A reader of this blog wrote to me by email, and also
commented at “Ethedreda’s
Place”, regarding marital chastity. Here’s a consolidation of her missives:
I have a dear Catholic friend
whose marriage has always been open to life, but they have difficulties and
disagreements about what is proper & chaste in marital relations.
Is it proper for a husband to request his wife to indulge his particular fantasies by wearing certain things or acting out in certain ways? If she refuses, is she denying him his due? If he claims he "doesn't feel loved" if she does not agree to do this, is there something disordered going on? I suspect yes & have tried to counsel her, but have had no luck finding specific documents or quotes to help. I suspect this is an extremely prevalent problem, given today's sexually saturated culture
Is it proper for a husband to request his wife to indulge his particular fantasies by wearing certain things or acting out in certain ways? If she refuses, is she denying him his due? If he claims he "doesn't feel loved" if she does not agree to do this, is there something disordered going on? I suspect yes & have tried to counsel her, but have had no luck finding specific documents or quotes to help. I suspect this is an extremely prevalent problem, given today's sexually saturated culture
Some (like apparently
Christopher West) would say lust is mutually allowable between spouses ~ others
would say things such as acting out 'fantasies', requesting special clothing be
worn, etc. are a violation of dignity.
This is a difficult topic to
tackle while still remaining appropriately discreet, which is why the Church
(somewhat frustratingly) seems to only speak in generalities about it, yet I
think it's a widespread problem. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
She’s right: This is a topic that no one but the immodest
and unchaste are willing to talk about because, well, they are neither modest
nor chaste!
I think what needs to be done is to lay out some basic
principles concerning modesty and chastity, starting with good definitions.
Then, rather than jumping right into "role playing the hooker and her john
does not fall within anyone's definition of modesty or chastity," we can,
instead, immediately appeal to the examples of married Saints and, consistent
with how we talk about things today, ask "What would Louis and Zelie
Martin think of such questions, and how would they respond if asked about their
‘sex lives’"?
There are plenty of misconceptions about marital chastity, and
a primary one in NFP circles seems to be that “marital chastity” means
abstaining from the marital act during fertile times. This is clear from the
post of one NFP blogger who wrote:
“NFP and Marital chastity
sucks!”…THAT is what I keep hearing. It’s loud and clear from all over the
Catholic Blogosphere…from all over the world.
But marital chastity does not equal periodic continence!
Chastity
is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual
appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, which controls according to
right reason the desire for and use
of those things which afford the
greatest sensual pleasures. The sources of such delectation are food and
drink, by means of which the life of the individual is conserved, and the union of the sexes, by means of which
the permanence of the species is
secured…
From My
Catholic Faith:
Chastity, opposed to lust,
disposes us to preserve the mind and body from everything that is impure.
Chastity is purity. It is termed the angelic virtue, because it makes men
resemble the angels in heaven…
Chastity gives health to the
soul and light to the understanding; it aids wisdom and develops strength of
character…
…[F]or the married, it regulates the use of
that appetite in accordance with the dictates of right reason…
So, marital chastity means that, within the state of
marriage, the sexual appetite is to be “regulated”.
Regulated how? Chastity
is always related to temperance, and temperance means, basically, controlling
oneself. Therefore, marital chastity means controlling one’s sexual desires
within marriage. It means that marriage does not justify indulgence of the
sexual appetite with an “anything goes” attitude.
In the CCC, many
of the paragraphs defining chastity talk about “inner unity”; frankly, I don’t
find that very helpful when trying to address questions raised by the reader
noted above. There is one helpful definition for our current context, though:
2339 Chastity includes
an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom.
The alternative is clear: either man
governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them
and becomes unhappy. (Sirach 1:22)
Self-mastery, governing the passions: these are important to
understand and apply in the context of the marital embrace.
There is also the consideration of the other person.
Marriage is a path toward the mutual sanctification of husband and wife – they are
to help each other become more holy, and the path to holiness does not require sexual fulfillment. Unfortunately,
unless they take steps to avoid it, couples are bombarded these days with
examples of sexual behavior in movies and even advertisements that convey the
idea that “sex” must be dramatic, exciting, even “toe-curling”.
But words make a difference: when we call it “sex”, those
adjectives seem somehow appropriate. On the other hand, when we call it the “marital
embrace”, all of a sudden (at least in my mind) we conjure up a completely
different picture. I've become convinced that chaste married love is much more
gentle, much less flamboyant and passionate, much more respectful and sensitive
and modest, than is taken for granted today as "okay and normal." If
we keep the goal of mutual sanctification
in mind, then the answer to the question of whether one spouse has the “right”
to ask for any kind of “sexual favor” (e.g., clothing, role-playing) becomes
clear: if the reluctant spouse perceives that she or he is not being treated
with dignity and respect, but merely as a “prop”, then something is seriously
amiss.
In addition, there is much talk in Theology of the Body and
even in the Catechism about “mutual self-giving”
with regard to the marital act. Where in that perspective would there be found a
place for demanding that one’s sexual whims should be satisfied by one’s
beloved spouse?!
Sadly, in today’s sexually-disordered society, if a truly
modest and chaste married couple were to make a presentation to a marriage
preparation class, the class wouldn’t want to hear what they have to say; people
want to hear that sex is exciting and fun and wonderful, and "we do it
several times a week, sometimes several times a day." The "sex
life" of a married couple is not a proper topic of conversation anywhere.
I'm not even sure it should be talked about by the couple themselves! One
should never become completely "familiar" with the sacred – and the
marital embrace is sacred.
If the right definitions and principles are defined – if we
keep in mind phrases like “self-mastery”, and “governing the passions”, then
questions such as, "Is it okay for married couples to do X?" become
humorously inappropriate, and answer themselves. If the right understanding of
truth is in place, some questions become impossible to think or ask.
A final thought: perhaps if couples were to make a
commitment to pray together before engaging in marital relations – as did Tobiah
and Sarah – it would go a long way toward regulating disordered lustfulness. In the Book of Tobit, we find:
She got up, and they started to
pray and beg that they might be protected. He began with these words:
“Blessed are you, O God of our
ancestors; blessed be your name forever and ever!
Let the heavens and all your
creation bless you forever. You made Adam, and you made
his wife Eve to be his helper and support; and from these two the human race
has come. You said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; let us make him a
helper like himself.’
“Now, not
with lust, but with fidelity I take this kinswoman as my wife. Send down your
mercy on me and on her, and grant that we may grow old together. Bless us with
children.”