Why do Catholics view sex as essential to marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agustino
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Agustino

Guest
This is something that troubles me. As I am reading through and studying the Holy Scriptures, I see no mention of sex being essential to marriage. In other words, how is it that a marriage only truly becomes a marriage after the people involved have had sex? My conscience tells me that this is a misinterpretation of Scripture. Becoming “one flesh” does NOT involve sex. Is love not more than the physical aspect? Why has something so holy as love become a prisoner to something of the flesh such as sex?

And for those of you who will bring Paul’s letters up, Paul was simply telling those of Corinth that it is better to have sex in marriage than to try to abstain and afterwards sin because of the attempt. But this was a concession, given because they could not do otherwise. And nowhere is it mentioned that a marriage does not become a marriage until the couple has had sex. However, if two people truly love each other, then surely they don’t love each other because they can selfishly obtain some pleasure from the other through sex do they? If two people are “one flesh” then surely they love each other and could go without having sex, just as they went without it before they got married. I’m not saying one SHOULD go without sex in marriage, but rather I’m saying that it is hypocritical for someone to marry just so that they can have sex according to the law. Because that would be following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. For in this case sex would be the center of their marriage, and not love and companionship as God intends. It is clear that God made Eve as a COMPANION unto Adam, not as a sex toy. So if Eve wasn’t made with the main purpose of fulfilling Adam’s sensual desires, then why is the Church saying that married people MUST have sex? I understand that people should have sex in marriage, but I feel that when the Church says what it says, people get the idea that it is natural that sex should be the center of marriage. And from what I can understand from Scripture, from the limited amount that I have studied, I don’t see how this is the case. To further clarify perhaps I should give a scenario to see what the Church would say on this matter…

So supposing we have a married couple, and the woman suddenly, for whatever reason, says that she doesn’t feel comfortable having sex and she wants not to have it for 5 months. So if the man truly loves her will he not be willing to sacrifice his selfish desires for her wellbeing? Does the Church think that the man should pressure her into having sex? Or should the man rather try to understand her and give her LOVE AND COMFORT? Maybe if she is given love and comfort she may feel more open to sex over time. But if she feels pressured by her man, or her Church to have sex, then she will feel hurt, uncared for, and then for sure she won’t want to have sex for she is not the man’s object, but rather a human being who deserves to be LOVED by her husband. Should we not care for such a woman? Should the man keep pressuring her to have sex with him, all the while he could, if he is not able to control himself otherwise, masturbate? Here we’re not talking about masturbation OUTSIDE of marriage, or masturbation INSIDE of marriage for the sake of pleasure. We’re talking about a solution which allows the woman to be loved by her man, and allows her man to still remain with her instead of pressure her into having sex or worse, going to other women. And if you think this form of masturbation is wrong, then cite me a passage from the Bible which indicates so. I know the Catholic Church condemns masturbation outside of marriage, and rightfully so, for in that case it would be committing the sin of lusting after women who are not your wife. But once a man is married, and his wife doesn’t feel comfortable having sex, is not the reason for masturbation in this case much different?
 
That’s a red-herring sandwich served on a straw-man platter.
 
Least said:
That’s a red-herring sandwich served on a straw-man platter.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your answer so far. Could you explain what you mean and what you are referring to more precisely please? Thank you!
 
The consummating of marriage is relevant in completing it because that is how God defined the fulfillment and purpose of the sacrament of marriage. It is a vocation which is unitive and it is procreative. It is a also a corporal act of charity because you are producing children to populate the community, and even if the couple for some reason is unable to do that, then they are still publicly reinforcing the sacrament of marriage through the honoring of it. You’re working on a false premise because the sole purpose of marriage is not just so the husband and the wife can love each other. You can (and should) demonstrate such love without marriage at all, and you should demonstrate it to everybody in the world. So if that’s the case, then what would be the unique point of marriage at all? There wouldn’t be, unless of course there was more to it than that, which there is.

A similar line of thought to what you’re using is the protestant view that the Eucharist is a sentimental, symbolic commemoration of when Christ gave up his body. It is in the spirit of love and commemoration, so ultimately, it doesn’t really matter if there is no Real Presence of Christ, right? Wrong. God implemented that sacrament to serve a continuing salvific role in the Church. Jesus redeemed the world and his saving power continues to operate to the present day.

On the subject of masturbation within marriage, it is still inherently disordered because it is fundamentally impossible for self-stimulation and ejaculation to be either procreative or unitive. The procreative and unitive aspect of marriage is demonstrated with conjugal marriage. I suppose you could make an argument that it might not be as sinful as a single man masturbating to the fantasy of living with a harem of women, but it is still objectively sinful.
 
I think sex is essential to a marriage. It promotes physical and emotional intimacy (pair bond), has the potential to create life, And, frankly, a person who is having sex with their spouse is less likely to be tempted to grave sin.

A lot here about sex being selfless and giving. How can a wife say she loves her husband and yet refuse him? Not very selfless or giving.

foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/catholic-beliefs/marital-sexuality/

Not a Catholic site, but…

1Cor 7:5 (NKJ) Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time…
1Cor 7:5 (Wey) Do not refuse one another, unless perhaps it is just for a time and by mutual consent…

So, it is a sin to refuse sex to your spouse. More to the point are the verses just before:

1Cor 7:3-4 (NRS) The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

And
religiousstudiesblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/traditional-catholic-theologian-on-sex.html

Apparently, refusing sex is not a sin** IF** there is good reason. I am not sure “I don’t wanna” is a good reason.

Having been married for 10 years I can say I have had sex when I was not really in the mood because my husband asked and I had no real reason to say no. My husband has also shared his body with me when I felt desire for him and he was stressed/tired and didn’t really feel like it. Neither of us had good reason to say no and didn’t want to hurt the others feelings or damage our bond. Of course, saying no has always been ok when one of us was physically ill or experiencing pain. And we’ve both heard “I would, but I am really tied and feel cruddy right now. Rain check?” and been fine with waiting a day or so.

On masturbation
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0706.html

and faculty.plts.edu/gpence/PS2010/html/new_catholic_encyclopedia_masturbation.htm

** It has been the constant and clear teaching of the Church from principles found in Holy Scripture that masturbation is a serious sin that will keep one from heaven (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:10). **As is also clear from the teaching of the Church as well as from reason, this refers to fully deliberate acts of masturbation. In assigning a reason for such a serious prohibition, the Church teaches that the sexual function is meant by God to serve primarily for the begetting of children. Therefore, any deliberate activation of it outside the proper state of marriage is seriously inordinate and sinful. Within marriage such stimulation is lawful only when it serves in some way to prepare for or to complete a natural act of marital intercourse.

As in the case of any objectively and gravely sinful matter, for a person to be formally guilty of a mortal sin of masturbation, his act must be a fully deliberate choice of what he fully realizes is seriously evil. If the act is performed with only partial realization or only partial choice of the will, the person is guilty of venial sin. If there is no free choice of the will, there is no guilt of sin at all, even if the person is aware of what he is doing. This is true even when a person foresees that sexual stimulation and even orgasm will result from some action that he is freely performing, provided that he does not intend the sexual stimulation but merely permits it, and that he has a sufficiently good reason for what he is doing. (See DOUBLE EFFECT, PRINCIPLE OF.) This has been the constant teaching of the Church through her theologians. Most theologians outside the Church agree basically with this teaching.

my words in blue to distinguish from what I was copy-pasting
 
As Catholics, we do not believe that something has to “be in the Bible” to be one of God’s truths… but that is a topic for another thread.

God did create Eve to be a companion to Adam, and the first thing He said to them was to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:29).

Now, what sets apart a marriage from any other relationship? Engaging in the marital act. That is the covenental act which solidifies and renews the marriage covenant. If the marital act does not occur, then the marriage has not been ratified and there is no difference between it and a friendship, is there?

The Church has taught from the very beginning that becoming one flesh is engaging in the marital act and vice versa–in effect that they are two different names for the same thing. That is why adultery and fornication are so evil.

One should not marry *only *to have sex; that would be like those Moslems who “marry” a prostitute, go about their business, then “divorce” her… without the divorce.

We need to consider the situation when St Paul wrote that letter. Christians of that time believed Christ would return very soon, and so they did not give thought to the future as we do. Many sold their businesses, for example.

So many wanted to live as nuns and monks, but some were not suited to this type of life. St Paul was telling them that rather than try to live a lifestyle they weren’t suited to, they should marry, a lifestyle for which they were suited. The Church still does this: those who enter the religious life are supposed to undergo a period of discernment.

The pleasure which accompanies the marital act is complementary to the act and it is sinful to enjoy that pleasure when the act to which it is to be joined is not fully carried out.

The spiuses actually have a duty to engage in the marital act at the reasonable request of their spouses, not the other way around.
 
I am too often flippant in my responses, and apologize, however, I don’t feel that you have set forth the Church’s position correctly (on much if anything) and it would take a lot of unravelling before you could get around to your actual question. The red-herring comment is only in response to the way the OP was initiated (as though there was a missing page of string beforehand).

I do not speak for the Church, but I believe [resolutely] that any guidance offered by it, is to aid in your alignment and allegiance with GOD.

GOD has an order, but it is not wholly imposed by HIM.

Man is to be “one” with the only thing he can and that is woman (and vice-versa). If the two are to be one, they are to love each other, the two should not be that one without (in part) accepting one of the essential qualities of, and obvious *purposes for *the oneness.
So man and women offer each other the part of their love that, when returned (together) makes the one the closest in nature to the Divinity of the Lord.

You call it sex.
 
We do not view sex as essential to Holy Matrimony, but as something that belongs within Holy Matrimony.

Marriage and the nuptial act are natural goods. Sex within marriage is not a sin. But a marriage is a true marriage after the public declaration of vows, assuming the ability to engage in the act that normally brings forth children exists. It is at this point in time that grace of the sacrament is conferred and the two people are truly married.

There are two valid forms of marriage recognized: an ordinary form, and an extraordinary form termed spiritual or Josephite marriage (the type of marriage st. Joseph and Our Lady had). In this spiritual marriage, the spouses, being able to engage in the marital embrace, mutually agree to abstain from it.

However, due to the spiritual dangers that this carries along, it is difficult to discern and the spouses are always under spiritual direction, so that if it becomes necessary for the good of the spouses, the spiritual director may direct that the marriage be consummated.

Or it could happen at a later stage in life, that the spouses decide upon mutual agreement and under spiritual direction, to live in continence.
 
R_C said:
We do not view sex as essential to Holy Matrimony, but as something that belongs within Holy Matrimony.

Marriage and the nuptial act are natural goods. Sex within marriage is not a sin. But a marriage is a true marriage after the public declaration of vows, assuming the ability to engage in the act that normally brings forth children exists. It is at this point in time that grace of the sacrament is conferred and the two people are truly married.

There are two valid forms of marriage recognized: an ordinary form, and an extraordinary form termed spiritual or Josephite marriage (the type of marriage st. Joseph and Our Lady had). In this spiritual marriage, the spouses, being able to engage in the marital embrace, mutually agree to abstain from it.

However, due to the spiritual dangers that this carries along, it is difficult to discern and the spouses are always under spiritual direction, so that if it becomes necessary for the good of the spouses, the spiritual director may direct that the marriage be consummated.

Or it could happen at a later stage in life, that the spouses decide upon mutual agreement and under spiritual direction, to live in continence.
Click to expand...
Non-consumation is grounds for nullity.
 
St_Francis said:
Non-consumation is grounds for nullity.
Click to expand...
I am no Canon Law expert, but non-consummation is not always the same, namely there seems to be a major difference if the Church was aware that there was a spiritual marriage, that is, a specific vow involved.
 
Thanks for all the answers, it has been very helpful for me and enabled me to see more clearly the Catholic position on the matter. It makes sense that neither of the two partners should deprive the other of sex just for the sake of depriving them. That would clearly not be the right thing to do.

Some of the answers have mentioned that if there was no sex (and by that I will understand intercourse), then there would be no point to marriage. In other words marriage would not be a more special relationship than any other. But from what I know from married couples, there’s a lot more going between them that isn’t sex (intercourse). For example, the two people share everything with each other, all their feelings and emotions, their thoughts, their problems, etc. You wouldn’t normally have this type of relationship with others, except your spouse. Also is it not possible for married couples to hug each other, kiss (on the lips), hold hands and do other gestures of affection that they don’t do with anyone else? Also married couples would not be afraid to shower together, and be really intimate. So even without the actual intercourse, isn’t all of the above something that makes marriage a special relationship? Or is this form of affection between a couple also considered to be part of sex? Thanks for teh clarifications!
 
St_Francis said:
Non-consumation is grounds for nullity.
Click to expand...
Excuse my lack of knowledge, but why is this considered grounds for nullity? Also, in the case that two people get married, but in time one of them is no longer able to have sex (let’s say for a medical reason), would the Church recommend that the marriage be nullified? Even if the person who can no longer have intercourse still loves and cares about his spouse, and hugs her, and does all other things necessary to express his love?
 
=Agustino;10946944]This is something that troubles me. As I am reading through and studying the Holy Scriptures, I see no mention of sex being essential to marriage. In other words, how is it that a marriage only truly becomes a marriage after the people involved have had sex? My conscience tells me that this is a misinterpretation of Scripture. Becoming “one flesh” does NOT involve sex. Is love not more than the physical aspect? Why has something so holy as love become a prisoner to something of the flesh such as sex?
Click to expand...
And for those of you who will bring Paul’s letters up, Paul was simply telling those of Corinth that it is better to have sex in marriage than to try to abstain and afterwards sin because of the attempt. But this was a concession, given because they could not do otherwise. And nowhere is it mentioned that a marriage does not become a marriage until the couple has had sex. However, if two people truly love each other, then surely they don’t love each other because they can selfishly obtain some pleasure from the other through sex do they? If two people are “one flesh” then surely they love each other and could go without having sex, just as they went without it before they got married. I’m not saying one SHOULD go without sex in marriage, but rather I’m saying that it is hypocritical for someone to marry just so that they can have sex according to the law. Because that would be following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. For in this case sex would be the center of their marriage, and not love and companionship as God intends. It is clear that God made Eve as a COMPANION unto Adam, not as a sex toy. So if Eve wasn’t made with the main purpose of fulfilling Adam’s sensual desires, then why is the Church saying that married people MUST have sex? I understand that people should have sex in marriage, but I feel that when the Church says what it says, people get the idea that it is natural that sex should be the center of marriage. And from what I can understand from Scripture, from the limited amount that I have studied, I don’t see how this is the case. To further clarify perhaps I should give a scenario to see what the Church would say on this matter…
Click to expand...
So supposing we have a married couple, and the woman suddenly, for whatever reason, says that she doesn’t feel comfortable having sex and she wants not to have it for 5 months. So if the man truly loves her will he not be willing to sacrifice his selfish desires for her wellbeing? Does the Church think that the man should pressure her into having sex? Or should the man rather try to understand her and give her LOVE AND COMFORT? Maybe if she is given love and comfort she may feel more open to sex over time. But if she feels pressured by her man, or her Church to have sex, then she will feel hurt, uncared for, and then for sure she won’t want to have sex for she is not the man’s object, but rather a human being who deserves to be LOVED by her husband. Should we not care for such a woman? Should the man keep pressuring her to have sex with him, all the while he could, if he is not able to control himself otherwise, masturbate? Here we’re not talking about masturbation OUTSIDE of marriage, or masturbation INSIDE of marriage for the sake of pleasure. We’re talking about a solution which allows the woman to be loved by her man, and allows her man to still remain with her instead of pressure her into having sex or worse, going to other women. And if you think this form of masturbation is wrong, then cite me a passage from the Bible which indicates so. I know the Catholic Church condemns masturbation outside of marriage, and rightfully so, for in that case it would be committing the sin of lusting after women who are not your wife. But once a man is married, and his wife doesn’t feel comfortable having sex, is not the reason for masturbation in this case much different?
Click to expand...
Why of COURSE it is:)

Going by memory here, but as I recall “Go forth and multiply” is listed as a COMMAND from God more than 20 times in the book of Genesis ALONE:D

That dear friend is the PRIMARY purpose for humanities sexuality AND Marriage.

God Bless you,
Patrick [PJM]
 
Agustino said:
Thanks for all the answers, it has been very helpful for me and enabled me to see more clearly the Catholic position on the matter. It makes sense that neither of the two partners should deprive the other of sex just for the sake of depriving them. That would clearly not be the right thing to do.

Some of the answers have mentioned that if there was no sex (and by that I will understand intercourse), then there would be no point to marriage. In other words marriage would not be a more special relationship than any other. But from what I know from married couples, there’s a lot more going between them that isn’t sex (intercourse). For example, the two people share everything with each other, all their feelings and emotions, their thoughts, their problems, etc. You wouldn’t normally have this type of relationship with others, except your spouse. Also is it not possible for married couples to hug each other, kiss (on the lips), hold hands and do other gestures of affection that they don’t do with anyone else? Also married couples would not be afraid to shower together, and be really intimate. So even without the actual intercourse, isn’t all of the above something that makes marriage a special relationship? Or is this form of affection between a couple also considered to be part of sex? Thanks for teh clarifications!
Click to expand...
It is possible (and happens all the time) that non-married friends would share so much with each other. This is especially true among a nuclear family, such as between a child and a parent, two siblings, etc. Love & fellowship between each other is one of the base reasons why God created us (second only to loving God) and it is not at all limited between two people that entered sacramental matrimony. Remember that in the beatific vision (heaven), there will be no such thing as married people, or for that matter, no such thing as consecrated people either. Those are both earthly vocations.

If you want to go into physical intimacy, then yes, two extremely good friends would not shower together or kiss, or if they did hug/kiss it would be because they are dating and considering marriage. But this is proving the point. The vocation of marriage is unique because its purpose is the openness to procreation, and to that end, the two people share each other with their daily lives, nakedness, physical intimacy, etc. It was pointed out that in extraordinary forms of marriage (such as between Mary and Joseph) there could be a mutual consent to not engage in conjugal sex, but that is not the regular role of marriage, and in the case of Mary and Joseph, they still fulfilled the parental role of raising a child, and he wasn’t even adopted, so their particular marriage was entirely special & unique to any other.
 
Agustino said:
Thanks for all the answers, it has been very helpful for me and enabled me to see more clearly the Catholic position on the matter. It makes sense that neither of the two partners should deprive the other of sex just for the sake of depriving them. That would clearly not be the right thing to do.

Yes. But, again, “I don’t wanna” isn’t a valid reason and is depriving a spouse. Sexuality is part of being a normal human. If someone doesn’t want sex for an extended period of time there is a problem. In that case I think the spouse with the problem is obligated to seek treatment.

Some of the answers have mentioned that if there was no sex (and by that I will understand intercourse), then there would be no point to marriage. In other words marriage would not be a more special relationship than any other. But from what I know from married couples, there’s a lot more going between them that isn’t sex (intercourse). **For example, the two people share everything with each other, all their feelings and emotions, their thoughts, their problems, etc. You wouldn’t normally have this type of relationship with others, except your spouse. **
Not true. Many relationships share the same emotional intimacy. Friends and family members come to mind.

Also is it not possible for married couples to hug each other, kiss (on the lips), hold hands and do other gestures of affection that they don’t do with anyone else? Also married couples would not be afraid to shower together, and be really intimate.

Again, not true. I hug, kiss, hold hands with friends and family.( I reserve “deep kissing” for my spouse.) We’re a touchy-feely bunch. I have showered with female friends and family in the bathroom chatting away and I have actually shared a shower stall with other female friends in a pinch when rushed. Nothing sexual, just a single bathroom and urgent need.

So even without the actual intercourse, isn’t all of the above something that makes marriage a special relationship? Or is this form of affection between a couple also considered to be part of sex? Thanks for teh clarifications!

Sure, a marriage can have closeness and intimacy without sex, but the reality is that so can many other relationships. There is a just deeper bond when you’re sharing physical intimacy (intercourse) with your spouse on something of a regular basis. And, for most marriages, withholding sexual intimacy damages the bond.
Click to expand...
TK421 said:
It is possible (and happens all the time) that non-married friends would share so much with each other. This is especially true among a nuclear family, such as between a child and a parent, two siblings, etc. Love & fellowship between each other is one of the base reasons why God created us (second only to loving God) and it is not at all limited between two people that entered sacramental matrimony. Remember that in the beatific vision (heaven), there will be no such thing as married people, or for that matter, no such thing as consecrated people either. Those are both earthly vocations.

If you want to go into physical intimacy, then yes, two extremely good friends would not shower together or kiss. But this is proving the point. The vocation of marriage is unique because it’s purpose is the openness to procreation, and to that end, the two people share each other with their daily lives, nakedness, physical intimacy, etc. It was pointed out that in extraordinary forms of marriage (such as between Mary and Joseph) there could be a mutual consent to not engage in conjugal sex, but that is not the regular role of marriage.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
A non-consummated marriage is presumed to be valid, therefore consummation is not required “to make a marriage a marriage”. However, a non-consummated marriage can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff in the Petrine privilege. This is not the same as “grounds for nullity”. A dissolution of a marriage means that it was a valid bond in the first place, but the bond no longer exists.

There is much confusion about Catholic marriage law. Please do not perpetuate the myths and errors without checking reliable sources for good information.
 
Agustino said:
Excuse my lack of knowledge, but why is this considered grounds for nullity? Also, in the case that two people get married, but in time one of them is no longer able to have sex (let’s say for a medical reason), would the Church recommend that the marriage be nullified? Even if the person who can no longer have intercourse still loves and cares about his spouse, and hugs her, and does all other things necessary to express his love?
Click to expand...
There is a HUGE difference between someone who is medically unable to have sex and someone who just doesn’t want to like the example in your original post.

The Church usually doesn’t randomly recommend a marriage be annulled, but non-consumation (not having sex ever after the marriage took place) is grounds for an annulment if one or both parties request one. It’s not just the Church, either. Non-consummation is also grounds for a legal annulment in most countries.

Why? Because marriage is meant to be a physical and spiritual joining between a man and a woman for the good of the spouses and for procreation. Can’t procreate if you aren’t having sex and withholding sex is certainly not for the good of the spouse who is being denied.

Now, having sex after marriage and then withholding sex wouldn’t necessarily be seen as grounds for annulment. But it could be used as evidence that the marriage was never a marriage to begin with depending on other circumstances and in that case an annulment could be granted
 
There’s never a time that I feel “closer” to my wife than during and after sex. Now if we couldn’t do that for some reason, physical or otherwise, then we would find our way. But we can, and it’s a great tool to take advantage of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top