The so-called marital obligation?

[Corki]

I don’t know about other women, but seeing lovemaking described as a debt or obligation that wives must give to their husbands, with the implication that their is never a valid reason to ask to postpone relations for a day or so, makes me feel even less likely to respond positively.

I don’t think it’s the term that is troublesome, it’s the interpretation. There is nothing in Church teaching that says that it’s unliateral (wives must give to husbands) or that there can’t be reasons to say “not right now, but later”.

A spouse would not be fulfilling the marital debt if he/she refused to have relations **at all **(other than in cases of adultery), or even more seriously, if the marriage was never consumated.

 

[mommamaree]

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.

 

[AnneTeresa]

One’s history definitely does play into how one hears and interprets “debt” and “marital obligation”. I understand what the OP is saying. I also cringe when I hear those words, but then it all goes back to my childhood and my relationship with men before and during my marriage. Yes, the old fear of being used and hurt can crop up when you hear those words.

Just saying… the concept of self-giving can be expressed in words other than “debt” which don’t carry so much baggage with them.

 

[Lancer]

To me, as a wife, the marital debt is not in any way lessened in its beauty or value (or my desire for it!) by calling it a “debt” I owe my husband.

It IS a debt I owe him–and he owes me–because on our wedding day we made a covenant, an exchange of persons. I am his, and he is mine.

Because I am his, when he wants the use of my body, it is not charity or grace on my part to give myself to him; it is justice. Why? Because I gave myself to him on our wedding day. And he gave himself to me.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in fact, mentions that husbands have even the greater responsibility to give of their physical love to their wives because wives might be shy about asking, so a husband is supposed to look for hints and implications, whereas a wife need only wait to be asked.

Well said…yes very well said with holy wisdom…an excellent meditation point for all of us married folks…especially us men…doumo arigatou gozaimashita

Pax Christi

 

[Bookcat]

may be the largest reason why obligation and debt are words so damaging to women…

The problem is not the terms here. The words are not damaging. The Church is clear in her teaching that that such does not mean anything damaging.

Hanging that which is contrary to Christian marital love on the terms --“obligation” or “debt” (debitum) is similar to referring to “the marriage bond” and hanging on it ideas of slavery in marriage or something (it being a prison…).

Or a person who has had a not good view of God could see the term “Sunday Obligation” —as a problem – thinking of God as a slave driver or the Christian life as a business-like contract.

The terms are find. We do have a Sunday Obligation, and a marital obligation, and an obligation to feed and love our Children. The focus is not on the obligation usually though --but it is a reality that remains. And the term is fine. We just need to know what terms entail and what they do not.

And remember it is a mutual obligation. One to be lived with great love.

 

[anruari]

I’ll confess here to not having read up in detail on this topic so the following is my opionon it is no attempt to state Church Teaching.

The Teaching and tradition of the Church have been Advance significantly in this are in the teachings of Blessed Jon Paul II in his Theology of the Body. It’s on my reading list, but it will be some time before I get there.

I’ve been Married 4 years.
I promised to Love Honour and Serve my wife.

Love is not sexual desire, although it can contain that as part of it.
Love is total, self-giving service for the good of the other - in the same way that a Mother totally loves her Baby. The Feel Good emotions that come in that are not Love. they are a bodily response to that love - which god gave us to help us to Love.

You must still Love your Spouse - even more than you must still love your child - even when those warm fuzzy feelings are absent.

As a man it is most certainly not Love to insist on Sex against the will of your partner. There’s a name for that. it’s spelled R.A.P.E.
That’s a huge violation of the marriage covenant - The Vow to Love, Honour and Serve.

The same applies in the opposite direction.
using a poor understanding of a concept such as the “Marriage Debt” and restricting it to a sexual duty is a horrendous abuse of religious belief and understanding.

On the other Hand:
Does a married person have a reasonable right to expect that their spouse will be receptive to them sexually? - Most certainly yes.
Does that apply any time the man fancies it irrespective of the feelings desires health or other situations of his wife? - Absolutely Not.

Does either spouse have the right to refuse sex and intimacy for prolonged periods? - No!

You promised to Take your spouse, to Have and to Hold, Love Honour and Serve till death do you part.

That means you must not stop loving them. If you cease to Like your Spouse and therefore no longer wish to be intimate (sexually or otherwise with them) you have broken your wedding vows, and this needs to be addressed and corrected (if possible). Forgiveness is needed on both sides and a reopening of proper communication.

Sometimes due to Medical reasons or similar it becomes impossible or difficult to “complete the marital act”. In this situation the other spouse should remember the definition of Love I listed above, and focus on other forms of affection.
And trust me - I know what this feels like. My wife has problems that have led to long periods of abstainance. It’s difficult for both of us to get through those periods.

On the topic of a couple who’s libidos are significantly out of step with each other: e.g. a man who wants daily sex, and a wife who would prefer it to be much less frequent - or the contrary:
I would propose that this should be dealt with in mutual Love and respect. Neither partner should have to make all the sacrifices.
The partner with the high Libido should probably ask him or herself if their high libido is the result of a lack of the virtue of Chastity in their thoughts and actions.
Similarly the person with the lower Libido may need to ask themselves if there are any addressable reasons for this?

Is a man with a High Libido taking his wife for granted? Her Libido is likely to be higher when she feels cherished and appreciated! It will also be higher if her husband is an attentive lover who focuses on her enjoyment and satisfaction not his own when they make Love.

And not to put to fine a point on it: A man must not fall into the trap of simply using his wife for his own sexual release (ditto for the women… but I’ll let the stereotype play out). Frankly I see that as little different than expecting your wife to masturbate you. It is using your wife. It is not loving your wife. It violates Her and it violates the virtue of Chastity.

 

[Bookcat]

Note too that the Latin term used in Sacred Scripture is “debitum” – debt.

Hence the use of the term in Theology.

AND note well:

it starts off with the Husband’s obligation…

–The Husband should give to his wife…*debitum reddat *…and likewise the wife to her Husband. (see 1 Cor 7:3 based on RSVCE and from Navarre)

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Well, sure love making is an obligation. However, the husband has the obligation to be understanding and take care of you needs to. I think when people say “obligation” that does not imply “he gets it whenever he wants it”. It means that the woman should not be withholding sex as a form of punishment for her husband. It is part of a healthy marriage to have sex. If a woman has not had sex with her husband in years, she is not fulfilling her obligations. If the husband is forcing a woman to have sex when she is completely not in the mood, he is not fulfilling his obligation to respect his wife.

 

[Bookcat]

Note too that the Latin term used in Sacred Scripture is “debitum” – debt.

Hence the use of the term in Theology.

AND note well:

it starts off with the Husband’s obligation…

–The Husband should give to his wife…*debitum reddat *…and likewise the wife to her Husband. (see 1 Cor 7:3 based on RSVCE and from Navarre)

 

[mommamaree]

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.

 

[10gr8kids]

As a single person who’s never done “it” this is how I visualize a marriage–a beautiful obligation and desire to serve. In my ignorance, I may have an idealized view of things, but I just don’t get it when married couples don’t have intercourse (for non-medical reasons obviously). It just seems so non-loving to deny your spouse.

That is how I felt before I got married, not so much anymore. Within the first month of our marriage we lost a baby due to miscarriage, and have had seven others in our 14 yr marriage. Sometimes I have a hard time making love without thinking of the losses we have had.

I hope you can keep your “romantic” feelings, but life has a way of throwing curve balls.

God has blessed us with two beautiful children to raise, so I’m glad for church teaching or who knows what I may have missed out on.

 

[fpt]

I don’t know about other women, but seeing lovemaking described as a debt or obligation that wives must give to their husbands, with the implication that their is never a valid reason to ask to postpone relations for a day or so, makes me feel even less likely to respond positively. No woman in her right mind wants to be reduced to a mere outlet for her husband’s sexual desires. It makes me feel dirty and used just thinking about it. The number of times in this forum that I have seen lovemaking described in such a demeaning fashion is unconscionable. What kind of message does that send to people considering marriage? Christian couples today must work very hard to rightly understand and use their sexual natures, in a loving and holy way. Throwing around words like debt and obligation, especially as it is almost always referring to a debt the woman must pay, verbally reduces the paying spouse to the level of an object to use…a dumpster even. Why do people keep using this term that is especially damaging to women, and doesn’t even adequately describe the power and the beauty of the marital act?

Marital act is:

an gift, a present, a donation from God, but also a prayer and a liturgy for the couple and for each member of couple;
and
An act of love, a language, a communion, a sharing between wife and husband, but also a right, a duty and an obligation, a debt for each member of couple; it is the holy justice;

Thus, it is the sign of unity between the duality of humanity (male and female at the Image of God, a symbol of link between the couple and the Holy Trinity, it is the image of Holy Trinity). The ends of marital act are the love (from love to love and for improving love): the true and real conjugal carnal charity wanted by God. There is Holy Trinity (Three persons in one God); there is the sacrament of marriage blessed by God (one god in three persons); there is the marital act (wife and husband in one flesh (unity) during sexual union in order to improve conjugal bonding of love and potential fecundation (fruit of love, a baby).

The obligations are moral obligations from the natural contract and the sacramental contract (marriage is a contract, a deal, an agreement with interpersonal relationships and a personalist philosophical approach): thus, the body of the husband is the body of the wife, and the body of the wife is the body of the husband (it is a mutual and reciprocal donation of bodies for marital act “ unity and potential procreativity ”).

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 whole feminity to her husband;

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 whole 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 whole masculinity to his wife;

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.
In conclusion, by the contract and the institution each spouse has moral obligations and duties and if one of member of couple breaks the rules without objective and real reasons, it can be on the wrong way, and it can sin against the sexual charity or against the conjugal chastity.

In the marriage, female has to understand the normal sexuality of her male.
In the marriage, male has to understand the normal sexuality of his female.

It is a reciprocal duty:
In the marital act, wife is teacher, professor, doctor and master and lover for her husband.
In the marital act, husband is teacher, professor, doctor and master and lover for his wife.
In the marital act, wife is also schoolgirl, pupil, student and follower of her husband.
In the marital act, husband is schoolboy, pupil, student and follower of his wife.

In the context of marital act, the body of wife is the body of her husband and the body of her husband is the body of her wife (total equality and reciprocity).

 

[Bookcat]

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.

Insistent that they are valid and authentic theological terms --yes (see also my post on the Scriptural origin of the term).

Impatient --hopefully not…

(my apologies if something came across wrong etc)

Terms need to be understood properly. Almost anything can be misunderstood in life. Hence theology’s extensive treatment of various terms and concepts.

Yes I understand that some can have problems with hearing various terms if say they have had certain backgrounds.

A person who was abused and told by their parents that they must “sacrifice” all that they like for the family – well may have a problem with hearing the word “sacrifice” used in Theology. Or a person who is terrified of blood may have a personal difficulty hearing the words “blood of Christ” or a person who had a terrible experience with an abusive Mother may have a difficulty hearing the term “Mother” used for Mary. Sure. But personal difficulties do not mean that the words used in Theology ought to be changed.

I can completely understand a persons background can make them sensitive in a personal way to certain terms etc

A person who has a difficulty with Mary being “Mother” may want personally to use the term “Our Lady” etc in prayer…that is fine and understandable.

 

[Veronica97]

• I love my husband and would not “deny” him, but he and I are both agreed that “debt” has no place in our vocabulary, nor does asking for a day or two to recover from a cold or stomach virus or needing a good night’s sleep equal “denying”.

I agree with you. This past weekend, I had my period. It wasn’t heavy, but I really wanted to wait a couple of days until it was over. My husband was a little persistent but so was I. In the end he was disappointed but agreed. The marital embrace is not that great for me during that time of the month, and it tends to be a little messy as well. Sorry if TMI, but hopefully we are mature adults. To be honest, if I had consented to the embrace, I would have felt “used”. But I did promise “sometime before the weekend is over” and that was acceptable to him. There have also been times when my husband has been upset about work or something or very tired, and although I would like to have relations, I do not ask under these circumstances. In my opinion if neither one of us can wait a day or two (or even several days if need be) then we have a problem. My husband is in his mid-50s and I’m in my mid-40s so it isn’t like our hormones are raging. He doesn’t have a problem with porn or self-abuse, so there is that as well. Now if I decide that I’m going to stop having relations with my husband PERIOD (just because I don’t feel like it) or vice versa, THEN we are talking about breaking vows. So my advice to you is that you should keep on with the agreement you and your husband have and forget about the words used here at CAF. It sounds like you both are doing just fine.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

Insistent that they are valid and authentic theological terms --yes (see also my post on the Scriptural origin of the term).

Impatient --hopefully not…

(my apologies if something came across wrong etc)

Terms need to be understood properly. Almost anything can be misunderstood in life. Hence theology’s extensive treatment of various terms and concepts.

Yes I understand that some can have problems with hearing various terms if say they have had certain backgrounds.

A person who was abused and told by their parents that they must “sacrifice” all that they like for the family – well may have a problem with hearing the word “sacrifice” used in Theology. Or a person who is terrified of blood may have a personal difficulty hearing the words “blood of Christ” or a person who had a terrible experience with an abusive Mother may have a difficulty hearing the term “Mother” used for Mary. Sure. But personal difficulties do not mean that the words used in Theology ought to be changed.

I can *completely understand *a persons background can make them sensitive in a personal way to certain terms etc

A person who has a difficulty with Mary being “Mother” may want personally to use the term “Our Lady” etc in prayer…that is fine and understandable.

 

[mommamaree]

Also, debt in the modern world is associated with debt collectors, judges and courts, deficiency judgements, etc.
Did debt have a different meaning in the biblical time period? Although, Jesus did mention debtors prison…

 

[Bookcat]

Generally in currant ordinary catechesis one does not use the words “marital debt” but the reality meant by the words in Theology and Scripture is explained.

One may find them used more in the forums here cause well lots of theology gets discussed here and some are used to the terms.

 

[tafan]

I don’t think it’s the term that is troublesome, it’s the interpretation. There is nothing in Church teaching that says that it’s unliateral (wives must give to husbands) or that there can’t be reasons to say “not right now, but later”.

A spouse would not be fulfilling the marital debt if he/she refused to have relations **at all **(other than in cases of adultery), or even more seriously, if the marriage was never consumated.

The first paragraph is good. I find your second paragraph very troubling. The stress of “at all” implies that a spouse is only sinning against marital chastity if they always refuse sex. This is completely inconsisten with all of Catholic moral theology. Each moral action is in and of itself sinful or not. It is not ok to unreasonably refuse one’s spouse sex just one time. It is mortally sinful. Just as it is not ok to committ adultery just one time. It is morally sinful. Just as it is not ok to rob a bank just one time, or not ok to miss mass on Sunday (for no reason) just one time.

Why do people think that the marital debt only becomes problematic when it becomes habitual? Is it that unique amoung sinful actions?

 

[jilly4ski]

The words are not a problem.

Think of it this way. Is using the phrase “Sunday obligation” also damaging to women and their faith?

I would say no, but it does remind us of the seriousness of our baptismal promises, it makes us think twice before missing Mass. Just like marital obligation should make us think twice about rejecting our spouses advances. Attending Mass should be done out of Love and with Joy, so should being intimate with ones spouse. (Of course, Christ is the perfect spouse where ours are not ). But the obligation is still there, and real.

 

[Bookcat]

I find your second paragraph very troubling. The stress of “at all” implies that a spouse is only sinning against marital chastity if they always refuse sex. This is completely inconsisten with all of Catholic moral theology. Each moral action is in and of itself sinful or not. It is not ok to unreasonably refuse one’s spouse sex just one time. It is mortally sinful. Just as it is not ok to committ adultery just one time. It is morally sinful. Just as it is not ok to rob a bank just one time, or not ok to miss mass on Sunday (for no reason) just one time.

Why do people think that the marital debt only becomes problematic when it becomes habitual? Is it that unique amoung sinful actions?

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??? --I leave it the to moral theologians hee hee ) or relations are rather frequent and refusal is rare (or least such examples were noted in 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)