This is so difficult to explain - all I know is that I'm a mess

[1ke]

Don’t worry about the marital debt for now as your case is extraordinary and ther doesn’t seem to be a danger of sin by not fufilling it at this point.

This is only true if BOTH spouses agree willingly to the continence.

It seems from the OP’s posts that the husband **wants **to consumate the marriage. The way she has explained it, it is she who continues to refuse relations. If the husband wants to begin conjugal life together, then she is obliged to begin relations with him.

Continence in marriage can only be my **mutual **consent.

 

[1ke]

I don’t see this “marriage debt” thing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The Catechism is a summary of doctrine. It is not an all-encompassing detailed treastise on everything.

The requirements of marriage are outlined in Scripture and explained quite fully in other documents, for example Casti Connubii.

Scripture:

1 Corinthians 7:3-5

The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband. 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. 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.

Casti Connubii:

1. The second blessing of matrimony which We said was mentioned by St. Augustine, is the blessing of conjugal honor which consists in the mutual fidelity of the spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied to him or permitted to any third person; nor may there be conceded to one of the parties anything which, being contrary to the rights and laws of God and entirely opposed to matrimonial faith, can never be conceded.
2. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.
3. By this same love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the marriage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle: “Let the husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband,”[28] express not only a law of justice but of charity.

The Catechism:

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."151

They "are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving."152

 

[djeter]

This is a different tack on all of this but I wonder if you are familiar with the sin of acedia. Here’s a couple of reading selections about it but you might find it could relate to your feelings of hopelessness and inevitability of the trap you fell into.

Just a thought but it might be useful.

The selections are from Kathleen Norris’ Catholic spirituality writer’s Acedia&Me

1. payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/17/life-emerging-out-of-what-had-seemed-dead/
2. payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/20/from-eight-bad-thoughts-to-seven-sins/

my sympathy and respect for your courage to admit all this to strangers

dj

 

[former_Catholic]

This is a different tack on all of this but I wonder if you are familiar with the sin of acedia.
dj

If you would like the modern rather than Medieval description of the “sin of acedia,” look up “adrenal exhaustion” or “adrenal insufficiency” in any standard medical textbook

 

[cephas161619]

If you would like the modern rather than Medieval description of the “sin of acedia,” look up “adrenal exhaustion” or “adrenal insufficiency” in any standard medical textbook

Adrenal exhaustion or insufficiency is something very different. It may have similar effects, but that does not make it the same thing. There are many other reasons people can appear lazy besides adrenal exhaustion. Let’s not generalize the commonality of this medical condition.

 

[Sed_libera_nos]

That is true that the marriage debt valid. However, if there are psychological issues and there is consensual agreement it might be better to wait until some of the more serious psychological issues are worked out. I beleive that may be the case here. Obviously the marriage debt can not be friviously withheld. For those who are psychologically wounded it is not always the best thing to force them to complete it- if they are not ready. There are valid reasons for refraining and it does seem from what I read it does seem that it is consensual. However, there are valid psychological reasons for refraining. Sometimes a woman has been raped, etc and under those circumstances it would be difficult and cruel to force her to render the debt. Granted that is an extreme situation but it shows that for nonphysical reasons (ie mental) thereare suffiicient reasons when it is wise for the husband to not require the wife to render the debt. The question here is is this psychological issue that she is dealing with is serious enough. Not knowing that as it it is difficult to assess the situation over the internet for all of us we need to be careful about saying you absolutly must do such and such. From what I understand Moral law does not require the payment of the marital debt immediately under all situations. It is a delicate situation. While it is good that she is on the forum looking for help I believe it would be good for and older devout couple to mentor them that is local along with an older (and therefore more experienced) priest who is solid and compassionate.

 

[mrpathetic]

I don’t see this “marriage debt” thing in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It is expressed the in the current CCC in Article VII, section 5:

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**.

Emphasis my own.

The theology comes directly from 1 Corinthians 7. See the article here:

fisheaters.com/holymatrimony.html

In the fisheaters article, it is described as the “marital debt”. Same concept. This chapter from the Bible should be required reading tonight for the OP.

What 1 Corinthians 7 conveys, quite simply, is this: when you take marriage vows, your body no longer remains your body. It becomes your spouse’s body. Similarly. Your spouse’s body becomes your body. Each person is then entrusted with the needs of the spouse’s body - including the sexual needs. **This is they key point which St. Paul tries to convey, in this chapter of 1 Corinthians. And this is the key point that the OP needs to understand. **

The OP’s body is no longer her own. It is owed to her spouse - whom she is denying sex to. She is denying this debt, and as such, is “in default.” And this condition is disordered, and gravely sinful.

It is time for her to pay up.

 

[former_Catholic]

Adrenal exhaustion or insufficiency is something very different. It may have similar effects, but that does not make it the same thing… Let’s not generalize the commonality of this medical condition.

And let’s not be so foolish as to suggest to any suffering person that she is in some sort of a state of *sin *defined by *Medieval texts *written by Medieval doctors who also practiced Medieval medicine, without also pointing out that those very same symptoms that they described in Medieval medical terms as textbook symptoms of “the sin of acedia” also appear in modern medical textbooks, all the way down to the fact that yes, healthy adrenal glands really do kick into activity at 4:00 p.m… in the modern day no less than they did in the days of Medieval monks.

 

[1ke]

That is true that the marriage debt valid. However, if there are psychological issues and there is consensual agreement it might be better to wait until some of the more serious psychological issues are worked out. I beleive that may be the case here. Obviously the marriage debt can not be friviously withheld. For those who are psychologically wounded it is not always the best thing to force them to complete it- if they are not ready.

The OP may indeed have issues that need addressing. However, the fact that she had a physical affair with another man that she had to stop short of intercourse seems to point away from some psychological trauma with initmacy. She was plenty ready to be intimate with this other man.

Her problems are complex, yes, and I agree she should seek professional care.

From what I understand Moral law does not require the payment of the marital debt immediately under all situations.

Not if by mutual consent. Otherwise, yes, it is to be rendered.

 

[cephas161619]

And let’s not be so foolish as to suggest to any suffering person that she is in some sort of a state of *sin *defined by *Medieval texts *written by Medieval doctors who also practiced Medieval medicine, without also pointing out that those very same symptoms that they described in Medieval medical terms as textbook symptoms of “the sin of acedia” also appear in modern medical textbooks, all the way down to the fact that yes, healthy adrenal glands really do kick into activity at 4:00 p.m… in the modern day no less than they did in the days of Medieval monks.

Formerwas, are you suggesting that the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Bible are medieval? When a guy has plenty of energy to spend hours under the hood of his car tinkering but not enough energy to take out the garbage, I suggest that blaming the adrenal glands is pretty poor science. Sin is real. I’m not saying it’s everywhere, and I didn’t say anyone was sinning, but to write off acedia as glands, shows very faulty science.

 

[former_Catholic]

Formerwas, are you suggesting that the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Bible are medieval? When a guy has plenty of energy to spend hours under the hood of his car tinkering but not enough energy to take out the garbage, I suggest that blaming the adrenal glands is pretty poor science. Sin is real. I’m not saying it’s everywhere, and I didn’t say anyone was sinning, but to write off acedia as glands, shows very faulty science.

And suggesting that this case involving a survivor of childhood sexual abuse (exposure to pornography as a child constitutes childhood sexual abuse) is comparable to dealing with someone tinkering with cars and taking out garbage is complete lunacy.
Why doesn’t a woman want to have sexual relations with her husband? Typically, because she was sexually abused as a child before she ever had a concept of what constitutes sexual abuse and so never had words nor framework of reference with which to describe and file the experience as easily retrievable and communicate-able memory.
Why doesn’t a man want to have relations with his wife? Typically, because she has demonstrated that she doesn’t want sexual relations with him. Unless he is a rapist, why on earth would he want to give himself to someone who doesn’t want him?
Why would she marry a responsible Catholic man?
Because her mother’s love taught her that was love.
Why would she be repeatedly attracted to sexually saavy manipulative lying immature sexually abusive irresponsible bad boys?
Because her father’s love taught her that was love.

 

[cephas161619]

And suggesting that this case involving a survivor of childhood sexual abuse (exposure to pornography as a child constitutes childhood sexual abuse) is comparable to dealing with someone tinkering with cars and taking out garbage is complete lunacy.

I was not comparing tinkering with cars and taking out the garbage to anything OP wrote. I was giving an example of something that may be termed acedia. Dismissing the idea of sin out of hand as medieval, while such a dismissal may qualify as ‘modern’ and ‘enlightened’, is nothing short of insulting.

 

[former_Catholic]

I was not comparing tinkering with cars and taking out the garbage to anything OP wrote. I was giving an example of something that may be termed acedia. Dismissing the idea of sin out of hand as medieval, while such a dismissal may qualify as ‘modern’ and ‘enlightened’, is nothing short of insulting.

Suggesting that either of these kids is *sinful * and offering a diagnosis of “acedia” is nothing short of malpractice

 

[cephas161619]

Suggesting that either of these kids is *sinful * and offering a diagnosis of “acedia” is nothing short of malpractice

I was also not suggesting that. Read my original post. I was simply saying that we cannot be so quick to dismiss the idea of sin. Whether there is sin involved in this instance is more than I will pretend to tackle, but when you dismiss the idea of sin as medieval, you are being offensive to the Catholics in this forum.

 

[mrpathetic]

Why doesn’t a woman want to have sexual relations with her husband? Typically, because she was sexually abused as a child before she ever had a concept of what constitutes sexual abuse and so never had words nor framework of reference with which to describe and file the experience as easily retrievable and communicate-able memory.

That is certainly true in some cases, but not all. Not every sexual refuses was a victim of CSA. There are a multitude of reasons behind this - just like any sexual sin. Please don’t generalize in this fashion.

If you want a full catalog, see the list here - this is the most comprehensive list of reason that I know of:

themarriagebed.com/pages/problem/desire/lackdesire.shtml

The OP’s problems seem to fall closest to this: **guilt from (false or genuine) sexual sin. ** She seems extraordinarily guilty over her adultery with this bad boy - and she needs to overcome it, if she wants to have a real marriage. She owes this, to her real husband. She needs to find forgiveness from the Lord from this sin, and then focus her life on her husband, marriage, and marriage bed.

 

[former_Catholic]

when you dismiss the idea of sin as medieval, you are being offensive to the Catholics in this forum.

Please read my post. I did NOT dismiss the idea of sin as Medieval. I pointed out that Medieval texts diagnosed acedia by physical symptoms that are also described in medical texts of today as symptoms of adrenal exhaustion. Medieval doctors of the Church were also the medical doctors of their day. It is important not to diagnose any potential physical symptoms as a spiritual sin when they could well be signs of real physical anomaly requiring examination by a physician, doing so could constitute either spiritual or medical malpractice.

 

[cephas161619]

Medieval texts diagnosed acedia by physical symptoms that are also described in medical texts of today as symptoms of adrenal exhaustion. Medieval doctors of the Church were also the medical doctors of their day.

I wonder how much you’re reading the actual texts and how much you’re reading from secondary sources with a bias.

Doctors of the Church still exist today, and have nothing to do with medical doctors. While many medical doctors were holy people, and even many priests were at the cutting edge of science, they did not ‘mix science and religion’ as some would have you believe. For examples, see these links:
catholicism.org/famous-catholic-scientists.html
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=334105

Many of the Church members listed are still held in high esteem today by the scientific community. Now I wonder on what basis you’re suggesting Medieval doctors of the Church were also the medical doctors of their day. Seriously?

It is important not to diagnose any potential physical symptoms as a spiritual sin when they could well be signs of real physical anomaly requiring examination by a physician, doing so could constitute either spiritual or medical malpractice.

True. and the converse is also true. It is important not to diagnose any potential spiritual sins as a physical problem when they could well be the signs of real spiritual anomalies requiring examination by a spiritual director.

 

[Sed_libera_nos]

The OP may indeed have issues that need addressing. However, the fact that she had a physical affair with another man that she had to stop short of intercourse seems to point away from some psychological trauma with initmacy. She was plenty ready to be intimate with this other man.

Her problems are complex, yes, and I agree she should seek professional care.

Not if by mutual consent. Otherwise, yes, it is to be rendered.

Hello 1ke, That is true- I didn’t pay enough attention to that. While I still believe that there are psychological issues (but they have to be serious and traumatic) that may cause the debt to have to be delayed (but never eliminated) until they are dealt with that scenario does not apply here.

As far as under what circumstances they may be delayed is an enitirely different topic that is out of place on this post- given what 1ke said.

It seems that while she admires her husband she does not find him romantically attractive. That by no means is sufficient. It appears she married him as she beleives he is superior to the type of man she is usually attracted to.

In that case she needs to realize that feelings are just that. As a wife she has obligations (as well as her husband). The marriage act is part of the duties of marriage unless they agree to abstain to make a sacrifice to God.

She has a few options.
1: Overcome those feelings and fulfill her duties as a wife. True love has very little to do with feelings. Romantic feelings may eventually come. They may not- offer that as a sacrifice to God.
2 Seek to have the marriage dissolved by the proper Church authorities.
3 With the consent of her husband enter religious life and take vows.

I believe 1 is the best course for her as she has difficultly resisting temptation and given her history/ preferences it is unlikely she will find a better spouse. She needs to learn that attraction is not love and that relationships can not depend upon them. From what has been said that seems to be the problem. In that case it becomes an exercise of the will and might not be serious unless she chooses to take the easier and more pleasurable course (never lasts long and has serious eternal consequences).

Thanks again for pointing that out. God bless.

 

[former_Catholic]

That is certainly true in some cases, but not all. Not every sexual refuses was a victim of CSA. There are a multitude of reasons behind this - just like any sexual sin. Please don’t generalize in this fashion.

Who cares about ALL cases? I care about THIS WOMAN.
THIS WOMAN in her own words “horrifically” “learned about sex” *at age “7-ish” *and clearly and vividly remembers having been exposed to pornography as a child.
Exposure of a child to pornography constitutes sexual abuse of that child.
This woman was sexually abused as a child

Please do not write off the facts of her case.
Please do not write off the fact of her victimhood as an innocent child.
I am not interested in the “full catalog” of “sexual sins”
I am interested in the mental health and dignity of this individual woman who is LEGALLY a survivor of childhood sexual abuse.
EXPOSURE OF A CHILD TO PORNOGRAPHY CONSTITUTES THE SEXUAL ABUSE
OF THAT CHILD
WHEN AN ADULT SAYS THAT SHE HORRIFICALLY LEARNED ABOUT SEX ABOUT AGE SEVEN, SHE IS CLEARLY STATING THAT SHE IS AN ADULT SURVIVOR OF CHILDHOOD SEXUAL ABUSE.

The OP’s problems seem to fall closest to this: **guilt from (false or genuine) sexual sin. **

That hardly explains her problem on her wedding night, and all those other nights, long before she crossed paths with the “bad boy.”

 

[djeter]

Sorry for introducing acedia into all of this but if you read the Kathleen Norris posts I gave you the links to, there is a sense in her writings about the inevitability of sin and the inability to struggle against it, the hopelessness of the struggle, that I picked up in the posts from the young lady here. You see it in Paul as well: “For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” Romans 7:19. There is a web that we fall into when it comes to sin and it is important to know that we are not alone in experiencing that sense of befuddled failure: What was I thinking? How did I get here? Rather than medicalizing it and seeking a pharmaceutical solution (all too happily prescribed by the therapeutic powers that be), sometimes we are better served by digging into our faith and pulling out resources we never knew we had.

Anyways, the Norris selections are wonderful and we all would do well to read them carefully.

Once again they are located here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/17/life-emerging-out-of-what-had-seemed-dead/

and here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/20/from-eight-bad-thoughts-to-seven-sins/

My own personal struggle with acedia here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/02/obstructions-to-joy/

and what we are all called to here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/22/called-to-holiness/

regards

dj

anyways lads, lighten up here – you’ve all made wonderful points and have brought different pov to the story here – squabbling about who is right or wrong trivializes the motivation to help in someway, there is no need for it at all – everyone is trying their best, are they not?