Is My Refusal To Grant Marital Rights A Grave Sin?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

My question is whether my refusal to grant marital rights is a grave sin in my circumstances.

During the last 6 years and most of our 17 year marriage, my wife denied me marital relations. Recently she was diagnosed terminally ill. She began to demand her marital rights. I have refused.

While I am not a perfect husband, my wife did not have just cause to deny me marital relations as a policy. She even admits I am a nice guy and good father to our children. Her reason simply was she was dissatisfied with me as a husband and our marriage. Were christian charity the only concern, I should grant my wife marital rights. But it is not! Her denial of marital rights made me feel less than human, not good enough to have marital relations like most married people. Denying her "11th hour" demands has restored some of my dignity.

Also I am used to celibate life. I do not want to have to readjust to it. After my wife's death, my remarriage is unlikely. I am 54 with 3 children, 7-14. Raising them and working will leave me little time for remarriage. Many women of suitable age are ineligible for Catholic marriage or would not want my children. And my children may oppose remarriage.

Had my wife requested marital relations prior to her diagnosis, even just for physical release, I would have agreed. But she did not.

My question is am I committing a grave sin? Thank you.

-- William Rhoads (wmr186@aol.com), March 15, 2003

Answers

Dear William,

You say "Were christian charity the only concern, I should grant my wife marital rights. But it is not!" You then go on to describe her unjust treatment of you - in other words, the very situation which calls out for Christian charity! Showing charity toward those who show charity toward you is easy. "If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them." (Luke 6:32) Loving and honoring another person "in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health" is very difficult. But that is the solemn vow you freely gave to your wife, with God as your witness, "until death do us part". Now, I'm not saying go ahead and have relations. "Demanding one's rights" is a very poor basis for intimate relations, and it is doubtful whether the two of you could even manage to make it through the motions under the circumstances you describe. But just realize that this is your last chance to show the woman of your dreams that she is loved and cherished, even when the dream fades; that she is worthwhile because she is your wife, not worthless because of what she was unable to provide; and that you really meant what you said to her on your wedding day. That would be a source of genuine dignity. Revenge would not. She needs your prayers more than ever. Have you prayed for your wife previously? Or for your relationship? It's never too late to start. That is, never too late until it is too late.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2003.


+bump+

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 15, 2003.

Jmj

I just want to say, Paul, that I think your advice to William was outstanding.

As I learned when I was little, "Two wrongs do not make a right." William cannot "create justice" by adding a new injustice (his refusal) to an old one (his wife's past refusals).

In my opinion, it would be sinful for him to continue in his current actions. I think that this would be "grave matter" (because of the seriousness of a married person's duties), which could lead to mortal sin if done with full and free consent.

At the very least, William must try to comply with his wife's wishes, and he should pray for a change of heart and for the resulting mental and physical abilities to comply. But if such a psychological barrier now exists that the result is impotence for William, then there would be no sin involved.

I just want to add one factor ... If the "terminal illness" that Mrs. Rhoads has is sexually communicable (e.g., AIDS), then I believe that she does not have a right to make sexual demands of her husband. In that case, he has a right to protect his life (even a duty to do so, since he must continue to raise his children).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 16, 2003.


As the others have pointed out to you, two wrongs do not make a right. However there is a Church teaching on the matter of marital rights. This is called "marital debt," which means that you cannot deny your spouse marital relations unless you have a valid reason. Just not being "in the mood" and the like is not a good enough reason. As mentioned by the others (forgive me, I forget now who said what) if your wife has some illness that can be passed to you, such as AIDS you are not obliged to engage in sexual relations. From my understanding to deny your spouse relations without valid reason would in fact be sinful.

-- Grape (Grape1@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.

Bill, you cannot take the marital act as a duty imposed on you (or on her). If love is not there it would be more and act of "marital prostitution"! Don't forget that only if love is present the act can have its fondamental meaning and function. Something so holy and complicated (it touches both the physical and the spiritual part of both of you) cannot be reduced to a simple question of a duty. Women know it today! Therefore the above answers are wrong in the deepest. Why is it that she insists now? Does she have bad conscience for the former refusals? Then forcing you is not a solution. Does she want to take from the life the last drops it can give her? Then it is an illusion. Don't cooperate in either. For the act to have its right place and function it must be given with love and that cannot be ordered. Don't ask anymore here, they will just give you moralistic lessons. Ask her, yourself and don't do it without love. Your conscience will lead you better than a duty imposed by these moralists. Your friend.

-- Harry (HarryWecken@aol.com), March 16, 2003.


Jmj

Harry, you told William: "Therefore the above answers are wrong in the deepest."

No, the above answers are not wrong. They reflect Catholic teaching, which is authoritative and cannot be wrong. Therefore, it follows that you are the one who is wrong.
This is a Catholic discussion forum. Your comments/opinions are received and posted, but not accepted as having any authority.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 16, 2003.


If a man insists on his 'marital rights' against the will of his partner, that is considered rape here. If someone insists on sexual relatons and the other is not in the mood, then it's rape. It's irrelevant if the couple are married or not. That's a legal fact. The Catechsism also teaches us that we are to submit to legal authority. The implicatiions in some of the posts is that women (or indeed men - although rape by a woman of a man would be practically impossible) must submit to the man if he insists on his congugal rights. I find some of the comments offensive in the extreme. I'm not saying that women should refuse to make love with their husbands or vice-versa as a tool to use against them or as some kind of bribery. However, as any married person will know there may be times when one or other of the couple do not wish to have sexual relations, for many different reasons. Whilst it may be argued that if she passively submits to relations even if 'not in the mood' , rather than refuse for the sake of not sinning, then she hasn't had her body raped, I would suggest that perhaps her very person has been assualted.

Perhaps women shouldn't speak in the assembly nor speak in matters of religion either though!

(Not sure if that last comment is 'authoratitive Church teaching', or just biblical)

May the Lord have mercy on each and every one of us.

Sara

-- sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.


Sara is correct in saying you cannot force sex on anyone. A good spouse would not insist on having relations if his/her partner was not able or "in the mood", but if we have no good reason to deny then why should we? What I see from William's post is that his wife denied him out of selfishness, this is wrong. I cannot judge either William or his wife, of course, what I said previously is merely what I have learned from Church teaching.

-- Grape (Grape1@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.

William,

If you wife is going to pass soon, than why not make her happy? She is still your wife. There is no doubt you were done seriously wrong (if its true what you wrote), but she is dying. Let her die with respect. This is the Mother of your children. Be kind to her William, because she won't be here much longer.

Maybe she prayed about it and knows she was wrong with you, and this is her hope of making it right with you. Offer up the abuse you took for her soul, and make her a happy women in her last days. Make her feel special because she is probably scared to death deep down.

You're wife needs you now William more than ever before. Pray to God to take that hurt from you, and do the right thing.

My prayers are with you're family William.

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 16, 2003.


Jmj

Walter, please go to this page to start a new "thread" -- a new page on which your question will be the opening topic. [It is not right for you to ask a question, on this current page, about something that is not related to the topic started by William at the top of this page.] Thank you.


"Grape," you are correct, and Sara is not correct.

Sara, you are making two understandable mistakes, but they are mistakes nonetheless. You are misunderstanding what we are saying about Catholic teaching (which we know does not approve of rape), and you are also misunderstanding the secular law (which requires physical force for a charge of rape).

You stated: "If a man insists on his 'marital rights' against the will of his partner, that is considered rape here. If someone insists on sexual relatons and the other is not in the mood, then it's rape. It's irrelevant if the couple are married or not. That's a legal fact."

No. To "insist upon" something that is one's right is not to force one's way physically. It is merely to use the faculty of speech. We are not saying that physical force may be used, if, after the insisting occurs, there is a refusal for an invalid reason. In such a sad case, the one who is refused must accept that refusal and bear the offense. As such, there is no crime of "rape" involved in what we are discussing here. Besides, as "Grape" says, there is no reason for the whole thing to reach the point of "insisting." Instead, there should be a request from one spouse and compliance by the other -- unless sickness or some other serious obstacle makes compliance impossible.

A spouse should want to comply with the other's request (whenever there is no valid obstacle) for various reasons, most especially for love and unification (strengthening of the bond). There is also a practical reason to want to comply -- namely, to help preserve fidelity within the marriage. It is a sad fact that many spouses who are repeatedly refused without valid reason will slip into moral weakness and become sexually unfaithful.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 16, 2003.



David S, we posted almost simultaneously, so I had not seen your message. I just wanted to tell you that I thought it was quite beautiful. You have given William great advice. He can even pray for his wife's healing and that they will then have a happy marriage.


Sara, I forgot to mention that you were also mistaken about one other thing. You wrote: "... rape by a woman of a man would be practically impossible." This is not correct. It is not difficult for a woman -- more often two or more women -- to rape a man. I am not going to go into the details in public, but they involve a man's involuntary responses. If you need details, please speak to a veteran police officer, who is likely to be aware of one or more cases.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 16, 2003.


I did not mean to deny anything I said in my earlier post about Marital Debt when I said Sara was right in that you cannot force sex on anyone. The key word there is "force." Obviously to force would be rape, which is wrong, but thats not what is in question. :) Thanks for reaffirming the truth of my statements. :)

-- Grape (Grape1@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.

In re-reading Sara's comments I realize I misunderstood what she said, I apologize for any confusion.

-- Grape (Grape1@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.

John

Thanks for your comments, they're interesting.

Incidentlly, rape doesn't require physical force under our laws. You may be under the impression that I'm in the USA or Canada and this isn't the case. Perhaps this is why I don't fully understand nor recognise your perception of Catholicism, and that of some others on here. It appears to me that cultural variations do, to an extent, make a difference to our understanding, whether on a religious or secular level :-)

May the peace of Christ be with you

Sara

-- Sara (sara@yahoo.com), March 16, 2003.


William, is there any chance that during those years your wife didn't engage in marital relations she was not feeling well? I'm speaking from experience, for many years I had no desire although I loved & still love my husband of now 29 yrs. During that time I felt so bad for my husband but yet couldn't bring myself to be intimate. It was only after finally being diagnosed and treated for a life threatening illness did those feelings of desire even start to return. We're still working on regaining that same level of intimacy that we started our married life with, but after much discussion we've both learned that it wasn't me trying to 'punish' him or my not loving him. Your wife may have been like me and not known that the underlying illness was responsible for the lack of interest in marital relations. I too tried to justify it as having a few complaints about our life together, maybe it was easier than admitting that something was physically wrong with me. Fear of illness/death can do some weird things to a person and make them try to find a logical answer when it seems like all logic has flown out the window. All I can tell you is although I didn't show any outward physical symptoms, the disese was already doing it's dirty work and was keeping me from being the willing partner that I wanted to be.

It's just something to consider before judging her motives; sometimes what is said isn't actually what the underlying problem is about, it's just an easy justification. Maybe if you both could sit down without blaming each other and really have a talk, you could find a way to make these last days,weeks,months a time of healing and renewed love-something you could keep as a good memory once your wife passes on.

-- Leslie (nospam@nospam.com), March 16, 2003.



Most interestng thread indeed. What comes to mind is the " established " marital duties of a woman to here husbnad over the years. Women bless their mothering hearts have come long way since Victorian/Plymouth Rock settlers.

Why in the USA would this be such a confused issue I ask? Two poeple sharinga houe and not having intimate relations speaks of mental illness even though some Pastors " recommend " the ludicrous setting.

Should this be pent of total of collected past injustices then forgivenss is needed. How I ask when one is new death to no consider their needs in all areas?

Seems there has ben enough silence in the socalled marriage.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 17, 2003.


Most interestng thread indeed. What comes to mind is the " established " marital duties of a husband to his wife. Over the years women bless their mothering hearts have come a long way since the Victorian/Plymouth Rock settlers.

Why in the USA would this be such a confused issue I ask? Two people sharing a house and not having intimate relations speaks of mental illness even though some Pastors " recommend " the ludicrous setting.

Should this be a pented total of collected past injustices then forgiveness is needed. How I ask when one is new death to no consider their needs in all areas? Seems there has been enough silence in the socalled marriage.

How in reality could one accept then take and follow the " help " a such a natural part of marriage givin by an celibit unmarried non- involved priest? The issue would only academic.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 17, 2003.


Bummer of a problem. Life stinks; pick up your cross and do the right thing.

Start praying for her eternal salvation; the rest is a load of temporary BS.

The Chaplets of Mercy are particularly good for this.

Expect a reward life, expect pain now. Of course it stinks but that's where the important decisions are made, right?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 17, 2003.


I meant, 'expect a reward later'...

-- (emerald1@cox.net), March 17, 2003.

Emerald, I appreciate your post. Often when ppl post in here about the difficulties about life, the responses can tend to be rather doctrinal and divine yet uncherishing. I find your responses often tend to be contrary to this and rather true to life and able to relate to.

Thanks, Olly

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 17, 2003.


According to J.F. Gecik it is enough to say to a wife - I want it, and she must give it!! It's her duty... For John, a marriage is an excuse for an easy rape! A great catholic tinker, this John. Pretty awful too.

-- Karin Osterrein (KarinOst4b4@aol.com), March 17, 2003.

A spouse has no more a right to “demand” his/her conjugal rights than the other has to withhold them in a marriage. As we are all made in the image and likeness of God, the dignity of the person is paramount in any relationship or situation in life. Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbour (without any exception) as ‘another self’, above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity” (Gaudium et Spes - Pope Paul VI, 1965). You will note that Pope Paul said, “without exception” - this certainly includes spouses within the boundaries of marriage. What dignity is realized when a spouse “forces” his/herself on the other physically, mentally or emotionally? The dignity of the person is paramount. It is to be of the utmost importance “without exception”. “Respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due!” (Rom. 13:7)

Respect for life and all that entails, is to come first before any of our own basic physiological needs are addressed. I agree with you Sara that while rape in some jurisdictions requires evidence of physical force in most cases, there are mental and emotional forces at play that have not always been duly or fairly recognised by civil authorities. (Case in point: We need only to look at the current news story of Elizabeth Smart, age 14 years, where she has been observed unrestrained by her captors in public, over and over again over a span of nine months and yet, made no effort to escape her tormentors. It obviously wasn’t physical barriers that kept her captive for nine months. Clearly other factors, most notably psychological ones, were at play. Each marriage partner is entitled to freedom and dignity within a marriage. If we practice our faith correctly, civil law is not required to ensure decent and right behaviour within marriage.

It might also interest you to know Sara that the Church agrees with you - that rape isn’t purely always the physical domination of another. “Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act..” (CCC 2356). The Church didn’t say the “forcible physical violation”, it said the forcible violation. It acknowleges that force can be exercised in many ways. In alluding to “moral integrity” as well as the physical, the Church acknowledged the other forces one can bring to bear in attempting to achieve an end. One can force someone to do many things without using physical force. In this, the Church recognises the many other ways that individuals can be manipulated. While there are undeniable rights to sexual joy and pleasure within a marriage, there are limitations to those rights and spouses are to be ever-sensitive to the needs of their partners. “...Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation” (CCC 2362). Surely just moderation involves understanding when the other partner is not in a position to offer themselves fully, for what can be a myriad of reasons. Understanding and compassion is to be exercised in this instance. While we are all quick to recognise our rights to sexual pleasure in marriage, as Christians, we also have obligations that we must be accountable to. “Each spouse has an equal obligation and right to whatever pertains to the partnership of conjugal life” (Can. 1135).

In a marriage, both partners aren’t “always in the mood. It is the responsibility of both partners to exercise virtue when dealing with the other. In doing so, in showing compassion and understanding for the other, partners cultivate a richer, deeper bond that heightens their spirituality which eventually comes to mirror the Saviour. “the unity of marriage will radiate from the equal personal dignity of wife and husband, a dignity acknowledged by mutual and total love. The constant fulfillment of the duties of this Christian vocation demands notable virtue. For this reason, strengthened by grace for holiness of life, the couple will painstakingly cultivate and pray for steadiness of love, large heartedness and the spirit of sacrifice” (Gaudium et Spes - Pope Paul VI, 1965).

The notion that one must submit to a partner in order to assist in the preservation of fidelity is counter-productive to a sacred union and doesn’t take into account the paramount principle of respect for human life. Fidelity isn’t defined as merely slipping into moral weakness and becoming sexually unfaithful as John has suggested. Fidelity is much more than just being faithful to a spouse in the sexual realm. Fidelity in a marriage, is also being faithful to a partner in all obligations, duties, and observances and that includes the obligation and duty of understanding when a partner is not able to carry out any part of the marriage contract.

A marriage is a union where two become one. In a marriage, two people cannot form “one heart and one soul” (CCC 1643) when one is demanding of the other. God did not “demand” that Jesus die on the Cross for all. When Jesus prayed in the garden at Gethsemane He gave His consent to the wishes of the Father when He said “Thou will be done, not mine!” It is this self-giving requirement in marriage, this desire to attend to the needs of the other, that mirrors Christ’s actions on the Cross. The union in marriage, when carried out with unselfish love provides “a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens the two partners, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values” (CCC 1643). Marriage is more than a union, it is a human communion. “This human communion is confirmed, purified, and completed by communion in Jesus Christ, given through the sacrament of Matrimony” (CCC 1644).

A union is a joining of two, not a domination of one over the other. When one spouse dominates in a marriage, invariably the relationship will turn of one of abuse and bondage. One spouse becomes the Master and the other the slave. This end result doesn’t always take the form of physical abuse alone, it is usually mixed to varying degrees with other forms of abuse such as emotional or spiritual. No one should force themself on another person and this includes spouses within the confines of Holy Matrimony. The Church has oftentimes told us that spouses who are placed under this sort of domination do not have to put up with it. Spouses who have legitimately made attempts to correct this situation and have been unsuccessful are allowed to walk away from their marriages with the full blessings of the Church. No one has to put up with abuse, no matter the kind.

Marriage has a twofold purpose, the “good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life” (CCC 2363). Marriage wasn’t given to us by God for the purposes of breeding only. It was also given to us for each partner to enjoy. It is the responsibility of each partner in a marriage to ensure the other realises the joy that is intended. But it is a two-way street. What good can come to a spouse who feels enslaved or abused? It is everyone’s fundamental right to experience life to its fullest and to enjoy physical integrity from the moment of conception until death (CDF - Donum Vitae, 1987). This does not only apply to the unborn. The Church has emphatically stated this right has been given to us from God and belongs to every human being. This is everyone’s fundamental human right.

Sometimes however, participants in a marriage acquire afflictions such as physical disabilities or impairments, emotional &/or mental illnesses, and even spiritual dryness from time-to-time, that can affect conjugal, as well as other aspects, of the marriage. As in other situations in life, these afflictions can sometimes be temporary or they can be of a long-term or permanent nature. When these afflictions strike a marriage, every available resource should be utilized to correct the condition. Doctors, priests, psychologists, are only some to the professionals that should be sought out for help. Sometimes if the spouses are fortunate to recognize these sort of developments in the marriage early on and seek help to correct them, the long-term, adverse effects on the marriage can be minimised.

William, you do not mention whether you and your wife sought out professional help these past six years where she has withheld her participation in your marriage. Any behaviour can be altered due to physical ailments that develop. Your wife may not have been fully to blame for her change in attitude these past six years. She has obviously changed her behaviour during this time and it would have been prudent to seek out help to see if anything could have been done. You seem hurt by what has happened and your natural reaction has been to deny her that which she has withheld from you for so long. If you really seek a desire to do what is right given your present circumstance, then I think it is time for you both to contact your parish priest to see if something can be done and if so, what. In the event your wife refuses, I would suggest you still talk to your priest. Discuss the options available to you, particularly the option of professional counselling. No doubt your priest will provide you with other ideas that will assist you. Fortitude and courage in a marriage is never required when everything is going fine. The participants prove their mettle when problems set in, particularly when they are allowed to develop to the stage yours have.

Over the years William, you and your wife, have allowed layers and layers of pettiness to build up into a layer of hard cover over the original shine your marriage had on the day you left the church as a couple. William, someone has to give in order that healing can begin. I know that at times it may seem that a situation has no solution. From what you’ve told us, of the two of you, you seem to be in the better position to clearly see what needs to be done and to make sound rational decisions for the both of you. The others are quite right (...in sickness and in health, till death do us part) you should try and make the best of a bad situation. But all hope is not lost. William, as a Christian, it is now time to do what Christ would do and show the utmost in compassion and understanding for your wife. Your wife needs you now as never before. It isn’t always easy, especially in a situation like yours but, your faith demands that you do the best for the sake of your spouse. Seek out the help the both of you need and above all pray. Pray for a healing for your wife (for with God nothing is impossible); and pray for a healing for your marriage. In light of how your relationship has been allowed to deteriorate over the years, you cannot tackle this problem alone. At present, your vision is skewed and your judgement is clouded. Get the help you both require and at worse, you will be made to understand your situation and responsibilities better, and made to feel better about your situation.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 17, 2003.


William, in all of my previous post, you will notice that I have ignored your question, namely, “My question is whether my refusal to grant marital rights is a grave sin in my circumstances.” This was intentional because I cannot answer your question definitively. Your case, as in every case dealing with the question of sin, isn’t as clear-cut as we would like it to be. In mentioning your “circumstances” I am not able to appreciate the full pressures that have been brought to bear on you and your wife. Only Jesus can appreciate what you are going through. In recommending that you and your wife see a priest, part of the healing process no doubt will be, as your priest will suggest, I am sure, a good confession. As to whether or not grave sin has been committed here, only God can be judge of that. Don’t be too hard on yourself in this regard, there are many dynamics at play here that have affected your actions and that you may not necessarily be fully aware of. However, the Lord is aware of them and in His infinite mercy, they will all be taken into account.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 17, 2003.

Nice post Ed.

William, what a difficult situation. If I was in your situation, I'm sure there would be a lot of resentment, not so much for the lack of intimitcy, but the lack of affection, which I assume was not present.

I mean this is a complex issue, and I think you need more than some of the advice being given on this forum. I strongly suggest you sit down with a priest to discuss this, and pray about it.

I'm sure you love you wife, after all you stuck with her all these years, so maybe start out slow. Hug her from time to time, if you now don't do so, and if you do, hug her a bit more. Take her out to a candle light dinner. Buy her some flowers. Start off small, and work you way up. Play things by ear.

Do all that out of kindness, not romance, and see where it goes, interms of your feelings. Pray to God to heal both your feelings, and I will pray for both of you also. God bless!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Good again, Ed! Although, JF Gecik could not agree with you, for him it's all a clear cut situation - You want it?- the other must give it! (Marry if you want to have access to a gratis rape...!) Good that someone has common sens here..

-- Sandy (SandyR@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.

> "You want it?- the other must give it!"

No kidding Sandy, but John is pointing out the teachings of the Christian faith. He saying that you have a duty to give yourself to your spouse, and he not saying that a person can force themselves on another person.

His comments are directed that both spouses have to be open to giving themselves to the other person, as that is one of the requirements of marriage.

This all comes down to love on both sides. Freely giving of oneself to each other.

> "It is a sad fact that many spouses who are repeatedly refused without valid reason will slip into moral weakness and become sexually unfaithful."

Excellent point John. There are consequences to refusing someone on a regularly bases for no valid reason, which causes the breakup of marriages, etc. I'm not saying that is an acceptable response, but it is a consequence.

I must admit, that if I was married to a woman, that gained a lot of weight, she would be unattractive to me, to the point, I would be unable to perform. I wonder if that is a valid reason? I think that might be a reason why a lot of people stop having sex with their spouses.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Gordon,

When you said :

I must admit, that if I was married to a woman, that gained a lot of weight, she would be unattractive to me, to the point, I would be unable to perform. I wonder if that is a valid reason? I think that might be a reason why a lot of people stop having sex with their spouses.

were you being facetious, deliberately being offensive, or do you genuinely just not know any better?

Sara

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Gordon said: "I must admit, that if I was married to a woman, that gained a lot of weight, she would be unattractive to me, to the point, I would be unable to perform. I wonder if that is a valid reason? I think that might be a reason why a lot of people stop having sex with their spouses."

What a pig.

Pity for you you don't know what real love is. For to truly love someone you look past any physical flaws they might have and into what's in their heart. You better hope your God doesn't look at you as shallowly as you look at others....

Also, your disgusting remarks mean that you won't do as God and your Church tell you to if it doesn't suit *YOU.* Good luck with that.

-- Nan (Nancy@nospamforme.com), March 17, 2003.


> "That's some of you marry for, I think."

Sandy maybe so, but not I. I find that offensive. You seem to be singling out men, but what John and I said, goes both ways.

Nancy, I get the impression that you are offended because you are overweight?

If I cannot perform with someone I'm unattracted to, how am I suppose to do it? It requires desire, and it just not a matter of going through the motions.

Nancy, how about you lived with someone who never bathed, or shaved, and dressed like a slob? You will still go through the motions with that person?

> "Pity for you you don't know what real love is."

I never said I would stop loving the person, or leave them! I would not do that, as I would continue to love them with my whole heart, soul and mind!!! That's what love is about, and I believe marriage is for life, and I don't believe on setting conditions for that love.

> "For to truly love someone you look past any physical flaws they might have and into what's in their heart."

And if they overeat all the time, and make themselves overweight? I mean, I think we all should make some effort to keep ourselves attractive to our mate.

> "Also, your disgusting remarks mean that you won't do as God and your Church tell you to if it doesn't suit *YOU.* Good luck with that."

As matter fact, my question were sincere, and if the Church says I am wrong, then the Church should also tell me how to have the desire for someone I do not desire anymore sexually.

I would appreciate thoughtful answers, instead of answers calling me a pig, after all I am still one of God's children.

God bless you Sandy and Nancy. I'm sure you both are much nicier in person, then how you appear on this forum.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Just a point I want cleared up here. Would the actions use contraception or have carry the intention of conceiving a child ? The reason I ask this is that I thought that the Catholic Church prohibits the use of all contraception.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 17, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Gordon.

You wrote: "No kidding Sandy, but John is pointing out the teachings of the Christian faith. He saying that you have a duty to give yourself to your spouse, and he not saying that a person can force themselves on another person."

Thank you for speaking the truth. It will help future readers to disregard the grossly incorrect things that were said about me.

I hate to have to tell you this, but this thread (and many others at forum today) is being "spammed" in a suble way. The person (or people) who, for a week, creamed the forum with obscenities and racism are now aware that they can't get away with that stuff (because of deletions by the moderator). The person (or people) are now using a slew of aliases [note those who attacked me and you on this thread] to do satan's work with snide remarks, false accusations, seemingly-sincere-but-actually-phony questions, etc.. Please be on the lookout for these. I trust that the moderator will purge all their garbage very soon.


Ed, considering the length of your message, I feel fortunate that I agreed with almost everything you wrote! I can imagine that, if I disagreed with almost everything, I would be here for hours trying to refute you! {_8^D) [Couldn't resist teasing you.]

Ed, I believe that you erred in two things you mentioned:

(1) "It might also interest you to know, Sara, that the Church agrees with you -- that rape isn’t purely always the physical domination of another. 'Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act..' (CCC 2356). The Church didn’t say the 'forcible physical violation,' it said the forcible violation."

You are mistaken, Ed, and it is directly visible in one of the sentences that you quoted from the CCC: "Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right."
Only "forcible physical violation" (which need not include penetration) inflicts all those "wounds."

The Catholic Church does not use the word "rape" to refer to a sexual sin that does not involve "forcible physical violation." In this, the Church follows the customary usage of words that is found all over the world -- except in a few places (e.g., Sara's nation) which very recently have begun to broaden the meaning of the word. I reject this broadening because it makes for poor communication, and (more importantly) because it "equates" (under the same label, "rape") two very different kinds of sinful action, one of which [e.g., various forms of "sexual harassment"] is far less serious than the other [physical force].

2. The other place where you erred, Ed? "The notion that one must submit to a partner in order to assist in the preservation of fidelity is counter-productive to a sacred union and doesn't take into account the paramount principle of respect for human life. Fidelity [I think that you meant "Infidelity"] isn’t defined as merely slipping into moral weakness and becoming sexually unfaithful as John has suggested."

First, when I write something, it is not a "notion." That demeaning word carries negative and disrespectul connotations. A "notion" is a mere, baseless trifle, and I am not writing trifles.

Second, no one said that a spouse "must submit to a partner." I think I mentioned that spouses cannot act through "demands" ("musts"), and I'm sure I mentioned that there are valid reasons for a spouse to excuse him/herself from acceding to a request.

Third, I could be misreading you, but it appears that you have difficulty with my statement that the spouses' mutual respecting of their "marital rights" is, in part, for the promotion of marital fidelity. If you reject this, your problem is not with me but with the Catholic Church, which has taught this. (Otherwise I would not have mentioned it!)

Finally, I did not define infidelity "as merely slipping into moral weakness and becoming sexually unfaithful," though you attributed such a definition to me. I only mentioned sexual unfaithfulness as an expression of infidelity, without intending to rule out other expressions of it.

St. Patrick, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J .F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.


Oliver, I think that you accidentally wrote a bad sentence and then forgot to proofread it. I don't understand what you meant by these words: "Would the actions use contraception or have carry the intention of conceiving a child ?"

I could ask you to rephrase that, but maybe it's not necessary if I simply comment on your second sentence: "The reason I ask this is that I thought that the Catholic Church prohibits the use of all contraception."
Yes, the Church echoes God, who prohibits the use of all contraception.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 17, 2003.


whoops sorry, sometimes I type faster than I think 8-)

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), March 17, 2003.

Hi, Gordon

I'm not even going to say what I thought of. :-)

In good faith Happy St. Patricks day bro.

May God have mercy on all of us sinners. God bless you.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 17, 2003.


John regarding my statement, The Church didn’t say the 'forcible physical violation,' it said the forcible violation." you said, “You’re mistaken Ed”. Well first of all, I am not mistaken, the word “physical” is not found in CCC 2356. If it is then I would be pleased for you to show me where I can locate it. I believe the word “physical” was purposely omitted. I certainly will not make the assumption that the Church was speaking in physical terms only. When the Church is addressing injuries from rape, yes, it speaks of physical integrity being damaged but in conjunction with, and not limiting, the deep wounds inflicted on respect and moral integrity. If rape were only physical how can the respect and moral integrity of the victim be compromised when they have done nothing wrong? The reason it is compromised is that the victim can be raped psychologically. The damage nor the evidence can not always be calculated in the physical sense. What if a man says to a woman “Do what I tell you to do or I will kill you!” If the woman acquiesces to the man’s request without resistance out of fear for her life, what physical abuse at the hands of the perpetrator has she endured other than the normal physical contact that takes place when any two people have intercourse? For rape to occur, physical force need not be exercised in all cases and in leaving the word physical out of CCC 2356 I believe the Church was acknowledging this important fact.

Secondly, you’re quite right, I meant to use the word “infidelity” in the instance you pointed out. I meant no disrespect in calling your statement a notion. In calling it a “notion” I was implying that I considered it an argument for discussion, a difference of opinion, or an assertion by you and in no way did I ever intend to insult you. You are quite right in stating that "notion" can sometimes be defined as a fanciful impulse or whim or as you say, a “mere, baseless trifle”; however if you check Dictionary.com you will see that two other definitions are given for the word “notion” namely, “a belief or opinion” and “a mental image or representation; an idea or conception”. It is with the intent of these latter definitions that I used the word.

Thirdly, I did not mean to put words in your mouth by saying you said a spouse “must submit to a partner”. I took inference of this because of some of the things you did say. You did say, “William cannot "create justice" by adding a new injustice (his refusal) to an old one (his wife's past refusals).” Ergo, William must cease his injustice by removing his refusal. Ergo William must submit to his partner. If I misunderstand you here please correct me.

You did say, “In my opinion, it would be sinful for him to continue in his current actions. I think that this would be "grave matter" (because of the seriousness of a married person's duties), which could lead to mortal sin if done with full and free consent.” Ergo, William must submit to his partner in the future or failure to do so, will place him under penalty of mortal sin (a very serious spiritual matter to a devout Cathoic). If I misunderstand you here please correct me.

Incidentally I agree with nothing you’ve said here. If William is not living up to his obligations presently, then why, according to you, is he not presently in a state of mortal sin? Why will he only be in the future? In any event, we are not privy to all of the circumstances surrounding his situation as Christ is, and as such, we shouldn’t be judging him.

Fourthly, on my having difficulty with your statement that the spouses' mutual respecting of their "marital rights" is, in part, for the promotion of marital fidelity, I have no idea what you mean by this? For the record, I am in agreement that spouses’ mutual respect of their mutual rights helps to promote marital infidelity. I wasn’t aware that I had said anything to the contrary.

And lastly, I appreciate your clarification of your definition of the word “infidelity”. You said, “I only mentioned sexual unfaithfulness as an expression of infidelity, without intending to rule out other expressions of it.” I have no problem with this, but in actual fact what you really said was, “There is also a practical reason to want to comply -- namely, to help preserve fidelity within the marriage. It is a sad fact that many spouses who are repeatedly refused without valid reason will slip into moral weakness and become sexually unfaithful.” It is this statement I took umbrage with. You’re saying not “complying” with sexual favours by one spouse causes moral weakness in the other spouse, causing them to sin. Where did you ever get this idea? Since when does the actions of one individual cause another individual to sin? Since when does withholding conjugal duties by one spouse justify the actions of the other spouse in being unfaithful?

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 17, 2003.


Dear Ed,

There is a big difference between "justifying" the actions of another, and contributing to the temptation of another. A person is far more likely to steal food if he is hungry.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 17, 2003.


Paul, we’re not talking about a physiological need to survive here. A better example might have been: If a man has his car stolen, is he far more likely to go out and steal a car, then if he hadn’t had his stolen? The fact that his car was stolen certainly doesn’t condone, or in anyway justify, his actions in the moral order of things.

Also, what “temptation” has the spouse who withholds marital rights contributed to? Even if the spouse withholding the marital rights supplied someone for the unfaithful spouse to have sexual relations with, is the unfaithful spouse any less culpable for his infidelity? The actions of the unfaithful spouse can and should never in any way be blamed on the actions of a spouse withholding marital rights. Everyone has freewill and is ultimately responsible to make decisions for himself regardless of circumstances surrounding his actions.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 17, 2003.


I sit here and think how sad that such a wonderul gift of intercourse/intimacy would be " chartered " by a group of men who have no first hand knowledge in these matters.

I wonder what Christ would say of these matters.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 17, 2003.


Dear Ed,

"Everyone has freewill and is ultimately responsible to make decisions for himself regardless of circumstances surrounding his actions."

A: Absolutely! We are each required to resist temptation and make right moral choices, and we are each personally responsible for the choices we make. However, the fact remains that sin is a response to temptation, and deliberately placing another in a position where they are particularly vulnerable to temptation may make us partially culpable, should they succumb to that temptation. It is true that sexual expression, like owning a car, is not a matter of survival. It is also true that the appetite for sexual expression, like the appetite to eat, and unlike the desire to own a car, is an innate characteristic of the human person. The central question here is not whether the person who succumbs to the temptation is personally responsible for his sin. Certainly he is. The question is whether he would have succumbed, had he not been placed in a situation of vulnerability by the action of another. Of course the actions of an unfaithful spouse cannot be "blamed" on the actions of a spouse withholding marital rights, for we are each personally responsible for our own actions. Still, the temptation which led to the unfaithfulness can be "blamed", at least in part, to the action of the spouse. Of course, one could carry that idea a step further. One could say that the withholding of marital rights by one spouse, which placed the other spouse in a vulnerable position, may itself have been a response to lack of affection and attention. Sin frequently has a ripple effect.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 17, 2003.


> "I sit here and think how sad that such a wonderul gift of intercourse/intimacy would be " chartered " by a group of men who have no first hand knowledge in these matters."

With the implication that they are wrong? Please explain?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 17, 2003.


Paul you said, “deliberately placing another in a position where they are particularly vulnerable to temptation may make us partially culpable, should they succumb to that temptation.” I have a big problem with the word “deliberately”. You've made the assumption that all marital rights withheld have been a deliberate act on the part of the withholdning spouse. In doing so, your implication here is, the person withholding marital rights intended for the end result to occur all along. The resultant infidelity while an unfortunate by-product of previous events can certainly not be held against the original person and used to implicate them in some sort of additional wrong doing. If a person “deliberately” carries out a cold, calculating, premeditated act to coerce someone into sin, that is one matter and some sort of culpability may be argued if and only if one could prove such intent. But we’re talking about an individual who has not in any sinister way intended to set up their partner to sin. If anything, the resultant infidelity is an unfortunate by-product of a failed promise, but in no way should the spouse withholding marital rights be further chastised in this manner. They would be victimised very unfairly were this to occur.

This is tantamount to saying that a women who innocently and unconsciously dressed in a way sufficient to attract her rapist is to be held partially to blame. Why do you think many women are reluctant to report rapes, particularly date rapes? It’s because they have a legitimate and very real fear of being further victimised by the courts who have the same attitude you have that “she must have been asking for it! She must have done something to provoke him! She’s partially to blame”

In saying that a spouse who refuses marital rights is “culpable” and in part responsible when the other spouse commits infidelity is totally unfair. I will grant that the spouse is undoubtedly guilty of withholding marital rights; but to suggest they are in any way culpable even to a partial extent for a resultant wrongful act on the part of someone else is ludicrous.

In saying, “Still, the temptation which led to the unfaithfulness can be "blamed", at least in part, to the action of the spouse.” you show a serious bias bordering on the verge of prejudice. You are forming an adverse judgment or opinion beforehand without having any knowledge of the facts to prove that the actions were indeed “deliberate”. Many spouses withhold marital rights for a myriad of reasons, physical, mental, emotional illnesses among them. Some are even in comas and unable to comply; but, to assume in some obscure way they all have contributed to the subsequent infidelity of their spouse is generalizing to an extreme.

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 18, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Ed L.

You wrote: "Well first of all, I am not mistaken, the word 'physical' is not found in CCC 2356. If it is then I would be pleased for you to show me where I can locate it. I believe the word 'physical' was purposely omitted."

Ed L, I think that your eyes are playing a little trick on you! Please scroll up and see where you quoted CCC 2356. You will find the word "physical." (You can verify this by checking an online copy of the CCC, as I just did.) Then scroll down and reread what I wrote about this -- showing that the Church is referring to a forced, physical act when it uses the word "rape."

You wrote: "I certainly will not make the assumption that the Church was speaking in physical terms only."

That's OK. I'm not asking for an "assumption," because the meaning is straightforward, not requiring you to assume anything.

"When the Church is addressing injuries from rape, yes, it speaks of physical integrity being damaged but in conjunction with, and not limiting, the deep wounds inflicted on respect and moral integrity."

I definitely agree with you that, in rape, the offense is not just physical. But you just correctly admitted that physical violation is involved (as the CCC says).

You continued: "If rape were only physical how can the respect and moral integrity of the victim be compromised when they have done nothing wrong?"

Ed L, why have you attributed to me something that I did not say? I did not say that "rape [is] only physical," but that, without a physical element, an action is not a rape. By quoting the CCC, I agreed that rape is more than just physical.

You continued: "The reason it is compromised is that the victim can be raped psychologically."

No. The Church does not teach this. I realize that what I am about to say may raise ire in some quarters, but unjustified anger does not trouble me. (;)
This idea -- "be[ing] raped psychologically" -- is a brand-new concept arising from radical feminism. It is a "politically correct" idea that I reject. What is misleadingly being called "psychological rape" (e.g., ogling, harassment, sexual comments, and the like) is a different kind of sin, far less serious than actual rape. Neither the Church nor the State should call that sin/crime "rape."

Thanks for your explanation of the use of the word "notion." I am sure that you meant no offense. But, due to the negative connotation in one of its definitions, I think that it would be a good word to avoid using in a debate -- especially since one can use a synonym instead.

In your paragraph that begins with "Thirdly," you explained how you had inferred that I was saying that a spouse must submit to a partner. I followed your reasoning to the end, but the conclusion is not that a spouse "must submit" (implying compulsion against the will), but rather that a spouse must at least be willing to comply with the other's reasonable request (absent an obstacle such as illness).

You also wrote: "Ergo, William must submit to his partner in the future or failure to do so will place him under penalty of mortal sin ..."

No, Ed L. You forgot to scroll up and read what I actually told William originally. Here it is:
"At the very least, William must try to comply with his wife's wishes, and he should pray for a change of heart and for the resulting mental and physical abilities to comply. But if such a psychological barrier now exists that the result is impotence for William, then there would be no sin involved."

You then wrote: "Incidentally I agree with nothing you’ve said here."

That's OK. You have the freedom to be wrong!

Then, "If William is not living up to his obligations presently, then why, according to you, is he not presently in a state of mortal sin? Why will he only be in the future?"

What? When did I say that he is not already in a state of mortal sin? I believe that I intentionally withheld comment about his past (in)action and whether or not it was sinful, because I did not know if he was aware of his obligations.

Next, "In any event, we are not privy to all of the circumstances surrounding his situation as Christ is, and as such, we shouldn’t be judging him."

I usually try to write serious things with great care, so that I will not be accused of things like this -- "judging." If you will reread what I wrote to William, you will see that I did not "judge" him. Just as I try to write with care, I hope that my words will be read with care.

Later, you wrote: "You’re saying not 'complying' with sexual favours by one spouse causes moral weakness in the other spouse, causing them to sin. Where did you ever get this idea?"

Well, I can't answer that, because that is your idea of what I said. I didn't actually say that. Again, care in reading is needed! I didn't say that "not complying ... causes [people] to sin." Here is what I said (with emphasis added): "It is a sad fact that many spouses who are repeatedly refused without valid reason will slip into moral weakness and become sexually unfaithful."
The one who is refused should not "slip into moral weakness," and some do not. Those who do slip act on their own free will. The sin of the one refusing does not "cause" the sin of the unfaithful one, but it contributes to increasing the likelihood that the other may fall.

"Since when does the actions of one individual cause another individual to sin? Since when does withholding conjugal duties by one spouse justify the actions of the other spouse in being unfaithful?"

From my previous comment, you realize (1) that I did not say that one "cause[s]" the other and (2) that I did not say that the unfaithfulness could be "justif[ied]." Good heavens! I said nothing even close to those conclusions. Please, no more unwarranted assumptions, my friend!

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.


Jmj

Hi, Gordon. You asked Jean to explain his comment ("I sit here and think how sad that such a wonderul gift of intercourse/intimacy would be 'chartered' by a group of men who have no first hand knowledge in these matters.")
Gordon, I'm sorry if you find this uncharitable, but you are better off not trying to carry on a sensible conversation with Jean. I have been observing his antics for three years. He is a very disturbed man, a dissenter from some Catholic doctrines, and definitely not a clear thinker. For example, his quoted words imply that neither I nor Paul nor Ed L are married (and have never been married) -- "men who have no first hand knowledge in these matters." How in heaven's name could Jean know whether or not three relative strangers "have ... first-hand knowledge?"


Ed L, my last response to you was written before I had read your four-message exchange with Paul. I was pleased to read that one or two of my comments to you turned out to be almost identical to things that Paul said. I agree 100% with everything he told you, and I was truly shocked to see that you not only disagreed with him but disagreed adamantly! I won't spell out a defense of Paul's words, since he is quite capable of doing that himself.

I was trying to think of an analogy, to help you see that your claims about this are not reasonable (i.e., that the unreasonably "denying" spouse incurs no guilt at all when the "denied" spouse is unfaithful). I did not think of a perfect analogy, but consider this:
1. Joey is an employee in Ralph's small business.
2. At the end of the pay period, Ralph owes Joey his wages.
3. Ralph has enough to pay Joey, but decides to hold back the money so that he can use it to bet on the ponies over the weekend. He tells Joey that he may get paid next week.
4. Joey rightly wants the money that is due to him, but cannot force Ralph to turn it over.
5. Joey picks a couple of pockets on the subway and then spends what he has removed from Rocky and Bobby's wallets.

It follows that Ralph is guilty of a sin of injustice to Joey -- and Ralph is also guilty, not of the theft itself, but of contributing to the temptation of Joey. We can see Ralph's guilt better by realizing that Rocky and Bobby would not have lost their wallets that night, if not for a bad action by Ralph.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.


Goodnight John! Please turn out the light when you leave!

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 18, 2003.

Gordon said:"Nancy, I get the impression that you are offended because you are overweight?"

One of "God's children" huh?

Why do I have to be overweight to see your foolish comments and attitudes for what they are?

John continues:"If I cannot perform with someone I'm unattracted to, how am I suppose to do it? It requires desire, and it just not a matter of going through the motions."

When you marry someone you do so "FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE". In a real marriage made up of mutual love and respect for one another, sex becomes something that goes way beyond physical attractiveness and into a selfless act between the spouses. When a husband truly loves his wife (and visa versa) he gives of himself for the sake of his wife. He doesn't deny her simply because she isn't physically up to his standards.

Gordon:"Nancy, how about you lived with someone who never bathed, or shaved, and dressed like a slob? You will still go through the motions with that person?"

Did he suddenly become this way during the marriage? Was he at one time attentive to his appearance and behaviors? If so he would obviously have some problems which TOGETHER we would work on. I would love the man he always was, the man I knew he still was deep down before the problem began. If he had some problems, I'd love him all the more. Again, Gordon, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. Did he still treat me tenderly, in a loving manner? If so, he deserves my love, even the physical aspect of it. Perhaps through love we could help him help himself.

Gordon:"I never said I would stop loving the person, or leave them! I would not do that, as I would continue to love them with my whole heart, soul and mind!!!"

But just not with your body, right? Yeah, I'm sure your wife would really feel loved by you. "I love you with my whole heart, soul and mind, but your looks are such a turn off I can't stand to touch you." Gee, you'd really be a catch for some lucky lady.

Gordon: "That's what love is about, and I believe marriage is for life, and I don't believe on setting conditions for that love."

You just DID set a "condition" when you admitted you wouldn't express any physical love for your wife if she became overweight. That's a condition. "I will express my love for you....as long as you're thin."

Gordon: "And if they overeat all the time, and make themselves overweight? I mean, I think we all should make some effort to keep ourselves attractive to our mate."

FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. Should the church grant divorces of annulments because the spouse got fat? Really, Gordon, you can't be this stupid.

Yes, we should make an effort to keep ourself attractive to our spouses, but if by some chance one spouse isn't what they always were, TOUGH. If you didn't marry the person based on looks alone, you shouldn't base your sex life on it, either.

Gordon: "As matter fact, my question were sincere, and if the Church says I am wrong, then the Church should also tell me how to have the desire for someone I do not desire anymore sexually."

The Church would tell you to get over yourself and give to your wife fully. In a marriage, a GOOD marriage, a HOLY marriage, the needs and desires of the spouse should be put first before your own. Particularly yours, Gordon, given that they are so selfish.

Gordon: "I would appreciate thoughtful answers, instead of answers calling me a pig, after all I am still one of God's children."

Don't give me that "God's children" business. If you are a child of God, act like one. Instead you merely act like a child. Your views on the mutual love between husband and wife ARE about as childish as one could get.

Gordon:"God bless you Sandy and Nancy. I'm sure you both are much nicier in person, then how you appear on this forum."

And I like to say God Bless you, Gordon. I hope you aren't as ignorant and ridiculous off this forum as you appear to be ON this forum.



-- Nan (Nancy@nospamforme.com), March 18, 2003.


I'm sorry. The second time I quoted Gordon, I said JOHN said. I meant Gordon.

-- Nan (Nancy@nospamforme.com), March 18, 2003.

Thanks for the clarification, Nan. You made me do a double-take there!
(Maybe when Gordon gets married, he and his wife should keep the lights off in the bedroom, so that the extra pounds are not so noticeable? Gordon, we all get less physically attractive as we get older, but true love will blind you to the wrinkles, the gray, and the chubbiness.)
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 18, 2003.

William,

I'd like to address a slightly different angle if I may.

From your post, it sounds to me that you harbor a good deal of unforgiveness toward your wife for her actions (or inaction as it were) throughout your marriage. While your current posture now to deny your wife what she has for so long denied you may seem justified to you, it is done to spite her in her hour of grief.

As Christians, the forgiveness we receive from Christ to cleanse us of our sins is conditional - we must first confess the sin and repent (turn away from the sin and stop sinning) AND we also must forgive others just as we are forgiven. Do you recall in the Lord's prayer when we say "Forgive or trepasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"?

I suggest that the answer to your query goes much deeper than whether or not you are obliged to give your wife marital rights. The more imperative is to reconcile with your wife - to find a place within you to forgive her and to love her once again. Years of bitterness may make this quite difficult, but failure to do so will reap long consequences in your life as well as your wife's. I know too many people who're emotionally disabled due to unforgiveness and bitterness. She's still alive for now. You both need to forgive and make things right while you have the chance. You need to be able to say goodbye to a life-partner in which you both obviously had failures.

Forgiveness and reconciliation must occur before intimacy - that's just a general rule for life.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


Dave, you rock!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), March 18, 2003.

This thread has been very interesting. Whilst I may not always agree with everything written, I do appreciate the efforts that people put into their responses; that takes a lot of work and commitment.

Seat of Wisdom, Mother of Good Counsel, pray for us!

-- Sara (Sara@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


Gordon - In responce to your question regarding my post re: " chartered ". The catholic church has been exposed in it's hypocracy regarding sexual matters these past few years.

Most catholics have grown up with mental/emotional confusion regarding a healthy sexual relationship. We the laity have now been " educated ".

The dark days of the church shall pass and we the laity will be better for it and our children will live far happier lives in Christ. We have been taught in the past our bodies are sinfill which is not true.

John - To you I say as before - " They copied my gait - then copied my stride - but when they attempted to copy my mind - I left them a generation behind.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 18, 2003.


> "The catholic church has been exposed in it's hypocracy regarding sexual matters these past few years."

Are you talking about sinful priests?

> "Most catholics have grown up with mental/emotional confusion regarding a healthy sexual relationship. We the laity have now been " educated "."

Jean, what is that confusion you are talking about?

> "We have been taught in the past our bodies are sinfill which is not true."

What era are you talking about here? The middle ages? I mean, lets stick to the 20th century onwards please, since that is the era we are living in. I have never been taught what you are saying.

Nancy, you talk about unconditional love, and you lack basic human charity for me. How do you reconcile those differences. You called me a "pig" in one post, and in another you call me "stupid". Talk to a priest and tell me if you are allowed to cut me down like that. Since you feel you have the moral high ground here, you should not have a problem with that.

My questions, were sincere, and you could have explained things to me in a gentle manner. I'm open to your opinion, but I not open to being cut down by you, and as result have no interest in your opinion now. I will ask a priest about it.

You can respond, but I am done communicating with you. Like I said, I think you are probably nicer in person.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


Gordon,

Your comments where very wounding to some of the women in this forum, I am sure. You are such a stud that a few pounds turns you off from your own wife(if you ever find one to have you), that you have a lot to learn about life. Get a life!

Maybe its a attitude like yours is why you arn't blessed with a wife. Its comments lik this, that might be the reason that your last girlfriend dropped you like a "hot potato".(Rember you asked us to pray for you?)

How is in the world could make a statement like that?

I like to see a picture of you and see what you are built like. Its always people that can less afford to run there mouth that do.

Maybe the next time you are talking to your Priest frind you can ask him advice on your rude, wounding comments that you have made here?

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 18, 2003.


I apologize to all the overweight people on this forum. I guess I should have been more sensitive in my question, and should have just said, who I am unttracted to.

David, please pray that my previous girlfriend finds a decent guy (not me) in her life. I care for her a great deal, and at 42 she is not getting any younger. Thank you for your prayers.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.


I will pray Gordon.

Just rember everyones metabolism is different. Some Ladies have a rougher time after they have children, Gordon.

True love goes deeper than the skin. God made all the Ladies different, but they are all unique, and beautiful in there own way.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), March 18, 2003.


Aaaawwww! :) Thanks David!

-- Isabel (isabel@yahoo.com), March 18, 2003.

David I think you should give it a rest, after all you have a long history of presecuting me and others on this forum, because you cannot control your anger.

I think it would be best that you don't communicate with me directly on this forum anymore, and that you email me. My email address is legit, but I know yours is not, as I have tried to email you before.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 19, 2003.


Gordon,

I will always speak my mind!

I am not anyones puppet. This is an open public forum. What you said was wrong,and I didn't like it. Tough if you don't like what I have to post!

You can blame it on anger, or whatever you want. Bt your posts shows your an imature man, making a assine statement that you wouldn't make love with your wife(if you are ever blessed with one) if she gained a little weight.

Grow up! Some men loose there hair. If you ever get married would you want you want your wife to sleep on the couch because you are balding?

None of us are perfect Gordon. If you are looking for a perfect wife, than that might be the reason why you haven't found one when you are pushing 40.

David PS;If you want you can tell the Moderator on me again. :-) I bet you were a BIG tattle tale in school.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 19, 2003.


David, it's happening again. Anytime you start posting in a thread, it becomes a thread about you.

You have a long history of prosecuting me and others on this forum.

I never said I would not have sex with my wife, if she gain a little weight. You are on purposely slandering me here, which is a sin. Go back and read what I wrote. We all have limits to what we find attractive, and I clearly wrote that I would be INCAPABLE of having relations with someone who is fat, and I mean very fat. If you don't like that, then that's too bad. That's the way I feel, and I can't force myself to do something I am INCAPABLE of doing.

Remember David, you were banned once before because of this very behaviour that you are doing in this thread, so you can't say it's me. You have serious problems with anger. Get help!

Is there a moderator around?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


David why are you prosecuting me?

You dislike for me, had nothing to do with this thread, but this thread you saw a cheap excuse to go on the attack again against me. You are now wrongly trying to paint me as someone who would refuse to have relations with me wife if she gained a few pounds. That is absurd. I have never said that.

You dislike for me all started when I defended Muslim's at one time, and told you that I had a very devout Muslim as a roommate, who I admired. That is the reason why your bring up over and over again my former muslim roommate, as for some reason that rubs you the wrong way. I even voiced my suspicion to you, that I think you may very well hate muslims, but you denied that. If that's not it, then what is it?

Why are you prosecuting me?

You have offered in the past to share you phone number with me, but I don't want to communicate with you directly that way, but an alternative is for us to take this to email, but now you refuse that.

I mean why should the members of this forum be exposed to all this arguing between you and I? Let's take this to email, and stop arguing with each other on this forum, or do you need an audience in your constant unjust cutdowns against me?

Please David, let us take this to email. Stop prosecuting me on this forum.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


Here is what I wrote above:

> "I must admit, that if I was married to a woman, that gained a lot of weight, she would be unattractive to me, to the point, I would be unable to perform."

Notice it says "a lot of weight", and I also say "UNABLE to perform."

David now says, I am saying:

> "Bt your posts shows your an imature man, making a assine statement that you wouldn't make love with your wife(if you are ever blessed with one) if she gained a little weight."

He calls me an ass and imature, for refusing to have relations with my wife if she gained "a little weight".

That clearly is slander, which also involves a lie, as I never said that. Lying and slander are both sinful. Calling me names also is wrong, as it shows lack of charity towards one's neighbour.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


Since David is still lying about this issue in other threads, I bump this up, so others can see for themselves that he is lying against me.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 21, 2003.

Gordon,

I'm sorry to see you are upset with this thread. I don't think one person has agreed with you about your imature comments. As a mattter of fact I read posts from Sara and Nan commenting on your ignorant posts too.

When you posted,"..if I were married to a woman, that gained a lot of weight, she would be unattractive to me.."

I think this is a sad comment coming from any man. Your wife(if you ever get married) is made in the image of God. You would not make love with your wife because she gained weight? You would be that turned off from her? You think you are that perfect that you would make that assine statement?[please note I am not calling you a ass like you wrongly stated]

Than you said,"...to the point, I would be unable to perform."

How do you know you would be unable to perform? Truth is you are just talking to hear yourself talk, Gordon. You have never been married, so you don't know what you're talking about!

(Esp 5:25ff). Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her.. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church.

Gordon, if you love truly love your wife than you will be able to perform(make love) with her, and you will enjoy every moment of it. (Just like God intended) Husband and wife are united as one. You won't be unattracted to her unless you want to be. Are you a handsome man Gordon? What if you lost all you hair would you want your wife to say that she would be unattracted to you unless you get a hear weave?

Your post was a cold hearted post Gordon and I hope I talked some sense in you.Love is Love bro, and it can't be weighed by a scale in pounds. When both partners have true love in their marriage, there is no problem that can drive them apart. You sound like a high school boy trying to impress his buddies with that statement of yours," I would be unable to perform..."

It attitudes like yours why the divorce rate is so high, and husbands are leaving wives. Lets face it Gordon if a man in his thirty's doesn't want to make love(perform) with his wife than how much can he realy want the marriage to work and make it? Marriage is a vocation that requires 100 percent from both.

In Eph 5, St.Paul compares the relationship of Christ to His Church and that of husband to His wife. At the Last Supper Jesus is God and what did He do first? He emptied Himself as a slave, and humbled Himself, washing the disciples feet(John 13:3-15). Later that same night night, He gave Himself up as a sacrfice for the sins of the world. I don't think Jesus skipped washing feet because of weight do you?

Gordon, I speak from the heart. I tried not to offend you to much, but I have to give my opinion. I have a very beautiful wife and hae been married for over 12 years and I am the same age as you. But if my wife gained 60 pounds I wouldn't sleep on the couch.

I don't mind if you call me a liar. I just have to be me and speak my mind about this. I don't type nothing on this computer that I wouldn't tell you if we ever met each other in person.

Thank you for the prayers. I prayed for your intentions(that I told you I would) on he way to work Thursday morning.

May the Holy Spirit bring us all closer to Him, and help heal broken marriages that need our prayers.

God bless you.

-- David (David@excite.com), March 21, 2003.


You are still twisting the facts. You're obessed with the "little bit of weight" nonsense, and you are forgetting that all humans have their limits as to what they find attractive. Even you have your limits, so don't give me this holier than thou attitude here.

David how can you talk about love, when you cut me down so many times on this forum??? You have also have cut down others repeatedly on this forum. I have yet to see you ever apologize to me or anyone else.

> "I have a very beautiful wife and hae been married for over 12 years and I am the same age as you."

I hope that you never ever treat her the same way you treat us on this forum.

> "God bless you."

Oh thanks David, that means so much coming from you. Yeah God bless you also David. I'm sure Our Lord is really happy with you.

How many people have to tell you, along with the Priest I spoke to, before you realize that you are in the wrong, interms of your behaviour on this forum?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.


Guys, isn’t it time the two of you (Gordon & David) cool it, so that real people with real problems can get some answers? In case you haven't realized it, this thread was supposed to deal with “Is my refusal to grant marital rights a grave sin”. In derailing this thread, you have deprived the author of obtaining more advice as people click on this thread to read the “new answer”, only to find that it is just another outburst from one of you concerning your feelings for the other. Quit wasting our time! Why don’t you take this feud outside and start e-mailing one another and give us all a break for a while?

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), March 22, 2003.

David lets take this to email, or are you a coward?

I have not given up on you. I will continue to point out to others that you harass in telling them you are incredibly irrational, and that they should not have any debates with you. I beginning to wonder what's the point in discussing things by email with you, but at least the forum will get a break from this.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.


> "I have not given up on you. I will continue to point out to others that you harass in telling them you are incredibly irrational, and that they should not have any debates with you."

What a broken sentence, I should not post before having my morning coffee. :)

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 22, 2003.


Hi,Gordon

"David, lets take this to e-mail or are you a coward?"

No I am not a coward. Actually I have fought in over 40 karate tournements Gordon as a black belt. I won't tell you how many 6 foot trophy I have because I don't want to pat myself on the back to much.:-) Hardly a man that is a coward.

I don't have anything to say to you in e-mail or in this thread that I haven't already said. I have already said what I need too. I know that Nan and Sara are new to the forum and I saw that you upset them so I had to give my opinion about your comments. I agree with Nan and Sara.

If I disagree with you on another topic I will say so. But I think that Nan, Sara and I got our points across about your rude statements.

Take care bro.

Turn out the lights when you leave.

PS; William I prayed to St. Edward the Confessor for you and your wife. I do hope your heart sofens a bit. There will come a time that you will have to look at her in a casket. She is the mother of your children, and she is your wife.

One of.the over 20 patron saints for difficult marriages is Edward the Confessor. His feast day is celebrated on Oct 13 in the holy Catholic Church. He is also one of the Patrons for separted spouses. He died January 5th 1066. He was Canonized in 1161. Maybe if you say a few prayers and ask him to help you will feel better and know what is the right move to make.

God bless you both

-- David (David@excite.com), March 22, 2003.


David, I wonder why you have a soft spot for the ladies on the forum, as all you attacks are against guys. Why is this? I wanted to bring this up in email with you, but you refuse to discuss it in email, so I will bring it up here. Were you abused by your father, or some other dominant male figure as you were growing up?

Also, how do you reconcile you behaviour on this forum with your faith?

I notice you being saying "God bless" lately, so does this mean, you actually hope that God blesses me? A complete contradiction to all your cutdowns, which you have NEVER apologized for.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 23, 2003.


"Were you abused by your father, or some other dominant male figure as you were growing up?" [Gordon Vink]

Gordon, you have seen David S arguing only with men, so the thought that came to your mind was to suspect that he was abused by a man?

I consider that to be some very strange thinking, because my first thought would be this:
"He argues only with men, because the women that come to the forum don't say the kinds of things that rile him up!"

I also think that it is bad form to be asking such a personal question (even privately, but especially publicly) of a person you hardly know. I also wonder why you didn't remember that David's young father (a good Catholic whom David loved) died not so long ago. I can imagine that it was painful for David just to read your question. Gordon, you are not doing so hot today.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 23, 2003.


John, I find it interesting you never make any comments against David's behaviour, but now you are questioning mine.

I mean how many times does David have to cut me down and others, before you say anything against him? You find his behaviour acceptable?

I'm trying to figure out, why the guy behaves the way he does. I mean, he claims to be a Catholic, you said he is a devout Catholic at one time I believe, and yet he behaves in such a way, which is sinful. He lacks charity for his neighbour. He has been told this a number of times, and yet he has never apologized.

John be fair here, and if David is your friend, then tell him to behave like a good Catholic, if that's what he wants to be. The Catholic faith is more than knowing about it, you have to put it into practice.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 24, 2003.


Jmj

Gordon, you completely ignored the very serious content of my previous message. In light of this, why do you expect me to pay attention to the words you just addressed to me?

When I read your words, my immediate mental picture was one of a very common family situation:
Two brothers have a spat. Then, when their mother addresses one of the boys about it, that brother fails to apologize to the other and to try to set things right to prevent future spats. Instead, he whines, "But, Mommy, he started it. Why don't you punish him?"

Frankly, I have no patience with statements that try to deflect my attention and that fail to include necessary apologies. I expect more mature responses instead.
If one person considers himself superior to another, let him prove it by ceasing to do things that provoke the other person. If someone at the forum isn't willing to try to get along with someone else, then I suggest that he avoid the other person completely (even if it requires ignoring his posts).
Thanks. JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 24, 2003.


I think that a priest can answer that question, a trusted priest. I had the same problem with my husband refusing me. We didn't have relations for probably over a year. It was awful, and we we're fighting a lot. I was so upset and I was so sad. The worst thing was is that we had just had our first baby together. After I had the baby, John kept coming up with reasons that he didn't want relations. One was because I wouldn't be able to handle any more children. Another was that he didn't like watching me struggle to give birth to our first child, because I went through a lot until I finally had a c section. He was yelling at me for trying to get rid of his skimpy swimsuit women pictures on his magazines also and that was also why he was upset with me. He finally did get rid of them thankfully. Any how, many excuses.

Then I began to get mad and started to get afraid to think of even having more relations with him at all because I thought that he could do this to me again. It would be easier just to keep it how it was: completely celebate. I kept thinking that I would not want to put any other children through his temper and I was afraid that it would lead to physical abuse. He had hit me lightly once. It hurt my feelings more than anything. I cried and talked to a reliable priest and also to a reliable Catholic psychologist. They basically told me to talk to a reliable priest in person, because actually I had sent an email to them. I did talk to one about the fact that I was hit. He told me that it was a crime and to tell him(this priest) if it ever happened again.

I felt better then, and now my husband and I had the opportunity to talk about what happened. He was sorry. He told me that he would make it up to me. I am still afraid of having to put any more children through his temper, but he does not deny me now. Maybe it was just that he never was going to deny me, but then when he did; he really didn't know how much it was going to hurt me. He really didn't mean to hurt me. During the year, he said that I didn't deserve to be with him. He had a lot of pride. He had power over me, and sometimes he just abused it. He never meant to hurt me, and even if he did; I know that deep down he didn't. Going to daily mass when we can, going to confession, praying the rosary daily and going to adoration for an hour a week together has helped us. When we start putting these things off, we fight again.

Also if you can, move your wife to a beautiful Catholic atmosphere; go to www.familyland.org There is a place where you and you wife, if possible can go to grow closer together and to God. Even the children are welcome, if you'd like. But for just the two of you, if possible take her on a marriage retreat up there. They usually have them in April. It is worth it and your wife and you would love it, if she and you can go. Many marriages have been saved at those retreats. One couple said that if it hadn't been for this marriage retreat, then they would have gone there separate ways.

Another thing that may help is the 12 step program. Go to www.12- step-review.org It is so neat. I am able to tell John that it was demeaning to do that to me, but as a wife and Christian I can still raise more kids with him- I can still have relations with him and not refuse him. For example, the priest who came up with this said on EWTN, that if someone was gossiping about you and this person became sick; you could give this person a bowl of soup as a Christian. This is not to make the person stop gossiping about you, although you can say that it is demeaning when you give her the soup. This way you don't lose Christ's peace. If the peace is lost then we have to look at why inside ourselves; and in this case give soup to keep the peace.

Sorry this was so long. I hope that it was somewhat helpful.



-- Sonya (johnsonya2003@hotmail.com), September 27, 2003.


hello to you all...

the original topic at the top of this page is very close to the problem i have. i live in the uk and was born and brought up a catholic and have been married to a non-catholic for over 30 years.

without being too long-winded, for perhaps the last 15 years or so apart from a very few instances, she hasn't had any desire to make love and refuses my attempts in that direction, getting angry (and taunting me 'take her' ... which i couldn't) in the process. her reason is simple ... "i just don't feel like it". because of this, the frustration in me is colossal and over the years, i have visited prostitutes a few times and also masturbated a lot. where we now live is very catholic and visiting confessors are few and far between. because of this, i have resisted the temptation to masturbate and only give-in when we get a visiting priest.

this is not written because i'm looking for any particular advice but i have to say that it is so hard having to remain forcefully celebate (for the most part). i attend mass each sunday and receive communion but i am continually thinking of sex (to use a generalised term) and everything connected with it and sometimes, i find it totally impossible not to put my thoughts into practice. through no known fault of my own, i am being penalised ... which is obviously neither right nor fair but exremely frustrating.

i just wanted to share my thoughts and feelings with all of you ..... i hope you don't mind.

ian.

December 30, 2003 - 10:21

-- ian m (mipak@softhome.net), December 30, 2003.


Hi William:

The sexual issues that you are discussing are symptoms of much deeper problems. It sounds like you and your wife have some serious forgiveness to offer each other before she passes. I'd bet that each of you have a list against the other of offenses that have accumulated over the years.

Why not work for intimacy -- REAL EMOTIONAL INTIMACY first. That means opening up old wounds and allowing the Holy Spirit to work you through them and heal you both of grudges and old hurts. It will be worth it.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 30, 2003.


Ian, please travel as far as you need to go to discuss this with a priest -- or perhaps a married deacon. You and your wife are in dire need of spiritual or physical counselling. She may be suffering from a treatable physical problem that leaves her with no (or low) libido. Or she may lack all desire for intimacy because the "love light" has gone out.

People can help you with either problem. It's not going to happen, though, if you just sit and home and feel sorry for yourself. (And stay away from whores and self-abuse -- regardless of the availability of a priest! The first will eventually kill you via AIDS, and either one will land you in hell.)

-- (See@Divine.Physician), December 30, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ