Bringing you the
"Good News" of Jesus Christ
and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC
Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's
magisterium
If you get married in the Catholic Church, and your husband rarely has sex with you, and then doesn't want sex at all (and it has nothing to do with a medical issue), is he committing a mortal sin?
Marie C.
{ If you get married in the Church, and your husband rarely has sex with you, is that a mortal sin? }
Eric replied:
Marie,
It seems quite doubtful. If he didn't have a malicious intent, I see no way it could be a mortal sin.
Have you asked him his reasons?
Perhaps it's an opportunity for emotional intimacy and communication.
Eric It is good that you exist. You are worth more in the eyes of God than the entire cosmos.
In Catholic teaching, marriage establishes a mutual and exclusive right between spouses to conjugal acts, which express the unitive and procreative dimensions of marital love. (1, 2) A husband's persistent and deliberate refusal to engage in sexual relations—without grave reasons such as medical issues, mutual agreement for continence, or serious circumstances—violates this sacred obligation, constituting grave matter that can amount to a mortal sin if accompanied by full knowledge and deliberate consent. (3, 4, 5, 6) This refusal undermines the "total personal unity" demanded by the sacrament of Matrimony. (1)
Obligations of Spouses in Conjugal Life.
The Code of Canon Law emphasizes that those in the marital state bear a special duty to build up the people of God through marriage and family life. (7) This includes fostering the conjugal communion that renews mutual fidelity and deepens spiritual union through the marital act. (8) Conjugal love, as described in Church doctrine, "involves a totality" encompassing body, feelings, spirit, and will, leading to a "deeply personal unity" that is "indissoluble and faithful" while remaining "open to fertility." (1)
The sexual act in marriage is inherently unitive and procreative, joining spouses in love and openness to life; its deliberate frustration distorts marital virtue and purity. (9, 10, 2)
Spouses are called to self-mastery and generosity, but this does not justify unilateral deprivation. Periodic continence for serious reasons (e.g., spacing births) is licit when respecting natural cycles, but blanket refusal rejects the "mutual giving" inherent to marriage. (11, 12)
Canon 1152 implies an expectation of conjugal living as normative: even after grave faults like adultery, forgiveness and restoration of relations are earnestly recommended unless condoned or other conditions apply. (3) Persistent separation from bed and board without ecclesiastical process underscores the gravity of disrupting this unity. (3)
Refusal "has nothing to do with a medical issue," ruling out health-based just cause, and "rarely then not at all" suggests deliberation rather than temporary aversion.
Grave Matter and Mortal Sin.
Mortal sin requires three conditions:
grave matter
full knowledge, and
deliberate consent. (4)
Denying the marital debt persistently meets the threshold of grave matter, as it "turns man away from God" by violating the divine plan for marriage—a grave offense against the Sixth Commandment. (5, 6)
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. (6)
Grave matter here: Marriage's essence is contradicted by withholding the body, which belongs to the spouse (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:4-5, echoed in doctrine). This echoes the "lie" of incomplete self-giving outside true fidelity. (13, 8)
Knowledge and consent: If aware of the Church's teaching on marital totality and choosing refusal anyway (e.g., preferring personal comfort), it fulfills the conditions. (4, 14)
Venial sin might apply to isolated refusals or imperfect consent, but ongoing rejection without repentance risks eternal consequences. (14)
Church sources stress mercy and reconciliation: the innocent spouse may seek ecclesiastical authority, but the offending spouse must repent to restore charity. (3)
Practical Considerations.
Consult a priest or canon lawyer for personal circumstances, as factors like emotional distress or mutual discernment affect imputability. The Church urges Christian charity and family good, encouraging dialogue, confession, and possibly separation if needed.(3, 7) Spouses should pursue self-discipline to embrace marital love's blessings. (11)
In summary, such refusal is gravely sinful—potentially mortal—violating the sacramental bond's unitive core, but God's mercy awaits repentance. (5, 1)
1643 "Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands "indissolubility and faithfulness" in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values." (Familiaris Consortio 13)
2. Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church:
Christ – Our Pascha, Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, 871
871 The marital love of a man and a woman is expressed in their sexual life together. In the sexual act, spouses are joined in love, expressing the indissoluble unity of marital life. True marital love is fruitful love, therefore the bodily union of spouses is open to procreation. The sexual act has a double aspect: unitive and procreative. Only such a conjugal act is virtuous and pure. The loss of one of these aspects of the sexual act distorts its substance, destroys the virtue and purity of marital life, and is therefore a sin.
§ 1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.
§ 2. Tacit condonation exists if the innocent spouse has had marital relations voluntarily with the other spouse after having become certain of the adultery. It is presumed, moreover, if the spouse observed conjugal living for six months and did not make recourse to the ecclesiastical or civil authority.
§ 3. If the innocent spouse has severed conjugal living voluntarily, the spouse is to introduce a cause for separation within six months to the competent ecclesiastical authority which, after having investigated all the circumstances, is to consider carefully whether the innocent spouse can be moved to forgive the fault and not to prolong the separation permanently.
In Brief.
.
. 1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation
of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and
his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds
it.
§ 1. According to their own vocation, those who live in the marital state are bound by a special duty to work through marriage and the family to build up the people of God.
§ 2. Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them. Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church.
8. Contraception outside Marriage: Prudence or Sin?,
Nova et Vetera, Donald Haggerty, p.8
The marital bond is permanent, and the mutual fidelity of husband and wife to each other is renewed and deepened in the act of becoming one flesh. At the same time, by its very nature, the conjugal act is capable of beginning a new life. There is a procreative meaning, a mystery of creative possibility, inherent in the nature of sexual union. Those who would hold that the Church's ban on contraception is directed exclusively to marital relations argue that this teaching of Humanae Vitae on the inseparability of the unitive and procreative meanings in the marital act, while valid in marriage, breaks down once outside the sacredness of the conjugal act. The inseparability principle, in this view, cannot provide a justification for banning a deliberate choice to prevent procreation in the non-marital sexual act precisely because this is not a true unitive act in its proper meaning. Physically there is a sexual union between a man and a woman,but the marital truth of total self-giving between a man and woman is lacking in these relations.
They may be united in pleasure but not in a permanent gift of mutual fidelity. The act is a lie, a deception, as Pope St. John Paul II often repeated, inasmuch as their bodily union is contradicted by the actual truth of not giving themselves fully to each other.
The fecundity of marriage.
.
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life," (Familiaris Consortio 30) teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life." (Humanae Vitae 11)
"This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act." (Humanae Vitae 12; cf. Pope Pius XI, encyclical, Casti Connubii)
The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy." It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed. The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings.
For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace. It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. It arouses in them a consciousness of their responsibilities. And finally, it confers upon parents a deeper and more effective influence in the education of their children. As their children grow up, they develop a right sense of values and achieve a serene and harmonious use of their mental and physical powers.
Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator.
But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God. If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.
Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious.
In reality, these two cases are completely different.
In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature.
In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process.
It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.
Other offenses against the dignity of marriage.
.
.
2387 The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive." (Familiaris Consortio 19; cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 47 § 2.) The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.
1037 God predestines no one to go to Hell; (cf. Council of Orange II (529): DS 397; Council of Trent (1547):1567) for this, a willful turning
away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until
the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her
faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want any
to perish, but all to come to repentance: (2 Peter 3:9)
Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.
Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer I (Roman Canon) 88
Hope this helps,
Mike H.
Side note:
Dear AAC Readers —
One of my colleagues replied to us (within the group):
We don't have anywhere enough information to answer this question. It's irresponsible and wreckless to tell this woman anything but, you need to discuss this with a competent Councilor.
Explaining the conditions required for a sin to be mortal.
All that said, my collleague is correct, there is no way for us to be able to answer whether is he's sinning at all, let alone committing mortal sin.
The recent national news stories on A.I. and related A.I. tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity, and others have shown us that not all A.I. platforms are equal and safe. An A.I. platform is only as good as the “human” developer, creates it. Because it’s developed by humans and human minds, it will always be flawed.
That said, one of the reasons I like Magisterium A.I. for our specific Catholic Apostolate is because it is a Generative or Content based platform. It is based on (content, information, and, in our case, “Teachings”. As I have previously said, none of us at AskACatholic.com are trained in Marriage (or pastoral) counseling, so to counsel anyone would be wrong.
If you re-read the answer Magisterium A.I. gave it is all based on the Teachings of the Catholic Church – there is no counseling given.
I just wanted to clarify any misunderstanding readers may have on this issue.
