Why do Catholics view sex as essential to marriage?

[JimG]

Strictly speaking, it is the capacity to have marital relations that is essential at the start of a valid marriage. That is why a person who is permanently and incurably incapable of marital intercourse prior to marriage cannot be validly married, while a person who is infertile but capable of marital relations can be married.

God’s command to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That is how the human race continues, and marriage is how men and woman accomplish that command.

Permanence, fidelity, and openness to life are all essential to marriage. Marriage is more than friendship, more than feelings, more than romance. It is a permanent and unbreakable bond by which a man and woman commit to each other for life, in which they also commit to jointly raise their children. It is more than falling in love. It is deciding to love every day for life.

 

[Elizium23]

Not a declaration of nullity. A non-consummated marriage can be dissolved.

A non-consummated marriage may also be declared null, which may actually be easier than invoking the Petrine Privilege, which is a case that must go straight to Rome for approval by the Pope, whereas a declaration of nullity goes through a diocesan tribunal. It is all dependent on the circumstances of the situation.

 

[Falco]

Strictly speaking, it is the capacity to have marital relations that is essential at the start of a valid marriage. That is why a person who is permanently and incurably incapable of marital intercourse prior to marriage cannot be validly married, while a person who is infertile but capable of marital relations can be married.

.

Is this a church rule? Say, for instance, a couple in old age decide to marry for love and companionship, but cannot have sex, they would not be able to marry in church?
And yet to live together would be living in sin?

 

[thistle]

A non-consummated marriage may also be declared null, which may actually be easier than invoking the Petrine Privilege, which is a case that must go straight to Rome for approval by the Pope, whereas a declaration of nullity goes through a diocesan tribunal. It is all dependent on the circumstances of the situation.

A declaration of nullity has nothing to do with what happens after the marriage has taken place. The marriage could be valid but not consummated. That would mean dissolution would be the only possible solution.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

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.

Not a declaration of nullity. A non-consummated marriage can be dissolved.

A non-consummated marriage may also be declared null, which may actually be easier than invoking the Petrine Privilege, which is a case that must go straight to Rome for approval by the Pope, whereas a declaration of nullity goes through a diocesan tribunal. It is all dependent on the circumstances of the situation.

A declaration of nullity has nothing to do with what happens after the marriage has taken place. The marriage could be valid but not consummated. That would mean dissolution would be the only possible solution.

As they say, learn something new every day–thank you.

It seems then, that non-consummation *can *be grounds for a declaration of nullity, under the correct circumstances, but not all cases of non-consummation?

 

[Elizium23]

As they say, learn something new every day–thank you.

It seems then, that non-consummation *can *be grounds for a declaration of nullity, under the correct circumstances, but not all cases of non-consummation?

Yes, the correct circumstances. Two cases spring immediately to mind: impotence, and being closed to life. If one party is impotent then it is a prima facie invalid marriage. The fact of non-consummation will be of material importance to this. Second, if a couple never intended to have children, and decided to abstain from sex for this purpose, then that could arguably be grounds for nullity. See also, using NFP with a contraceptive mentality.

 

[JimG]

Is this a church rule? Say, for instance, a couple in old age decide to marry for love and companionship, but cannot have sex, they would not be able to marry in church?
And yet to live together would be living in sin?

Yes, permanent antecedent impotence is an impediment to marriage. For a couple already validly married, the development of the condition later in life would not affect the validity of the marriage. And of course, there is nothing about simply aging which causes permanent incurable impotence. There are quite a few treatments, in fact.

 

[4311]

Can anyone answer if oral sex between married couples is ok as long as it is a precursor to intercourse

 

[MJJean]

Yes. There is no prohibition on oral sex as long as the male reaches orgasm in the vagina. The female may reach orgasm orally, manually, and/or during intercourse.

 

[Elizium23]

Can anyone answer if oral sex between married couples is ok as long as it is a precursor to intercourse

 

[nikoletodd]

Speaking from experience…sex cannot “make” a marriage but it can “break” one. I am currently living in mortal sin and my soul is in grave danger due to my own actions within a sexless marriage. After 8 and a half years I chose the most horrible route of an affair.

I do take the “better to marry than burn” verse very literal. As a wife and husband yes you join to have children and a companion on the journey of life. Keeping christ as the center of that is a great start but the desires of the flesh are very real and very human. They are the desires that can be shared between a husband and a wife…however in their absence a window of opportunity for Satan to enter opens.

I lost that battle and now I am clawing my way back to God’s good graces. Nothing has changed in my marriage so I am hoping something will change in my heart. I truly believe in the vows I made. If my husband were medically unable to take care of the needs of his wife…it would be different and if we explored ways together to take care of those desires outside of intercourse that would be fine but just your everyday run of the mill excuses damage the foundation and it doesn’t take much to crumble leading to infidelity and divorce.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Yes. There is no prohibition on oral sex as long as** the male reaches orgasm in the vagina.** The female may reach orgasm orally, manually, and/or during intercourse.

Does anybody know how this came to be? What is foundation for this definition of “being procreative?”

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

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!

I’m sorry, this might be my teenage mind coming in, but who showers together when sex isn’t even kind of on your mind? If it’s not meant to be sexual, it’s just crowded and uncomfortable.

 

[Rau]

Strictly speaking, it is the capacity to have marital relations that is essential at the start of a valid marriage. That is why a person who is permanently and incurably incapable of marital intercourse prior to marriage cannot be validly married, while a person who is infertile but capable of marital relations can be married.

It is interesting that a medical problem that, say, prevents erection, may prevent a valid marriage, but a (known) medical problem that renders infertility does not. It suggests that the capacity to engage in physical intimacy is a more important capacity (in support of marriage) than to actually procreate. Perhaps this makes the point that a mutually supporting and sustaining relationship (which sexual intimacy promotes) must come first? Not a totally satisfying explanation though, as one could imagine that the rule might have been that both requirements had to be met. On the other hand, one capacity is going to be obvious prior to marriage, whereas the other is not, unless tested…

 

[MJJean]

Does anybody know how this came to be? What is foundation for this definition of “being procreative?”

It is Church teaching that sex cannot be separated from procreation. The only licit way to procreate is for the man to ejaculate inside the woman allowing the sperm a chance at fertilizing the ovum. Oral, anal, or manual ejaculation doesn’t allow for the possibility of natural procreation.

 

[Jaaanosik]

It is Church teaching that sex cannot be separated from procreation. The only licit way to procreate is for the man to ejaculate inside the woman allowing the sperm a chance at fertilizing the ovum. Oral, anal, or manual ejaculation doesn’t allow for the possibility of natural procreation.

I know and I understand what you are saying.
My question is if somebody here knows how the Church came to that teaching.
Is it the natural law, the Revelation, …?

The natural law has its logic. Is there anybody out there who can explain that logic in this case?

 

[PJM]

=Jaaanosik;11460065]I know and I understand what you are saying.
My question is if somebody here knows how the Church came to that teaching.
Is it the natural law, the Revelation, …?

The natural law has its logic. Is there anybody out there who can explain that logic in this case?

My friend;

Please READ Gen. 1:26-28

That Command to “multiply” is founf NUMEROUS times in the OT
[And who would have thought math was sooo much fun]

 

[thewanderer]

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?

Saying that “one flesh” involves sex does not mean that it consists solely of the physical act of sex. We are material beings. Our bodies are a part of who we are, our material reality is a part of who we are. As humans we need physical touch from others, whether it is the comforting arms of our mother, a friendly hug, a hand on the shoulder, an arm around the waist etc. Can you even begin to imagine being close friends with someone, deeply intimate with them without ever showing that affection through some form of a physical display? I certainly can’t. A mother who refuses to embrace her child when they need it fails them, just as a friend who refuses to comfort you with a hug, or a hand on the shoulder fails you as a friend. Similarly, a spouse who fails to have marital relations with you fails you in that spousal relationship. Yes, spousal love is about much much more than just the physical act of sex, but physical affection is a very important part of showing affection and love between people. And the form of physical affection shown corresponds to the kind of relationship the people in question have with each other.

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.

You are correct. Luckily though, the Church agrees with you. A marriage is a valid marriage as soon as the vows are spoken. However, the Church also recognizes that so long as a valid marriage has not been consummated it has not yet become an entirely unbreakable bond. This is why the Church has the authority to dissolve non-consummated marriages, even if they are valid and sacramental. While the marriage is valid without consummation, it is not entirely permanent and unbreakable until it has been consummated.

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.

Both I and the Church entirely agree with you.

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…

The Church doesn’t say that married people absolutely must have sex. What the Church says is 1) until a marriage is consummated it is still dissolvable, and 2) it is very wrong to refuse to have relations with your spouse when they desire to have relations without a good (or serious) reason. So, if two people get married and mutually decide they will never have marital relations and neither person ever changes their mind or asks the other to have marital relations there is absolutely nothing wrong with them living out their whole married lives together without even consummating the marriage. The Church is totally ok with such a scenario and such a marriage. It really sounds to me as though you do not actually have a problem with the Church’s position on all this, but rather with a misunderstanding of what the Church teaches.

(cont…)

 

[thewanderer]

(…cont)

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? …

Setting aside the question of masturbation (which is always grave matter), I’m going to try and unravel your scenario here. There are two important things I can think of, both of which relate to this. The first is the question of whether/when it is ok to refuse marital relations, the second is whether/when it is ok to pursue marital relations against the wishes of your spouse.

As to the first, as I explained earlier, it is wrong for someone to refuse relations with their spouse without a serious reason. The reason for this is that marital relations are the physical manifestation of the complete giving of self between spouses that occurs within marriage. It is the special way spouses show that they not only love each other but have irrevocably and unconditionally promised themselves to the other. It is wrong to reject such a display of love and affection without a good reason (you’re sick, you have other time-sensitive obligations etc). To make this more clear, lets take an example of a less meaningful sign of affection between friends. Say you and a close friend always greet each other with a warm hug. This hug is a way you show your affection and goodwill towards each other. One day, when you go to greet your friend with this hug, they turn away coldly and refuse to show you this sign of affection and friendship. When you ask them if they hurt their arm (seeing as its the only reason you can imagine they would refuse your sign of affection and friendship, if they were incapable to do so or it would be painful) they answer “no, I’m perfectly fine, I just don’t feel like hugging you today, now lets go get that coffee” would you not be extremely hurt? Would you not take that as a sign of rejection of your friendship and love? Similarly (though to an even greater degree because of the greater meaning inherent in marital relations) refusing to have relations with your spouse for no good reason is a horrible rejection of the person you vowed to love and cherish until death. Basically, its a terrible betrayal that will deeply hurt the person you promised to love unconditionally. Its different if you have a good reason, then it would be totally understandable, but it is certainly an unloving act contrary to your marriage vows to do so on a whim without such a reason.

Its important to note here, that if your spouse is objectifying you and using you you do not have the same obligation to engage in that objectification. The obligation is to not refuse to engage in the self-giving act of marital relations. That does not mean you have to give in to every sexual fantasy and whim of your spouse, lust is possible within marriage.

As to the second question (whether/when someone can pursue marital relations when their spouse is unwilling) the answer is that it depends on the circumstances and what is meant by “pursuit”. Physically forcing an unwilling person to have sex with you is rape, whether the person is married to you or not. Similarly, using emotional manipulation (the kind that amounts to emotional abuse) to try and get your spouse to give in and “give you the goods” is also seriously sinful. Even if your spouse is wrongly denying you and rejecting your attempts to show affection and love through sex it would be wrong to force them into it either through physical force or other forms of manipulation. I would also go so far as to say that it is impossible to seek true marital relations with your spouse (as opposed to lustful self-gratification) if you do so by strong-arming them into it. That doesn’t mean you can’t try to persuade them, but no nagging, no threats, no guilt-tripping, no emotional manipulation, and no physical force. Ever. And having said that, there are times when it would be unloving even to try and persuade your spouse to have relations through normally innocent means. If your spouse has a good and legitimate reason to put-off relations then it would be wrong to try to persuade and tempt them otherwise. Charity demands that you put aside your desire to show and receive affection this way because of the good reason your spouse has to refuse. So, going back to the example of the two friends hugging, if you knew your friend had a broken arm, but tried to hug them anyway knowing how painful it would be to your friend, that would no longer be a loving act of friendship. The more you tried to persuade them the more you are treating them in an unloving manner.

Anyway… this has turned into a pretty long and complicated reply, but I hope you will find at least some of it to be helpful. If you are confused by anything I’ve written please feel free to ask about it and I’ll do my best to be more clear.

 

[spunjalebi]

It is Church teaching that sex cannot be separated from procreation. The only licit way to procreate is for the man to ejaculate inside the woman allowing the sperm a chance at fertilizing the ovum. Oral, anal, or manual ejaculation doesn’t allow for the possibility of natural procreation.

That would also mean a couple or a spouse in a marriage who contracepts is not really married, correct?