Posted on 09/17/2016 9:38:19 AM PDT by Salvation
In marriage, couples exchange a right to expect a reasonable recourse to sexual intimacy
Msgr. Charles Pope September 18, 2016
Question: If one spouse indicates an unwillingness to have any more children, would the other spouse be free to refuse all sexual intimacy? — Name Withheld, Wichita, Kansas
Answer: You raise and link two issues that must first be treated separately. In the second matter, refusing all marital intimacy, except for a grave cause, is a violation of the rights of one’s spouse. When a man and a woman marry, they exchange, among other goods, what Canon Law calls jus in corporis, a right to expect a reasonable recourse to sexual intimacy.
St. Paul writes, “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and only for a time…” (1 Cor 7:3-5).
So, other things being equal, the ongoing refusal of marital intimacy is an injustice to one’s spouse. There are, of course certain times when a spouse may reasonably and temporarily withhold requests for intimacy (e.g. health, significant fatigue or inconvenience, etc). The right to intimacy refers to a reasonable expectation of intimacy, not an absolute one.
|
In the second issue you raise, there is a spouse who is no longer open to the good of children. In itself this is problematic. One may seek to delay the birth of another child, but this must be for a serious reason (e.g. serious health or financial issues) and not involve contraceptive acts, but rather abstinence during fertile periods.
In the example you cite, presuming the reasons to avoid pregnancy are serious, it would be wrong for one spouse to fully withhold marital intimacy, for the reasons stated, even if he or she is open to another child. A husband or wife cannot however be required by their spouse to use illicit forms of contraception and they should not directly cooperate in such action.
But even this does not mean that they may, or must, refuse all sexual intimacy. In circumstances where one spouse makes sinful use of contraceptive measures, the other spouse is not required to refuse intimacy and do not incur sin as long as they state clearly their objection to the practice and does not cooperate in any direct way. For example, a husband may not be able to stop his wife taking a pill that suppresses ovulation, but as long as he does not cooperate with it and states his concerns, he does not incur sin by having recourse to the marital act.
Monsignor Pope Ping from his OSV column.
Yes, it was interesting that he knew to separate the two issues.
This is kind of tangenally related to what we were discussing earlier. It may be of interest to you.
This is kind of tangentially related to what we were discussing earlier. It may be of interest to you.
I didn’t ever want to have kids but ended up with six grandkids for whom I vigorously advocate in family court (God works in mysterious ways).
Kindle
Kindle
Somehow, it always comes back to, “You MUST have sex, regardless of (fill in the blank),” even if you’re not allowed to have a baby.
Something is WRONG with this.
You do a tremendous amount of good, Steve.
If one spouse promised YES to children, then changed his/her mind, then annulment would, no doubt, be granted.
It's not too complicated: Promises made to each other before God.
What is wrong with this is that we DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY. We don't ever seem to get the whole story, just dribs and drabs of what the media what us to know.
We were set up with this "no-win" scenario and you gave the answer that everyone wanted to hear. I'm not disagreeing with you but I DON'T believe we are hearing even a SMIDGEN of the whole story.
My comment is independent of the specific circumstances that might be behind the question. Msgr. Pope’s response is the standard, supported by myriads of commentators over the centuries. In summary, a married woman is a hired sex worker, if that’s what it comes down to. (I’d be gender-neutral and say the same about a man, except that they cannot perform the service simply by an act of will, so they have an absolute excuse.)
I see.
Men are often married only because of their money in our Western world: Johnny Paycheck. That denigrates men as much as the "sex worker" image denigrates women.
I guess the Christian view of marriage is the best...at least the Catholic view.
The "Henry VIII" viewpoint, the standard Protestant view, made marriage-divorce-remarriage JUST FINE. The ole king made it an Olympic sport, in fact.
The Catholic view is what Jesus described...NOT the Henry VIII model.
So the question is what to do when the couple is out of sync with each other.
Or am I missing your point? Would not be the first time today.
I’m not sure what my point is, except that the conflicting duties - to have sex, to not have a baby - create a very great burden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.