The so-called marital obligation?

[hurting]

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.

I think there’s a bit of assuming in regard to your understanding of the Church’s teaching. Spouses are only to deny one another for serious reasons - I don’t think “not feeling up to it right then” gets over that hurdle, especially because that the spouse who offers that response is likely to continue to offer it repeatedly.

 

[Veronica97]

*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.
*

I hope you will stay at CAF, but as someone else suggested, just don’t participate in discussions of this topic. From what I can tell from your posts, you are doing NOTHING wrong. You had a problem in your marriage, and your husband saw the light and changed for love of you and for love of God. Jesus knows your heart. He knows your past and all your previous problems in this area. If you were to deny your husband b/c you were trying to “get back” at him in anger or if you knew that your husband was desperately needful and you told him, “I don’t care…I’m not needful so I don’t feel like it.” then that is one thing. But if you are ill, emotionally upset, or extremely tired, I see NOTHING wrong in a delay of a few hours or even a few days. Some would likely say I was wrong in denying my husband b/c I had my period. But I know I was going to feel “used” and God does not want that either. Instead we waited two days and the experience was mutually pleasing and hopefully pleasing to God. God wants us to be loving and giving, not doormats or simply vessels for our spouse’s pleasure alone.

 

[dedo]

Personally, I think that people who believe they have some sort of “right” to demand access to a spouse’s body are "I. W."s or “Inquisition wannabees”.

There seems to be desire among some people to have a cruel form of power over others. This tendency is probably in all of us to some extent because of our fallen nature. It should be resisted.

The mark of a leader is someone who brings out the best in others. The mark of a tyrant is someone who tries to exploit whatever power they think they have over another.

This thinking is the mark of a tyrant in my opinion.

 

[hannajomar]

After reading several of these types of threads on CAF, I feel as though too many of us oversimplify things. I’ve only been married for 3 years, but I can already see that refusing relations with your spouse is not so cut-and-dry as refusing to go to Sunday Mass. I feel as though too many cast stones on people when they do not know the whole story. I write this as someone who has often been denied relations by my husband. Instead of throwing stones and calling him a mortal sinner (as many on this thread would do), I’ve tried to do what I can to help him through this. MANY people who refuse relations have been victims of sexual abuse, and this is one of many threads that shows a lack of compassion for people who have trouble in this area.

 

[fpt]

In Catholicism, the conjugal moral of the marital act is coming from the natural institution and from the natural contract between spouses: that is the natural moral law, thus it is existing between wife and husband the rights with the corollaries, the duties, obligations (to do, not to do or to give). The rights, the obligations, the duties from the contract are not absolute, of course. Only a good, just, real, objective reason can modify the degree of the rights, the obligations, the duties from the contract.

The conjugal moral of union of bodies has two dimensions:

The natural moral order coming from the natural sexed and sexual institution: the respect of liberty, of life, of potential fecundity, of dignity of the human person, of equality between wife and husband, of the male potency, of the female potency, of the health (physical, psychological and physiological), of natural mechanisms of union of bodies…etc;

The natural moral order coming from the natural sexed and sexual contract: the respect of liberty, of dignity of the human person, of equality between wife and husband…etc. It is the special relationship between spouses, the conjugal personalism (the vow on the reciprocal and mutual donation of bodies, in canon law , the lawyers use the term of the right on the body).

The mixed nature (institution and contract) of marriage means that it is difficult to indentify the two dimensions in the conjugal life, day a day, because sometimes or often the actions can be in link with the two dimensions or one only. Thus, the type of moral rules, that have to be used for finding the balance, the moderation in the respect of conjugal moral, when there is a problem or great issues, is difficult.

The love is the first rule, of course. But there are the other rules.

I do not understand that many catholic couples are not in the situation to understand the totality of the catholic teaching concerning the marital act his mixed nature (from the institution and from the contract), his meanings, his functions, his ends, his corollaries, his obligations, his rights…etc. There is an unity of the catholic doctrine , but the fact of wanting to separate each part of the teaching is, in my opinion, a wrong approach. The notion of " conjugal debt " is existing for solving the issues, that is the ultimate mechanism of the conjugal moral.

 

[fpt]

The practice of marital act, that is a right, an obligation and a duty, has to take in consideration:

Liberty of each spouse with the corollaries: The will, the desire, the conscience, the vows the day of wedding, equal dignity;
Health of each spouse, life of each spouse;
Health of each member of the family;
Health of child during the pregnancy of his mother, life of child during the pregnancy of his mother;
Unitive aspect with the two dimensions ( the physical/physiological with the corollaries coming from the body and the psychological/mental/intellectual with the corollaries coming from soul);
Potential fecundity (procreative aspect);
The financial situation of family;
The circunstances of the marital request for union of bodies (when, where, why, what for);

For instance, between spouses there is a natural presumption for the sensual acts and for the sexual acts, but this presumption is not absolute, of course.

Radical feminism and masculinism are so wrong and very dangerous. The sexual war between spouses is very wrong; the sexual force between spouses is very wrong; the sexual rape is, between spouses, very wrong…etc.

Under conditions:

The fact of refusing the marital act can be sinful:
The fact of saying yes to the marital act can be sinful;
The fact of requesting the marital act can be sinful;
The fact of not asking the marital act can be sinful:

The fact of practicing the marital act can be sinful for both;
The fact of practicing the marital act can be sinful for only one spouse;
The fact of not practicing the marital act can be sinful for both;
The fact of not practicing the marital act can be sinful for only one spouse;

 

[Em_in_FL]

Slightly off-topic in it’s title, but today’s post on the CatholicSistas.com blog is a REALLY GREAT READ on this subject!!!

catholicsistas.com/2012/07/26/nfp-is-just-the-beginning/

 

[Serap]

think of love as a bank account.

Most men feel connected to their wife by making love. Women feel connected by talking and hugging with their husband.

If one person keeps withdrawing from the bank account, debt will be incurred. Things that withdraw are fights, distance, competition, etc. Things that add to the bank acct. are loving acts, kindness, making love, saying nice things to eachother, etc.

If the man is turned down sexually (on a regular basis) you, the wife, are withdrawing from the love bank account. You may not realize it, but you are. If the wife wants the love account to remain full for her husband, make love to him when he wants it.

If the man belittles his wife and acts controlling, he is withdrawing from the love account. When he withdraws more than he is adding, the love acct. goes into debt and then the women does not desire to make love.

This is when communication is necessary. Sometimes we have to do something nice for someone even when we dont’ want to.

If we catch our husband behaving well, we have to encourage that behaviour b/c he is making huge deposits into your love account. When husband wants to make love, we can then make a huge deposit into the love account.

It’s giving and giving that make a marriage work.

 

[jud_cargile]

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?

You will find that the teaching forbids witholding your affections for arbitrary reasons, like your husband did not cut the grass like you wanted or told your nosy sister to get out of his house! A loving husband would not want his beloved who has a headache or is not feeling well to lie down a take one for the team. If you have any well developed idea of your faith at all we disciples of Christ should be more generous than this pish-posh nonsense you are stirring up, agreed?

 

[LightBound]

You will find that the teaching forbids witholding your affections for arbitrary reasons, like your husband did not cut the grass like you wanted or told your nosy sister to get out of his house! A loving husband would not want his beloved who has a headache or is not feeling well to lie down a take one for the team. If you have any well developed idea of your faith at all we disciples of Christ should be more generous than this pish-posh nonsense you are stirring up, agreed?

Excuse me, but your last sentence is way out of line!! Did you not read the whole thread? Particularly where it’s revealed she’s a survivor of childhood sexual abuse? I think referring to her issue with the term “obligation” as “pish-posh nonsense” is severely lacking in charity, compassion, and common sense!

 

[mommamaree]

You will find that the teaching forbids witholding your affections for arbitrary reasons, like your husband did not cut the grass like you wanted or told your nosy sister to get out of his house! A loving husband would not want his beloved who has a headache or is not feeling well to lie down a take one for the team. If you have any well developed idea of your faith at all we disciples of Christ should be more generous than this pish-posh nonsense you are stirring up, agreed?

You. You are the reason why, despite my love for the Catholic faith, I hate Catholics. You are the biggest jerk I have ever encountered. Serious lack of charity on your part.

 

[mommamaree]

Moderators,
Please feel free to shut down this thread. Also, you can ban or suspend me as you see fit. Ideally, I would like my account deactivated or deleted. So very sorry.

 

[EasterJoy]

Our kids are entitled to have us feed them, shelter them, educate them, and raise them in the faith. That is our obligation towards them. That does not mean they get to demand we house them anywhere they like, feed them what they want when they want it, or send them to the schools of their choice. If the parents can’t do what they are obliged to do, there is no obligation. If you and your kids starve out of no fault of your own, that is a disaster, everyone suffers, that is a bad thing, but it is not a sin.

The marital obligation, although between adults, is similar to that. The spouses do not have such an absolute right over each other that either one can demand whatever they want whenever they want. They do have a right to expect something some of the time. One spouse cannot simply say to the other, “Well, I think we’re too ______ (old, busy, out of shape, unattractive, holy, you name it) for that, so no, I’m not doing that any more.”

There is a great deal of room for negotiation, communication, and compromise between the broad boundaries between the equally-unacceptable stances of “what I want, when I want it” and “we’re not doing any such thing, not today, not ever, end of discussion.”

This seems common sense to me, and not unlike what most people consider part and parcel of being married, whether they are religious or not.

 

[Corki]

Personally, I think that people who believe they have some sort of “right” to demand access to a spouse’s body are "I. W."s or “Inquisition wannabees”.

This is not what the Church teaches. If one spouse is “demanding,” that the other submit; that’s selfish and wrong. If the other spouse refuses relations** for no reason**, that’s selfish and wrong too. The marital debt is not just what the couples “owe” to each other; it’s what they owe to the marriage and to God.

(I have no ideas what the Inquisition has to do with this topic.)

 

[EasterJoy]

If you have any well developed idea of your faith at all we disciples of Christ should be more generous than this pish-posh nonsense you are stirring up, agreed?

You. You are the reason why, despite my love for the Catholic faith, I hate Catholics. You are the biggest jerk I have ever encountered. Serious lack of charity on your part.

Take a big breath, calm down, and listen to yourselves, people.

You may want to hit the “cut and paste” to save your thought, and just send it a good deal later, when you’ve had a chance to let things cool off a bit? Just a thought, since we are all concerned about maintaining a charitable attitude, both in ourselves and in others.

 

[EasterJoy]

Personally, I think that people who believe they have some sort of “right” to demand access to a spouse’s body are "I. W."s or “Inquisition wannabees”.

There seems to be desire among some people to have a cruel form of power over others. This tendency is probably in all of us to some extent because of our fallen nature. It should be resisted.

The mark of a leader is someone who brings out the best in others. The mark of a tyrant is someone who tries to exploit whatever power they think they have over another.

This thinking is the mark of a tyrant in my opinion.

There are some who have that understanding of what the marital obligation means, but they are grossly mistaken.

I’m not sure what this has to do with the Inquisition, though. More and more, I’m becoming an advocate of reserving charged words like inquisition, nazi, tyrant, fascist, communist, anarchist, and so on to the very rare occasions when they are actually apt. As C.S. Lewis liked to point out, if we reduce words with a specific meaning to mean “really bad” or “really nasty” or the like, instead of saving them for when they apply, then when we need the specific word those words will be ruined for their necessary use.

In this case, even the word cruel is usually light years away from the mindset of the spouse insisting that it is not unreasonable to expect the free gift of some sex once in awhile. No one has said there is a right to spousal rape.

Honestly, there are couples who have sex on fewer occasions over the course of the year than most pther couples expect to buy each other a gift or a greeting card for each other. The expecation that sexual relations will be shared is an fundamental expectation more fundamental to the nature of marriage than that.

And again: there are exceptions, just as there are exceptions to whether there are going to be any Christmas presents in a given year. Common sense needs to operate in this conversation.

 

[dedo]

If “inquisition” is too strong, how about “group bullying” or “mob action”?

 

[Bookcat]

If “inquisition” is too strong, how about “group bullying” or “mob action”?

Neither.

Persons seeking to relate the truth about marriage …and the actual obligations of the husband towards the wife and the wife towards the husband that are part of such but not the focus

(and thus rejecting ideas that are contrary to the Catholic Faith such as spouses using or abusing each other).

 

[tafan]

If you have any well developed idea of your faith at all we disciples of Christ should be more generous than this pish-posh nonsense you are stirring up, agreed?

It appears to me, after reviewing this thread, that everyone needs to take a step back and a deep breadth. I don’t want to answer for jud-cargile, but when just looking at the original post on the thread, I can kind of see what is meant (yes the language may be strong). Please bear with me here…

It is interesting, the marital debt is simply that portion of Catholic teaching that says a spouse cannot **unreasonably **refuse sexual intercourse with the other spouse. Important note: it seems like every post on this thread that describes it stresses the word reasonable, and there are multiple examples of what is reasonable. Many of these example address the OP’s history rather precisely.

Now, it is from those who have a misunderstanding of the marital debt, who are using that term to describe all of marital sexuality. As if the words marital debt and marital act (or sex, or making love, etc) are synonymous. You can see this from the OP’sfirst post, last sentence:

mommamaree:

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?

No it does not describet the power and duty of the marital act, because marital debt and marital act are not synonymous. Its like saying “don’t commit adultery” is supposed to describt the power and beauty of the marital act. Or maybe “be open to life” is supposed to describe the power and beauty of the maritacl act. Or maybe “love one’s wife” is supposed to describe the poer and beauty of the marital act. No, these are all moral principles the church teaches us. And that is what the marital debt is, another commandment that is to aid proper love between spouses. Nothing more, nothing less.

So when there is the accusation that we Catholics equate marital love with the marital debt; it does come across as pish-posh nonsense.

Having said all that, the vast majority, if not all, of the responses providing an desciption of this moral principle include (even stress) the fact that the refusal has to be unreasonable to be a sin.

And how can this not be apparent to all? How can anyone image that one spouse wants to be intimate and loving with the other, is arbitrarily rejected, and a sin is not involved? That is utter nonsense.

 

[dedo]

Neither.

Persons seeking to relate the truth about marriage …and the actual obligations of the husband towards the wife and the wife towards the husband that are part of such but not the focus

(and thus rejecting ideas that are contrary to the Catholic Faith such as spouses using or abusing each other).

You are right.

Inquisition is a better word.

I don’t want to hijack this thread. However, there is a predisposition among many people who call themselves Catholic do try and exert extreme control over people they perceive as vulnerable.

This thread is a good example of that.