"Committed Sex" is okay?

[setter]

As i read the replys and comments on this issue. It seems to me that some people do not know the true teachings of the Catholic Church on faith and Morals maybe they were not taught them properly, do not want to listen or try to justafie sin.

Christ instatuted the Sacrament of marriage so that we would not commit sins of the flesh.

Please quote a specific scripture or authoritative Church document to support this erroneous personal opinion of yours.

The Priests do talk about these sins in their Homily’s on Sunday mornings but you have to be listening.

Sometimes it is difficult to read between the lines.

WE will not get to Heaven if we do not try to live good lives.

“Good” by whose standards …remember the young rich man’s encounter with Christ.

True repentence is when we never commit that sin again.

More distortion based on your personal opinion …what about Jesus’s command to his followers to “forgive 7 times 70”?

What happened before Christ was born does not pertain to us today as far faith and morals are concerened. That is why we must live by the laws of Christ and the Church today if we want to go to Heaven.

By this account, the OT should be disregarded and the grace of the inner law is the way to earn one’s way to heaven …what about this past Sunday’s reading of the ‘good thief’ on the cross granted heaven by Jesus after apparently living a life of sin?

I beleive it is said that more Souls go to Hell because of sins of the Flesh than for any other sins.

Christ loves us all and wants us with him in Heaven that is why we must try and get there with his help…

God Bless you all .

Be Good.

Mayo

You are finally starting to make some sense …be good as only God is good, through the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Larry, please forgive me if I’m misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you’re saying that according to Scripture and the Church, a couple is “married” to one another if they have sex, and therefore they are not sinning when they do so.

How then is it that the Church teaches that fornication is gravely sinful? If I marry a woman merely by having sex with her, there is no fornication.

You are suggesting that “commitment” in a relationship grants that relationship the status of marriage. How is that so? By what authority do you say that? The Church is very specific on what marriage is: a sacrament that must be conferred by an ordained minister, as are all the sacraments.

From a purely logical outlook: how can you support your claim at all? In what way do Joe and Sally “commit” to one another that makes their relationship a marriage if there is no formal act that unifies them other than sex? And how do we determine if their “level of commitment” was adequate – after they break up, do we say, “They must not have been committed”, as the OSASers say about people who fall back into sin, “They must not have been truly saved”?

Peace,
Dante

 

[denise_wallace]

I am still learning. but a couple verses from the bible came to mind for me while reading this thread.
1 COR. 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than be on fire.
1 COR. 7:36 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly towards his virgin, and a critical moment has come, and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married.

in the foot notes one of the critical moments is discribed as their passions becoming uncontrolable.

so does this mean that if they are engaged or betrothed and that critical moment comes it is not a sin to have sex? and it is not a sin as long as they get married, but if they don’t get married then it becomes a sin?

 

[denise_wallace]

sorry i am new at this. so if it isn’t a sin as long as they get married wouldn’t committed sex be ok if the end result was they get married?

then there would only be sin if they broke up. it would become a sin when they parted.

jesus forgives us of our sins so if they broke up couldn’t they go to confession and be forgiven and still go to heaven as long as they didn’t repeat the sin again?

 

[larry85704]

Hi DanteAlighieri

Denise Wallace pointed out some Biblical passages that are applicable. Perhaps you could do the same. You know, I am all for being virgins till you leave your wedding. I think that is great. But this thread got started because some priest said committed sex was not sinful. I think he is right.

This is certainly an interesting issue. It is an area where expectations and ceremony have overcome substance and Biblical writings. Sex seems to cause so much turmoil in the Church, makes me think Catholics are not getting any.

Anyway, I guess it is ok for the Church to go against the Bible, cause it sure does it, but it makes me nervous.

And the couple performs the Sacrament. The priest witnesses it. When is the last time you went to a wedding?

 

[homewardbound]

If “Committed Sex” is okay then why did God institute marriage at all?

What a bunch of hooey. People who agree with this insanity is only doing so to make themselves feel better for fornicating. Anytime I pray about sexual purity to God I can feel very strongly that having premartial sex is not okay. Though I guess I very much doubt anyone who thinks fornication is okay spends much time in prayer anyway. Who cares about God when we can make our own rules and interpretations? Much easier to believe the fallen clergy than God. Much easier to follow men than God.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Hi DanteAlighieri

Denise Wallace pointed out some Biblical passages that are applicable. Perhaps you could do the same. You know, I am all for being virgins till you leave your wedding. I think that is great. But this thread got started because some priest said committed sex was not sinful. I think he is right.

I’m not going to quote the Bible, but I will quote the Catechism. Since we are Catholics, that should be enough to end this discussion.

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.

That’s it – period. Sex between an unmarried man and woman is not sacramental – it’s mortally sinful. That a priest says something that contradicts the official teaching of Mother Church does not lend your argument any credibility.

This is certainly an interesting issue. It is an area where expectations and ceremony have overcome substance and Biblical writings. Sex seems to cause so much turmoil in the Church, makes me think Catholics are not getting any.

Anyway, I guess it is ok for the Church to go against the Bible, cause it sure does it, but it makes me nervous.

Since you are the one making claims about the Church’s teachings contradicting Scripture, perhaps it would be best for you to support your own case, rather than making bald assertions like the above.

The Catechism is based on Scripture and Tradition – the double-edged Word of God. Both Scripture and Tradition are inspired by the Holy Spirit; there can be no contradiction, and if you think there is one, I promise it’s not due to duplicity on the Church’s part.

And the couple performs the Sacrament. The priest witnesses it. When is the last time you went to a wedding?

You’re absolutely right; I worded this wrong. The priest, however, is not present when the couple in question decides in the heat of the moment on the couch that they are “committed” enough to tear each other’s clothes off, or even if they spend endless nights sitting at Denny’s discussing whether they are so committed. The priest is present to witness the Sacrament of Matrimony of a couple who has gone through the steps Mother Church has prescribed.

Sex consummates the Sacrament – that is, completes it. A sacrament must have matter AND form to be valid.

Peace,
Dante

 

[mdgspencer]

There are number of pointed remarks by Jesus and by Saint Paul about sex between unmarried people. Jesus said that there are many things that come out of a man that defile a man. One of the things he names is fornication. "All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man’(Mk 7:20-23). Jesus says these things for the good of his hearers, so they will not do something evil, and that will defile them. I recall too, for example, that Saint Paul said that no fornicator will enter the kingdom of heaven, but I do not have the exact reference here.

 

[larry85704]

Ok, you ask me to support my statement

1 Timothy 3:2-7
2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

An overseer is a bishop. Do you see the part about married to one wife? And the word must? It is right there at the top of the list.

Since you are the one making claims about the Church’s teachings contradicting Scripture, perhaps it would be best for you to support your own case, rather than making bald assertions like the above.

I know my example is off topic. Denise hit the fornication nail on the head. I cannot top that. But yep, the Catholic Church is not 100% New Testament. The definition of fornication in the Catechism is in direct conflict with 1 COR. 7:36.

Isn’t religion interesting?

 

[fix]

Ok, you ask me to support my statement

An overseer is a bishop. Do you see the part about married to one wife? And the word must? It is right there at the top of the list.

I know my example is off topic. Denise hit the fornication nail on the head. I cannot top that. But yep, the Catholic Church is not 100% New Testament. The definition of fornication in the Catechism is in direct conflict with 1 COR. 7:36.

Isn’t religion interesting?

You do now that Christ founded a Church, not a book? I mean Scriptures were codified by the Church. She is their guardian and interpreter. If our understanding of Scripture seems to conflict with Church teaching the problem is not with the Church, but with our faulty interpretation.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Ok, you ask me to support my statement

An overseer is a bishop. Do you see the part about married to one wife? And the word must? It is right there at the top of the list.

How on earth does this have anything to do with the supposed sacramentality of pre-marital sex???

I know my example is off topic. Denise hit the fornication nail on the head. I cannot top that. But yep, the Catholic Church is not 100% New Testament. The definition of fornication in the Catechism is in direct conflict with 1 COR. 7:36.

Isn’t religion interesting?

Yes – it’s especially fascinating when people quote Scripture out of context as an example of how one thing they don’t understand contradicts another thing they don’t understand.

Sorry, brother, but your argument has just not picked up any steam. You have not demonstrated how the Catechism “contradicts” 1 Corinthians, and the only attempt you’ve made was to quote something from Timothy that is completely irrelevant (and, I might add, apparently using the NIV translation).

Since your argument has, in fact, failed to become an argument, I guess we’re done here.

If you want to discuss ideas, you need to be willing to support your outlandish claims with more than “Isn’t religion interesting?”

Peace,
Dante

 

[manualman]

Religion sure is interesting. Especially when you bother to learn context. Paul was writing to converts from gentile religions. Polygamy was still not uncommon in these cultures. When you understand that, it is pretty easy to see that Paul is merely prohibiting polygamists and divorcees from becoming bishops.

Nobody of substance has ever claimed that married men are invalid matter for priesthood or the episcopacy. It is a disciplinary rule only today that prevents it in

You are no doubt aware that St. Paul never married. Do you accuse him of violating his own criteria? LOL.

For a guy who opens with a statement to the effect “you guys don’t think very much” you don’t do much homework yourself!

 

[larry85704]

Hi fix

You say

You do now that Christ founded a Church, not a book? I mean Scriptures were codified by the Church. She is their guardian and interpreter. If our understanding of Scripture seems to conflict with Church teaching the problem is not with the Church, but with our faulty interpretation.

Without anything to support it. Is not the Sacred Scripture the Word of God? If it isn’t, then what is? You know, I didn’t stop going to the Catholic Church because of a verse in Timothy, and I didn’t have sex with my fiance because of Corinthians. But, I am willing to listen to what other people say. I am not so sure that I have all the right answers that I close my mind. I have an idea about morality that it doesn’t change. What was moral in 2000 BC must still be moral today. Why, because God sees no reason to change. Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. I do not believe that God would allow something to be moral for one group of people and immoral for another.

Hi manualman

Ok, Timothy was written in consideration of people that may have had a different view of marriage than the Jews. And yes, Paul was not married. It is my understanding that some of the Apostles were married. Is it your assertion that Paul was creating a different set of rules for gentiles? I think the Church went through some discussions about not having different standards for different people. I think the result was pretty much that there be one set of rules for all. Todays Church professes to be Universal. Could it be universal if the rules were a function of your zip code? And by the way, there are married priests all over. There was, and may still be, one in Tucson, there is one in Phoenix.

To everyone.

In Corinthians, Paul talks about your virgin, he is probably referring to the virgin you are betrothed to. It was not considered sinful to have sex with your betrothed. Paul does not state anything new. We have lost betrothals in todays society, at least in the US. So generally, we should not have sex before marriage. But marriage used to mean a lifelong commitment and still does to many people, but not all. By having so many divorces our society has made marriage something of a joke. What is requested of a couple at their wedding? You know, the for better, for worst… . That is a commitment. If the commitment isn’t there, then the marriage will fail. What is more important, the Wedding, or the commitment? If you really do your homework you will know that the Church’s interest in marriage has not been consistent. The Church has always been pro-marriage and pro-woman, but it has, and continues to, change It’s understanding of marriage. If you don’t believe me, try to get an annulment now, and go back 50 years and try and get one.

Anybody want to guess why the Church changes? Or even, can the Church change moral law?

 

[manualman]

Hi fix

Hi manualman

Ok, Timothy was written in consideration of people that may have had a different view of marriage than the Jews. And yes, Paul was not married. It is my understanding that some of the Apostles were married. Is it your assertion that Paul was creating a different set of rules for gentiles? I think the Church went through some discussions about not having different standards for different people. I think the result was pretty much that there be one set of rules for all. Todays Church professes to be Universal. Could it be universal if the rules were a function of your zip code? And by the way, there are married priests all over. There was, and may still be, one in Tucson, there is one in Phoenix.

You quote the text and present a presumption that Paul is stating that a man cannot be a bishop unless he is married and has one wife. All I did was point out that you misread it via ignorance of context. What the text means is that a bishop may not be a polygamist or a divorcee, as evidenced by the fact that Paul was an apostle (bishop by definition) and was not married. This is not specific to gentile or Jew, so I have no idea of what your point is. Today’s celibacy requirement is a disciplinary issue, not a theological requirement. Thus, it can be waived or eliminated at the judgement of the Holy See. It has no relevance to discussions on moral taching continuity.

 

[denise_wallace]

Most places is the bible when talking about fornication they are talking about idolitry or worship of idols. the word is actually used very little. most of the time the word adultry is used and by defination adultry is when one or both parties engaging in sex are married. fornication and adultry do not have the same meaning. when the word is used in scripture in the New American Bible the NIV uses the words sexually immoral. the question here is weather or not it is immoral to have sex while in a committed relationship, i would suppose meaning engaged to be married. Isn’t betrothed and engaged about the same thing? just one is by choice and the other is by the parents plan. they both have the same end result marriage.
so as i said if a couple is to be married and the passion burns in them, let him do what he will with his virgin as long as they get married then it is not a sin. it only becomes a sin if they don’t get married. i believe it is best if they wait til they are married don’t get me wrong here.
scripture seems to support that committed sex is not sinful but can become sinful if the couple doesn’t get married.
In the bible immoral sex has more to do with sexual relations with another mans wife or another womens husband, relations with a person of the same sex, sex with children, beastiality (sp) and women who are “loose” or prostitution. i really don’t think it is refering to commited sex. Jesus says it is better to be married so i hope that people that are in a committed sexual relationship have marriage plans right around the corner or have already set a date. If not boy you better go to the jewler and put a ring on her finger! lol

 

[mdgspencer]

Saint Paul says some very strong things against sex between married people. Here are some of the passages.
Do not be deceived, fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God(1 Cor 6:9-10)
When I wrote to you not to associate with immoral people, I meant not the immoral of this world, but with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is a fornicator…(1 Cor 5:9-10)
Be sure of this, no fornicator has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God(Ephesians 5:5).
In these passages Saint Paul speaks of other things that mean that someone will not enter the kingdom of God, such as adultery, but I didn’t want to provide long quotes. You could look these passages up yourself if you wish.
The Greek word Saint Paul used that I translated as fornicator is pornos, Someone mentioned that this word in the version of the Bible he checked is translated “immoral.” However, the standard dictionary of New Testament Greek, the “Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament” says that this word means fornicator, and in fact doing so it specifically refers to the appearances of the Greek word pornos in the first two passages I quote at the beginning of this message. These passages were written in Greek and so to know what they mean you have to go to Greek dictionaries. I consulted another reference book of New Testament Greek, by the way, “An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words,” and this puts the word pornos in its article titled “fornication.”
Saint Paul said emphatically do not be mistaken, fornication means you will not enter the kingdom of God. Appearently there were those then too who said sex between unmarried people is no sin.

 

[manualman]

Saint Paul says some very strong things against sex between married people…

.

Hehehe. This happens to me at work all the time. I spend a ton of time, do great research, solve intractable problems and get murdered for a typo in the summary report.

I think you meant UNmarried people!

 

[mdgspencer]

Oops… That is one of my all-time typos. (I’d better not say what others were.)
Maybe some kind moderator will correct this?

Hehehe. This happens to me at work all the time. I spend a ton of time, do great research, solve intractable problems and get murdered for a typo in the summary report.

I think you meant UNmarried people!

 

[Mayo]

I did not say that catholic couples could not be married by a DEacon.
WE all know that catholic men and women are living together and having children without the benefit of being married in the Catholic Church. They know they are living in sin and if they are approached about it they can become defencive. They use excuses to justafie what they are doing wrong and they think God will forgive them when they Die. We know that if they do not get to Confession and Die in the state of Grace they are going to Hell.
THe Thief on the Cross asked Christ for forgiveness before he died.
Ask any Priest or Deacon that by not commiting the same sin again is that not showing God true sorrow for that sin and he will tell you that is true.
Christ did instatuted.the SAcrament of Marriage and he did say that it is not good for man to live alone. I would advise you to log onto the Catholic Network and look up The Catholic Church on Faith, Morals and Marriage and you will find all these answers.
We are to live good lives by obeying the ten Commandments and the Catholic Catechism.
God commanded us to do that if we want to get to Heaven.
I man enough to admit that in reference to the old Testament and the church today I was wrong.
I take issue with you saying that these are my personal oppinions. They are not they are the teachings of the Church and the truth.
I feel that the only time I need to defend what I say is when the person is a non beleiver.

Mayo