We need to distinguish between different things: physical separation, civil divorce, and divorce/remarriage. What a man or woman is promising, when they vow "for better, for worse, in sickness and in health" is essentially that they will uphold the marriage bond, i.e. remain sexually faithful, and not remarry while their husband or wife still lives: "til death do us part."
That does not forbid separations. Indeed very often spouses are separated, and for far lesser grounds than abuse. Military spouses know what it is to be separated for long periods of time because of deployment; chronically ill or seriously injured spouses often have to be hospitalized or put in a specialized care facility, and that entails separation as well. They are still faithful "in sickness and in health" -- the physical separation does not negate the marriage bond.
And we not infrequently read in the lives of the saints, that a devout married wife and husband, their children raised, agree to part and retire to a convent and a monastery respectively.
These are physical separations, sometimes lengthy and sometimes permanent, which do not break the original marriage bond. They do not involve adulterous remarriage.
As well, if one spouse is seriously abusive to the other, the physical presence of the victim in the same house as the abuser might constitute a grave near-occasion of sin to the abuser. Wives, for instance, have a serious obligation to NOT provide repeated occasions of sin for repeat-offender husbands.
Thus, separating to prevent injury to the victim, also prevents the multiplication of sins by the abuser. Thus separation is morally justified, not only for the physical protection of the one, but the spiritual protection of the other.
This is especially necessary where children are involved, Children must be protected both from being abused, and from witnessing abuse.
The spouse who flees abuse must still pray for the well-being and redemption of their marriage partner, and remain faithful in not seeking another partner. Thus the fleeing spouse still observes her vow.
"The spouse has NO grounds for with holding sex from a spouse...If you enter into such a union believing that you do, you do not have a Sacramental marriage..
You are quite mistaken. There can be a reasonable, serious, even obligatory reason to discontinue sexual relations.
Say the wife has recently experienced childbirth that involved a couple of episiotomy incisions. Intercourse could not only be very painful, it could rupture the sutures and cause hemorrhage. The husband shouldn't even ask for intercourse until healing has occurred. She has a right to refuse perineal injury.
Say a wife just survived childbirth complications like pulmonary hypertension with right heart failure. Another pregnancy could kill her. Both spouses then have a serious obligation not to risk pregnancy. If the husband wants intercourse, especially at a known-fertile time, she must refuse.
Say the husband is HIV+. Again, a morally serious reason not to have intercourse.
There are also legitimate reasons for civil divorce, a divorce which does NOT, for Catholics, entail a right to remarry. Civil divorce is sometimes necessary, as the Church recognizes, to "protect the rights of the weaker party," generally meaning to obtain enforceable support for spouse and children.
None of this justifies remarriage while the husband or wife is still living. And none of this justifies cessation of marital relations for unreasonable, non-serious reasons such as personal pique or preference.
“What a man or woman is promising, when they vow “for better, for worse, in sickness and in health” is essentially that they will uphold the marriage bond, i.e. remain sexually faithful, and not remarry while their husband or wife still lives: “til death do us part.” “
So you are just read into it anything you want I see, and that justifies it...
Ordinary reading of the words mean nothing? The wording is pretty straight forward. Remember, this is a contract. Words mean something... If it were to mean what you want them to mean, why not just say it that way in the first place.
If there are unspoken implications in the vows, then the whole contract is invalid unless there is a severability clause. Which there is not...
It’s funny actually. The only time I married (almost 46 years ago), the vows I took and the ones my spouse took were different. I promised to love, honer and cherish. She promised to love, honer and obey. Why is this relevant? Simply because she lied, and that poisons the sacramental part of the marriage.
Of course there was no malice on her part, she was just too immature to understand what she was saying and why it was important. But that kind of immaturity also poisons the sacrament as well.
However, we’ll celebrate our 46th in a few months.