After an argument with a friend of mine, i am confused about SEX

  • Thread starter Thread starter yoyoboy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yoyoboy

Guest
Here’s the story. A very good firend of mine is engaged. He and his fiance are catholic. one night about a month ago they slept together. the next two weeks he did attend mass but did not receive communion. the third week he went to confession and, of course, the priest heard his confession. while in there, the priest said something along the lines of this to my firend:

“god willing, it doesn’t happen, but if you were to fall into this sin again, by no means let it keep you from receiving communion.”

my friend questioned the priest, because as he understood it, sex before marriage is adultery and therefore wrong. the priest asked my firend:

“you said that you slept with the girl out of passion… love… correct?”

my friend said yes. the priest continued:

“if you had slept with her just out of desire to please yourself, or simply because you thought she was an attractive female and you felt aroused, or any reason other than genuine love, then yes, it would be a mortal sin. but since you really do care for the girl, since you intend on marrying her, since you slept with her because you love her and tehre was not a single selfish feeling inside of you, then the act is at the very worst, a venial sin. if you go to mass, the sin is forgiven you and you may receive.”

since this was, after all, his pastor, my friend left the confessional with this new idea. he told me about it beause we tell each other everything but hearing this troubled me. honestly, the priest’s reasoning seems to make sense. i gave it more thought and i cannot find any reason to think that if there is nothing but genuine selflessness, and the pure desire to please the other person, and to be open to pregnancy should it happen, then why would it be a mortal sin. i understand that since it is out of marriage, it is a sin nonetheless, but is it still a mortal sin necesarilly if those conditions i mentioned are in play?

is it ever a venial sin, and NOT a mortal sin, to have sex outside of marriage, under ANY circumstance whatsoever?
 
It sounds like this priest has fallen into subjectivism–that the good intent of the couple engaging in grave wrongdoing changes the objective nature of the act. Mortal sins are only mitigated to venial when we have reduced culpability (like ignorance or duress), NOT when we have good intentions. Please correct your friend as soon as possible. I’m not sure how to go about correcting the priest when the seal of confession is involved.
 
To be a mortal sin requires three things:
  1. It be a grave sin: adultery is a grave sin
  2. Complete Knowledge: Know it is wrong-He did
  3. Free will- choose freely to do it not under some pressure or fear- He did I am assuming.
His pastor is wrong in trying to rationalize his act as an act of love. It does not matter how much we say something is love when it is not love in this case. To have premarital sex is never a choice to fully express love- and therefore it is lust (twisted love because it does not fulfill its purpose). To love someone is to make a gift to the other and premarital sex is not that: it is an attempt to enjoy the privelages (along with the responsibilities) of marriage without the commitment. He is not married to her; he hopes to marry her and as many can attest to, this is no gaurantee-hence why you have a ceremony to show it is the case.

To have premarital sex is to like receiving communion without being baptised. You cannot do it in any order. You have to be baptized first and then receive communion.

You are right to question it. hopefully God’s grace will preserve your friend, but in the mean time help in to realize that it is not what some pastor says that is truth, but the Church under guidance of the bishops- who would not agree with this pastor.

Only rarely might it be a venial sin, if it was done due to addiction or due to undue pressure and even then, I would say people should be wise and refrain from communion until confessing.
 
I don’t know how prevalent this is, but my priest has told me in the confessional not to refrain from receiving the Eucharist-using almost the exact same wording that’s in the op. In my case, I confessed to using contraception, and then of going to communion knowing I was in mortal sin (from contracepting). He told me not to let “anything” keep me from the Eucharist. I didn’t argue w/ him, just made a mental note to seek another confessor should I receive Communion unworthily again (I’ve found that arguing w/ priests about morals is ususually pointless). Like I said, I don’t know how widespread this is, but it seems like an instance of going overboard in an attempt at being “pastoral”.

In Christ,

Ellen
 
Incontrast, one of the priests at the OLAM Shrine in Hanceville, if one confesses a mortal sin, asks if the penitent has received commnion since committing that sin. I have thanked that priest at least twice for his concern for the Eucharist.

DaveBj
 
Did he wear a condom or is she on the pill, or did they just risk concieving a child out of wedlock? I don’t care how much you love someone, if you have sex before marriage you don’t respect yourself and the sanctity of the body, marriage, and sex. Case closed.
 
yoyoboy said:
…my friend questioned the priest, because as he understood it, sex before marriage is adultery and therefore wrong…
Click to expand...
In the interest of correctness, the sin your friend was confessing was not adultery but fornication (adultery requires at least on of the participants to be married) and is a grave act according to the Catechism:
2353:Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
God bless him for having the courage and strength to confess it. Based on what you wrote, the first two conditions for a mortal sin (grave matter and knowledge) are met.

The only thing I can see is that perhaps Father is saying that because of the pure unselfish love present there was not full consent of the will (the third condition)??? By Father’s logic, if your friend really unselfishly loves his gay boyfriend, and intends to marry him, is it OK for them to have sex? Sorry, I don’t see it.
 
Such priests should be reported immediately to the bishop.
I cannot believe with all those years in the seminary they can mix up something like this.
 
yoyoboy said:
…[quoting the priest]“if you had slept with her just out of desire to please yourself, or simply because you thought she was an attractive female and you felt aroused, or any reason other than genuine love, then yes, it would be a mortal sin. but since you really do care for the girl, since you intend on marrying her, since you slept with her because you love her and tehre was not a single selfish feeling inside of you, then the act is at the very worst, a venial sin. if you go to mass, the sin is forgiven you and you may receive.”…
Click to expand...
I would almost say it’s the other way around. Arguably a sudden attraction to a stranger which leads to casual sex might mean the person got carried away by passion, while a long-term ongoing relationship where the person continually places himself in a tempting situation suggests that the person had ample time to fully consider his actions.

I just wouldn’t mess around with any of it. If there’s even some basis for thinking the sin was mortal, one shouldn’t receive the Eucharist until he’s been to Confession, and that’s that.
 
For some weird reason I feel quite strongly after reading this post.

I myself am single, and a virgin, and a very low desire if any for a sexual relationship coupled with my scrupulosity has mostly kept me away from even thinking about wanting to sleep with a man.

Still, after reading this, about true love and pure compassion and selflessness, I must say that I have sometimes wondered why it could be so wrong? I remember another rather liberal priest saying that as long as nobody gets hurt…

But on the other hand, somebody made that point about children, and maybe that is where the answer lies? Because, of coruse, contraception is wrong. And not being married, they haven’t made that official commitment yet to stay together, the commitment that is so important for children so they can grow up in a family…

But do any of you also sometimes wonder? (Just wondering now, is it a sin to wonder??) Wonder why this whole sexual thing became such a big issue, such a black-or-white thing, in the church? Has it always been like this? I mean LOVE… is something good, right? And if two people share their love with the sole intention of sharing something good… apart from being possibly irresponsible, why des it necessarily constitute “grave matter”?

Kathrin
 
p.s.
I need to add (too late for editing) that I am not trying to question the church’s teachings, it is just something I have wondered about before.

And p.p.s.
As an attempt to answer my own questions:
Maybe it has to do with how we view love and sex. For me personally, for example, I find it kind of freeing to not be “bound” by desire. I do think that sexual pleasure, if striven for for its own sake, can become addictive and maybe a hindrance to spirituality?
 
I think a lot of priests have more liberal views of what they consider mortal sin. One priest explained to me that a mortal sin is one in which the sinner is completely cut off from the graces of God and turning away from God and rejecting God in such a way that if they were to die, they would immediately be damned.

The impression I got was that unless you commited some really heinous crime like murder, adultery or something outrageously sacriligious, a mortal sin was like excommunicating yourself away from the Church. You had to be doing something incredibly awful to be guilty of a mortal sin.

I’m sure the more conservative views of sin are appalled by such lax opinions. On one hand such thinking may be consistent with an incredibly mericful and forgiving God. BUT on the other hand, such opinions may be leading some to eternal damnation. It would be far better to error on the conservative side, the consequences would be far less devastating…
 
Kathrin said:
Still, after reading this, about true love and pure compassion and selflessness, I must say that I have sometimes wondered why it could be so wrong? I remember another rather liberal priest saying that as long as nobody gets hurt…

… But do any of you also sometimes wonder? (Just wondering now, is it a sin to wonder??) Wonder why this whole sexual thing became such a big issue, such a black-or-white thing, in the church? Has it always been like this? I mean LOVE… is something good, right? And if two people share their love with the sole intention of sharing something good… apart from being possibly irresponsible, why des it necessarily constitute “grave matter”?

Kathrin
Click to expand...
Of course love is good. It’s the fornication which is bad. Remember that Jesus Himself listed “fornication” (not just adultery) as a sin which “defiles a man,” Mark 7:21-23. St. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and again in Ephesians 5:5, that “fornicators” are among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Sexual sin never “became” a black and white thing in the church. Rather, it already was black and white in Jesus’ own words and in the words of the Apostles.
wcknight said:
The impression I got was that unless you commited some really heinous crime like murder, adultery or something outrageously sacriligious, a mortal sin was like excommunicating yourself away from the Church. You had to be doing something incredibly awful to be guilty of a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s true. The problem is that fornication falls into that category in God’s view. It’s our society which minimizes the severity of it.
 
Gamera said:
Well, that’s true. The problem is that fornication falls into that category in God’s view. It’s our society which minimizes the severity of it.
Click to expand...
Not just our society but unfortunately some priests in the confessional as well, and they are presenting this as God’s view…
 
Gamera said:
Well, that’s true. The problem is that fornication falls into that category in God’s view. It’s our society which minimizes the severity of it.
Click to expand...
Good point!!
So, the question is not, “how can something so “mild” be such a grave sin?”, but “how can something so grave be taken so lightly by society?”.
 
Harmony1988 said:
Such priests should be reported immediately to the bishop.
I cannot believe with all those years in the seminary they can mix up something like this.
Click to expand...
And how would a Priest defend himself against such an accusation? The Diocese would dismiss the complaint the minute it was filed
 
You know I just don’t know why the Pope doesn’t simply remove about 95% of all American Priests. After coming here for a few months, I’m now sure that most of them have not a clue about what they are doing. The vatican should no doubt appoint the patrons of CAF to do the work themselves since they know better than most priests what to do. The low opinion of the priesthood at this forum is astounding. There is zero respect, and what most say about nuns is insulting and shameful.

It’s simply amazing.
 
yoyoboy said:
is it ever a venial sin, and NOT a mortal sin, to have sex outside of marriage, under ANY circumstance whatsoever?
Click to expand...
The priest spoke out of ignorance. Under no circumstance can fornication be not considered a sin. :o
 
holdencaulfield said:
The priest spoke out of ignorance. Under no circumstance can fornication be not considered a sin. :o
Click to expand...
I think the question was, it is always a MORTAL sin? (You probably meant to write that?)

I think it would be a venial sin if not all the conditions for a mortal sin are given. That is, if for example the person does not know it is a sin, or if the person does not consent with their full will (I am not talking about rape here!) Here it is easy to start questioning though… if somebody is overcome by strong desire and just can’t resist… or with actual sexual addiction… it is not their full free will either, right…

Kathrin
 
While the priest may be correct that the sin was not subjectively mortal, I believe the rule is that we are not to receive communion after any sin that involves serious matter, regardless of our subjective culpability.
SpiritMeadow said:
You know I just don’t know why the Pope doesn’t simply remove about 95% of all American Priests.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it would be 95%… I’ve confessed sins along these lines to different priests and gotten quite a range of advice, from “not a big deal” to “you must immediately stop seeing this person. You are not living the Christian life if you continue in this sin.” I’d say its more like 50/50 rather than the 95% figure for liberal priests that you provided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top