The so-called marital obligation?

[LightBound]

The OP shared in another thread here on CAF how she has suffered due to trauma involving molestation and sexual abuse within her family. She requested whether she should seek counseling from her priest or a therapist. Given that, I can see where the term “marital debt” and “marital obligation” can be confusing or hurtful to anyone with a history of sexual abuse- especially when the perpetrator was someone she had trusted. I got a hornet’s nest started a while back about the “debt” thing on a thread, so I’m not going to touch that term! But I will say she’s coming from a background a lot different than many of the people answering her on this thread. Please keep in mind that a sexual abuse survivor sees things differently regarding the marital act when it’s termed “obligation”- especially if they feel they are “obligated” to submit to their spouse’s sexual needs. It can trigger a lot of guilt, confusion, and resentment if they are made to feel like they are sinning if they defer sex for another time.

 

[fpt]

The marriage is a natural contract and a natural institution with a special focus on the sexed and sexual link between husband and wife. It is a sexed and sexual contract. The notion of sexed and sexual contract implies the obligations to do, not to do and to give.

The self-giving of wife and the self-giving of husband, the mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies for the sexual cooperation during the realisation the marital act. It is the mutual, reciprocal and complementary donation of the bodies. Otherwise, no sexual cooperation. Cooperation means to work together in the natural way with rights and obligations. Marital act means to make some sexual efforts and also sexual sacrifices in link with the natural rights of each spouse, with moderation.

Man has to assume his virility (masculinity), he has to want to be a male; Woman has to receive the virility of her husband; Wife has to give her feminity to her husband;

Woman has to assume her feminity; she has to want to be a female; Husband has to receive the feminity of his wife; Husband has to give his masculinity to his wife;

 

[tafan]

Note: (while I agree that what the OP stated is not correct per se) actually while it is a grave obligation – it is not quite the same as the other things noted. I think it can be said that there can be deliberate refusals (other than the legit ones like the person committed adultery or is drunk etc) that are not mortal sin but venial sin (so long as there is not a near occasion of sin) --for example perhaps if only briefly postponed (maybe --“tonight” instead of now) or relations are rather frequent and refusal is rare (or least such was noted an older moral work).

Can a single refusal be a mortal sin? – yes.

Are there possible times when it is venial? – yes.

(and of course one can always mutually agree to postpone when not in near occasion of sin)

I don’t understand your reasoning, to be honest. It is a grave obligation? Is not the refusal of that obligation then grave matter?

I refer to this

g) Unreasonable refusal of marital intercourse is a grave matter. As has been explained, each spouse’s right to intercourse has limits, and usually when either is reluctant to have intercourse, the other should not insist. Still, sometimes a spouse has no justifying reason for being unwilling to cooperate. Such unwillingness can be motivated by anger and hatred, an unreasonable desire to avoid offspring, the manipulative use of marital intercourse to compel compliance in other matters, excessive preoccupation with other activities, and so on. Sometimes, too, one spouse without good reason travels alone or stays away from home for some time, thus depriving the other of the opportunity for marital intimacy. In all such cases, when the spouse deprived of marital intimacy makes it clear, by saying so or in any other way, that he or she desires it, the other should cooperate lovingly, and refusal is a grave matter.

The wrong of unreasonable reluctance to engage in marital intimacy admits of parvity but, like other injustices, only in cases in which, typically, the one who suffers the wrong considers it insignificant: for example, because intimacy is not denied for long and the unreasonable motive is not ill will but only some understandable weakness.

Of course, sometimes the spouses disagree about whether a refusal of marital intercourse is reasonable. Then both should try to find a harmonious solution, but if that is impossible, the spouse deprived of desired intimacy must remain faithful. Moreover, such a spouse should be tolerant, for even when a denial of intimacy is plainly unjustified, physical force, psychological coercion, nagging, and resentment are both incompatible with marital love and ineffective for obtaining the loving cooperation required for true marital communion.

Taken from this page twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html . Which comes from an excellant online source of Catholic Teachings “The Way of the Lord Jesus”

 

[mommamaree]

Veronica,
Thank you.

Jilly4ski,
Please see post #29.

 

[AnneTeresa]

The OP shared in another thread here on CAF how she has suffered due to trauma involving molestation and sexual abuse within her family. She requested whether she should seek counseling from her priest or a therapist. Given that, I can see where the term “marital debt” and “marital obligation” can be confusing or hurtful to anyone with a history of sexual abuse- especially when the perpetrator was someone she had trusted. I got a hornet’s nest started a while back about the “debt” thing on a thread, so I’m not going to touch that term! But I will say she’s coming from a background a lot different than many of the people answering her on this thread. Please keep in mind that a sexual abuse survivor sees things differently regarding the marital act when it’s termed “obligation”- especially if they feel they are “obligated” to submit to their spouse’s sexual needs. It can trigger a lot of guilt, confusion, and resentment if they are made to feel like they are sinning if they defer sex for another time.

Very well said.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t understand your reasoning, to be honest. It is a grave obligation? Is not the refusal of that obligation then grave matter?

I refer to this

Yes the book is right behind me in my bookcase. (Though his works are not what I prefer)

He notes there: “The wrong of unreasonable reluctance to engage in marital intimacy admits of parvity”

Parvity means smallness. A grave obligation that admits of parvity means that it can be venial matter at times.

 

[tafan]

Yes the book is right behind me in my bookcase. (Though his works are not what I prefer)

He notes there: “The wrong of unreasonable reluctance to engage in marital intimacy admits of parvity”

Parvity means smallness. A grave obligation that admits of parvity means that it can be venial matter at times.

Yes, we are not disagreeing: the "maybe --“tonight” instead of now??? " is hardly an unreasonable refusal. Reluctance, as described in my reference, is not necessary refusal either.

My point is, when one spouse is requesting sex (and every couple who has been married a while knows the way requests are made in their particular marriage) and the other spouse simply says no, for no valid reason, it is a objectively a motal sin. And from reading this forum, it appears that like many sins, it soon becomes habitual and people no longer recognize the sinfulness of their actions.

 

[mommamaree]

Is repeated physical injury to the wife’s sexual organs due to too frequently being demanded to pay the marriage debt sufficient enough to be a reasonable reason to “reject her husband’s advances”?

Is the husband using his erection to punish his wife internally for a failure to perform in a sexy enough fashion a sufficient enough reason?

Is withholding affection to coerce and manipulate the wife, causing her to be emotionally starved and paranoid, a sufficient reason?

Despite all these possibly sufficient reasons, I never denied my husband. I thought I was the problem, that my lack was the reason I wasn’t happy about sex, that I was an abysmal failure.

Really, the repeated insistence that the words are not a problem despite the cautions I have given earlier in this thread is really disturbing. Words mean things. Socially-understood connotations matter. Theological language is not always the best to use when not speaking to theologians.

Genuine Catholic teaching, like I found at Catholic Education Resource Center, was so beautiful and good it led to a dramatic healing in my marriage. But the way lay people throw around theological terms here and just expect everyone to get on board or toe the line is upsetting. In the family life forum, especially, we should be more focused on Christian encouragement and support, and we should charitably consider the language we use. Doesn’t anyone else believe this?

 

[Bookcat]

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.

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…

---

Anyhow it is certainly a grave obligation per se --even if it does admit of parvity of matter and there are even legitimate reasons to refuse at times or postpone.

 

[jilly4ski]

Book cat,

Re: Sunday obligation. More than once my husband and I have said how thankful we are for the Sunday obligation, or our laziness or bad attitude might have kept us home.

With that being said, you don’t have to get naked and** be completely vulnerable to go to mass!**

It is true that different obligations exist depending on your vocation, but that does not mean that all obligations are equally easy/hard to meet. And contrary to what you have asserted in this thread, the connotations of words in different contexts do matter a lot. It is highly likely that a woman who has been abused will understand some of these words differently, and therefore may become frightened. It would be charitable to not insist upon using words that hurt. Do you see my point?

I have already stretched myself a lot in this thread, trying to understand what people mean and ridding myself of the brainwashing of my childhood. This is why I needed to start this thread. But I feel like you are impatient, and insistent that everyone must accept these terms, no matter how the terms might have been misunderstood. I hope I have misunderstood your intentions.

I disagree with the bolded. We should be becoming completely vulnerable to Christ in Mass to be fully participating. Of course the difference is that we can completely trust Christ with our hearts and souls. But some people might be distrustful of God because of loss of someone or something. They might also object to the phrase obligation in reference to Sunday. In fact there are threads on CAF about how using obligation in reference to Mass somehow lessens why we are there and degrades the sacrament. This doesn’t mean that we should change the phrase.

I think we all need to understand that the Church is hardly ever either/or in its theology, but rather a both/and. Debt and obligation is the correct way to look at it, but also as an expression of Love and intimacy. So in a sense everyone must accept this as a valid theological concept (they both are) and that we aren’t going to abandon that language because some find it hurtful or unhelpful, just like some find “Sunday obligation” hurtful or unhelpful.
Also, individual’s problems with words or concepts are just that, problems, that ideally should be worked through, so we can find a deep understand the Church’s teachings so it is no longer hurtful and can enlighten us. This again doesn’t require the Church to abandon theological concepts that have a long history and are helpful to people. (Just as the Sunday obligation helps you overcome laziness, so too the marital obligation helps some couple avoid unintentionally hurting their spouses).

 

[tafan]

mommanaree, illness or physical injury,regardless of the cause, are likely certainly reasonable to refuse.

Really, the repeated insistence that the words are not a problem despite the cautions I have given earlier in this thread is really disturbing. Words mean things. Socially-understood connotations matter. Theological language is not always the best to use when not speaking to theologians.

Genuine Catholic teaching, like I found at Catholic Education Resource Center, was so beautiful and good it led to a dramatic healing in my marriage. But the way lay people throw around theological terms here and just expect everyone to get on board or toe the line is upsetting. In the family life forum, especially, we should be more focused on Christian encouragement and support, and we should charitably consider the language we use. Doesn’t anyone else believe this?

I apologize for offense. Obligation and debt are not simply theological terms, they are clear, precise language for lay people. As are is the term “reasonable refusal” or “unreasonable refusal”. Now, I admit that “parvity” is not well understood by most lay people.

To be honest, I don’t know how to express this teaching of the Church without the terms debt or obligation. The theological meaning is pretty much the same as the common meaning when we talk of other debts and obligations in life (e.g. Sunday obligation, money owed,etc).

Look at this anaology, you may legitametly owe a bank some money; however there are legal (and moral/ethical) limits on the steps the bank can take to collect the money. And there are legal and moral/ethical reasons why you can not repay at times. The analogy breaks down, because the marital debt is bi-directional. And the limits to the debt are likewise bi-directional.

 

[Bookcat]

Really, the repeated insistence that the words are not a problem despite the cautions I have given earlier in this thread is really disturbing. Words mean things. Socially-understood connotations matter. Theological language is not always the best to use when not speaking to theologians.

Genuine Catholic teaching, like I found at Catholic Education Resource Center, was so beautiful and good it led to a dramatic healing in my marriage. But the way lay people throw around theological terms here and just expect everyone to get on board or toe the line is upsetting. In the family life forum, especially, we should be more focused on Christian encouragement and support, and we should charitably consider the language we use. Doesn’t anyone else believe this?

Yes words mean things --they are to mean what they are intended to mean by God and the Church --not what they are made to mean by one who abuses -hurts another.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9567985&postcount=33

As I noted – the term “debt” may not be so often used in explaining the obligations of marriage in current catechetical language --but the reality is explained.

Yes words need to be understood properly and charity should make it clear that abuse is not the meaning of these words. It is very good to make it very clear what is meant and what is NOT meant by certain terms.

Tis about the reality that one has already given oneself to the other --that they are one in Holy Marriage.

(some who hear by the way the words “given themselves” in marriage – who have say been abused via some form slavery or the like --will certainly have difficulties hearing such and will need to come to realize what is meant by the terms…many terms need to be understood properly and can be open to misunderstanding or emotional effects due to various backgrounds.)

 

[Bookcat]

…

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.

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…

---

Anyhow it is certainly a grave obligation per se --even if it does admit of parvity of matter and there are even legitimate reasons to refuse at times or postpone.

 

[mommamaree]

I can see this is a hopeless cause. No wonder I stayed away fromCAF for over a year prior to last week. I should have known better than to come back. Too many people interested in being right. I had hoped that I could figure out what help I needed to get, but instead, this is amplifying my problems. Never mind. I give up.

 

[The_Bucket]

I can see this is a hopeless cause. No wonder I stayed away fromCAF for over a year prior to last week. I should have known better than to come back. Too many people interested in being right. I had hoped that I could figure out what help I needed to get, but instead, this is amplifying my problems. Never mind. I give up.

Well I hope you took no offense at my words. I totally conceded that your situation colored the diction and completely agree with LightBound. I didn’t even know about your past outside of what your wrote in the original post and personally I think you should stay away from threads on this subject and take your inquiries to people on a private message basis because you’re going to see this word choice.

This forum is anonymous and we don’t know everyone’s past nor should we. No one was trying to be uncharitable, at least I hope not. The only reason I suggested not coming into a thread on the subject is because you will be exposed to this kind of language and you shouldn’t read it because it’s clearly opening up old wounds unintentionally. Protect yourself emotionally and spiritually!

 

[WingsOfEagles]

May I add that official Church stance on what happened to OP in her marriage would put the husband in the wrong. Using a woman as a sexual object for his pleasure alone is abusive and wrong. The couple is supposed to be united through the act. I believe the Catechism also reads that the wife is able to say know if she doesn’t feel up to it right then. The problem is more if she withholds it so often that the man is falling into sin or feels like he is a failure at his marriage because she in no way desires him.

 

[fpt]

1. The fact of refusing marital request for the marital act can be sinful for the spouse who is refusing:
   If there is no real, realistic and objective reason (no licit reason in and of itself for the refusal); What is a real and objective reason, that is the question? What are the constitutive elements of the refusal that can justify this refusal?
   or
   If the intention of refusal is not in the respect of natural law (heresies and ideologies going against the human nature): bad intellectual approach.

What are the institutionnal infractions to the natural law of the sexual conjugal request?

What are the lacks of contractual obligations of the donation of bodies? These are the contractual infractions against the natul law of conjugal act.

1. The fact of requesting the marital act with insistence can be also wrong, of course. When, where, why, what for?

The questions:

How to define moderation of marital act???

What is the state of marriage?

 

[fpt]

In the context of marital act, by principle, each spouse is responsible of his own action. The sin is private. By exception, the wrong behavior can be bilateral.

By principle, the marital act has to be practiced; by exeption, the marital act has not to be practiced under very special conditions coming from the exterior context ( for health of one spouse, for adultery of one spouse, and for irresponsibility of one spouse, these are reasonable reasons);

The sexual war between spouses is very wrong; the sexual force between spouses is very wrong; the sexual rape is between spouses is very wrong…etc.

 

[Corki]

Is repeated physical injury to the wife’s sexual organs due to too frequently being demanded to pay the marriage debt sufficient enough to be a reasonable reason to “reject her husband’s advances”?

Is the husband using his erection to punish his wife internally for a failure to perform in a sexy enough fashion a sufficient enough reason?

Is withholding affection to coerce and manipulate the wife, causing her to be emotionally starved and paranoid, a sufficient reason?

Actually, in each of those examples, I would say there **is no **debt or obligation. The marital “debt” is not a blank check for abuse or a requirement for submission. It presumes an otherwise healthy marriage. There is a much more important obligation to preserve life and health, including emotional health.

 

[hurting]

Tafan,

I think my reading comprehension is just fine.

No, I think the disconnect had more to do with the fact that some people use this exact terms to justify sexual abuse of their wives (This is a sad fact that has played out in my own marriage pre-conversion and in many other marriages that I know of…my own mother was brutally sodomized on her wedding night by my stepfather and he didn’t care that it hurt her and she passed out). Many so-called Christian men lord it over their wives, this marriage debt thing, and it is frightening.

So when I read those words here, I freaked out a lot, I admit it. But I really like what people have had to say in explanation of it. My husband is currently traveling a lot for work, so on the days he is home, we each care about meeting each other’s needs for love and affection. If that is what people would refer to as paying the marriage debt, then so be it. Me? I will stick with words like compassion and lovemaking.

I would suspect that the ratio of women who have adopted the worldly view (that is, the view that there is no obligation whatsoever) far - and I do mean by a wide margin - the very tiny share of men who “lord it” over their wives.

This worldly view is entirely in consonance with the narcissism of the zeitgeist that eschews the very notion of an obligation or debt in any context.