quotes St. Paul:

“The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.” (1 Cor 7:3-5)
 
As a quick disclaimer, I have never lain with the fairer sex or gone much in that direction, so my experience is limited in this arena. However, I agree with others in that I don’t see how one could actually manage to have relations if their spouse wasn’t feeling it. Heck, I’d likely get bored and stop halfway through and then we’d both have had a sucky experience. I may be making it out to be more than it is but I’ve always imagined it as something that’s meant to be the culmination of God’s designing human love. It’s the deepest connection possible with another human, smooches and embraces included. It just sounds so boring without the passion and desire, like how I thought it was when I was in elementary school (Wait for it to be done and read the news while you’re waiting). I’d honestly want to go to sleep with a kiss goodnight or even a hug rather than try to make love to someone who isn’t really in the mood for that. Saying it’s a debt I have to pay forward whenever my wife feels like she wants it doesn’t make me feel revved up and ready, only resentful that I’ve gotta ruin something special by doing it when I don’t feel like the moment is right. Not every moment of marriage is about babymaking. Maybe I want to express my love in another way that night. She has that right too, and I feel like people get a little fixated on sex as an expression of love when I’d be just as happy with a loaf of banana bread or lasagna as I would be with sex, when I want it.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
Marital act is far more descriptive of the union we are talking about. I like it because it puts sex in the context of marriage and stresses the holiness of the act. And I like that it defines marriage as the fullest expression of sex and it’s purpose. Something just the use of “sex” has failed to do. In fact it has perverted and clouded our understanding of it on the world.
Click to expand...
I agree in the context of heady theological discussions and Church pronouncements, but in casual conversations it just strikes
me as prissy. Sort of like people who are freaked out about confessing masturbation so they come up with a convoluted, roundabout way to say it. “Uh, I was unchaste but no one else was there so, like, self abuse…” Its like, come on, man, just use the basic English word.

Just my personal pet peeve. Could be I’m the weird one. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
Marital Debt was a something I had never heard all my lifelong being Catholic ,until I joined CAF .Doesnt seem to have much to do with love ,but perhaps I’ve more to learn.Possibly not .
 
I’m thinking the Marital Debt may not be a good thing if a spouse had P addiction…it could further objectify the other spouse if the other spouse didn’t come around to be in the mood.It would be more just a function .
 
Lea101 said:
It’s just that there are people who would find an individual incident of a refusal as unreasonable if the spouse doesn’t have a “good reason”.

It can be as something as trivial as ‘oh I just taken a shower and I don’t want to get messy’ or ‘I’m watching the game’, I genuinely can’t see the problem
Click to expand...
Count me as one of those people. Moral theology is about individual acts. Its not ok to commit theft one time, just as long as I don’t make it a habit. Its not okay to use the Lord’s name in vain one time, just as long as I don’t do it often. Why is this teaching different? Why in the world would it be ok to reject my spouse because I want to watch a football game? Now, if I say “Honey, can we wait until halftime or until the end?” and she agrees that is fine. But I would never consider it okay to reject her for that reason.
Lea101 said:
The main thing that’s boggling to me is that how can someone be okay with having sex with an unwilling party in the first place? Obviously there’s a difference in not feeling like it, but is willing to be convinced vs someone genuinely not in the mood, and I’m talking about the latter.
Click to expand...
Well, as to the former, when I described a massage and glass of wine as a means to get my wife in the mood, I was told on this forum I was on the verge of committing sexual assault. As to the latter, what is mind boggling to me is why its okay to be an unwilling partner. Been married a long time and this just really doesn’t happen, and my wife and I never reject each other for a trivial reason, and we never find ourselves having sex with an unwilling partner. Now, we also have a very good understanding of when each of us is likely “in the mood”, so its not as the issue comes up that often. But I am really glad my wife does not just wait until she thinks I am in the mood to take a little initative. I almost feel sorry for people on this forum whose sex lives with their spouses is so boring. “Oh, he is watching a football game, guess I won’t put on my negligee and try to be a little but sexy to distract him, he would never like that”.

Also, the Church’s teaching gives no one the right to demand sex, ever. It gives no one the right to have sex with an unwilling spouse. I do not understand why the teaching is mis-represented so often.
The teaching is simple, when a spouse makes a reasonable request for sex, one is obligated to oblige. But if one says “not now”, a loving spouse is bound to respect that decision and should not judge. Which is quite easy to do when one in in a marriage where unreasonable rejections do not occur.

I have no doubt that what is reasonable and unreasonable is different between marriages, and even varies at time over the course of a marriage. But do you accept the basis of the teaching or not?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top