"Committed Sex" is okay?

[setter]

I always thought it was sinful and was shocked when I heard him say that. He couldn’t remember the exact name of the source.

God Bless,
Michael

Is Father obfuscating? Here is a link to the “catholic” source:

A betrothal proposal

Are cohabiting Catholics always “living in sin”? Two respected family ministry researchers argue “no” and suggest the recovery of an ancient ritual for those moving toward marriage.

Michael G. Lawler and Gail S. Risch

uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12369&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_

Here is excerpt of the article conclusion:

Happily ever after
Since the most recent research shows that all cohabitors are not alike and that nuptial cohabitation prior to a wedding does not lessen the stability of marriage, in our experience with young adults, nuptial cohabitation fits into the process of their becoming married. And if it fits into the process of becoming married, it fits also into the process by which their marriage becomes sacrament.

Church teaching is sometimes slow to respond to social change and to sift out its beneficial aspects and thus sometimes can appear detached from real experience. That is what young adults tell us and what they also told various focus groups.

We invite the Catholic Church to be a leader, rather than an adversary, in acknowledging and nurturing nuptial cohabiting relationships as just and loving relationships and pathways to grace. We also invite Catholics to be ready to assist cohabiting nuptial couples to discover the presence of God in their lives and to live into that grace throughout their present cohabiting and future married lives.

Michael J. Lawler and Gail S. Risch are researchers at the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University, Nebraska, where they also teach theology. Lawler is director of the center. Both have written extensively about marriage and family.

BTW - I was given a cold response by the parish director of Marriage Preparation Ministry and our dioceses Family Life Ministry director when in gave a knee jerk “are you kidding” bewildered response when in a recent meeting when they each gave me this article to read as a thought provoking way to look at our cohabitating couples who are seeking marriage in the Catholic Church.

 

[mgrfin]

Is Father obfuscating? Here is a link to the “catholic” source:

Here is excerpt of the article conclusion:

BTW - I was given a cold response by the parish director of Marriage Preparation Ministry and our dioceses Family Life Ministry director when in gave a knee jerk “are you kidding” bewildered response when in a recent meeting when they each gave me this article to read as a thought provoking way to look at our cohabitating couples who are seeking marriage in the Catholic Church.

It should come as no surprise to practicing Catholics that morality is not determined by ‘focus groups’ or majority, or popularity. Such is the lesson on birth control and divorce - the Church is just not going there.

Maybe we need some education, and preaching on sex and marriage, not just at the time of marriage, or ‘encounters’, but Sunday sermons.

Creighton University, Jesuits and all, should be embarassed by the statements coming from their campus, in terms of this movement to liberal engagement in sexual relationships, without the benefit of clergy.

peace

 

[mdgspencer]

“Committed sex” is the sort of thing that Catholics instinctively find perverse because they are Christians. Jesus said in John 10 that his sheep hear his voice and follow him and that they do not recognize the voice of false shepherds. Those who feel repugnance at this are those who are hearing Christ’s voice.

 

[Mary_ann_R]

" Those who feel repugnance at this are those who are hearing Christ’s voice.

:clapping: :yup:

 

[Monkey1976]

I have to say - When I, as a person who is currently cohabitating (though we are moving toward marriage as quickly as we can to correct the situation), think that this article is nutty, then there must be something wrong.

 

[Footprints04]

I am a Creighton Student, and I’d have to say I was appalled by the article that was written. It condones premarital sex (which is NO WHERE allowed by the Catholic Church…in any teaching). I was sickened that the Center for Marriage and Family was allowed to publish and proclaim such an article. I takes pieces of Pope John Paul’s teachings and torques them in such a way that it seems like he approved of living like this, where he definitely argued against that lifestyle.

In so saying this, I do not mean to sound judgemental of those who make this decision. If they understand the Church’s stance, and choose to go against it, that is the decision they have made. But they cannot say that the Chuch would support it. They can’t torque what the Church has proclaimed.

I also hate that the professors view has also affected what people think Creighton supports. Does Creighton as a Catholic University support the professors or the Church? It should be a no brainer that they need to support the Church to remain in the dioces…but no…there was little said about it in either form. The president of the university was more concerned about the prestige of the University more than whether or not it was supporting its Catholic beliefs.

That being said, I was very happy with his decision about canceling the Anne Lamont talk. She openly supports abortion and euthenasia, and the presisdent upon reading her work, decided it would be innappropriate to have her speak on a Catholic campus. It is nothing against free speech, it is about supporting a cause that Catholics are against. This is a moral obligation on the part of the University.

I think it is important for Catholic Universities and those attending them to realize that they have an obligation to the Church, and they aren’t trying to inhibit free thinking and discernment. However, they do need to support the Church’s doctorine, and thus may have to take a stand on certain subjects.

 

[Mayo]

I dont think the Catholic Church would agree with you on the Remote Island thing and no priest.
Remember if they are having sex and not married they are commiting mortal sin and if one of them dies and does not get to confession he or she is dieing in mortal sin and will go to Hell.

If they want to go to Heaven they must leave the Island find a priest and be married by him.

When we die there is no justification or ratifacition. We commited sin or we did not commit sin. There is no in between.

I would like to make it clear that I am not judging. The Catholic church teaches what I said.

I am going to add somthing else that just came to mind.
I was on a weekend Retreat many years ago before I was married. I think it was a Jesuit priest that was giving it and he was speaking on faith and morals and he asked this question.
What if you were having Sexual Intercourse you are not married and you die at that moment. Where do you think you would go for all eternity?.

I have never forgotten that in over fifty years.

I hope this does away with any doupts people have on this issue.

We must always remember that God’s laws never change.

Mayo

 

[CuriousInIL]

I dont think the Catholic Church would agree with you on the Remote Island thing and no priest.
Remember if they are having sex and not married they are commiting mortal sin and if one of them dies and does not get to confession he or she is dieing in mortal sin and will go to Hell.

If they want to go to Heaven they must leave the Island find a priest and be married by him.

Why? A Priest is not required for the sacrament of marriage.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Gut check test: is teaching “committed sex” ok as part of the sex ed curriculum when they teach the basic plumbing lesson to 4th graders?

Do you want your children to behave this way as if it’s normal and right and good?

Even if they rack up a lot of “commitments” over time?

I know how Christians would react to this scenario.

 

[larry85704]

You people sure don’t think much. You want to make a big deal out of this, well think of this.

Suppose you are married and have no church in your life. You are a couple of atheists. Is the sex you have sinful? How about if you are married by a justice of the piece. I doubt if it is in either case.

How many of you remember the story of Mary and Joseph? As in Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Yea, that one. Do you remember that Mary and Joseph were betrothed? When Joseph discovered she was with child he could of had her put to death. The sin would have been adultery. Remember how it sort of says this in the Bible? An angel came to Joseph and convinced him to take Mary as his wife. It was Jewish custom to get betrothed young, perhaps before puberty, and married much later. If the couple decided not to get married and were betrothed they could just shack up. No problem.

Now I am not sure what Mary and Joseph did, but they did live together as man and wife, without sex. Since they had a child, Jesus, their friends and family would naturally have thought they had sex. I’ll bet virgin birth was thought of the same way then as it is now. Basically, yea, right. Now I am reasonably sure Mary never committed a sin, but it is never recorded that she married Joseph in a public ceremony. Maybe she felt that she was God’s wife and never wanted to marry Joseph. Hard to say. But, the actions of the Holy Family would not have brought shame to them.

Betrothals are pretty much a thing of the past. I was betrothed at an engaged encounter. But if you are betrothed and decide not to get married, back in the old days when betrothals mattered, my understanding is that you needed to get a divorce.

You can certainly say the Holy Family was the exception, and they were, but I don’t think their exception allowed them to sin.

There is also the idea that if you have sex with someone you are married to them. Marriages are annulled, I think even in the Catholic Church, if you never have sex. So, in a backward sort of way you can sort of support that having sex with someone means you just married them. Just without the wedding.

And yep, there be all the folks that don’t get to see a priest much. This was an issue in the early Church, if you read Acts, chapter 10. In this chapter a man receives Baptism and Confirmation, for his household. Peter baptizes, but does not Marry.

In Matthew, Jesus is asked about the Old Testament marriage. He says you shouldn’t get a divorce. I think it is safe to say that Jesus accepts the Jewish Marriage as valid. I cannot think of a single place in the Bible where anybody got married by an Apostle. I believe that is because the early Church accepted the Jewish marriage. Or, in the case of the story in Acts, the man Baptized was a Gentile. He wasn’t married by the Jewish whatever. No mention is made of him getting married.

Oops. I think I just pointed out that the early Church thought differently about sex and marriage than we do. If it was really so important that people get married, the Apostles would have went around Baptizing and Marrying. Now it is certainly ok to say that was then and this is now. I agree that things should be different now. But, I don’t think morality changes. If God’s love was offered to people (they were Baptized with water and the Holy Spirit) that were, in all likelihood, living together and having sex, in Acts, then God’s love must be fully offered to those people today.

And, to be sure, Jesus is really hard on people that are not committed, or promiscuous.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Mary and Joseph’s betrothal does not equal our modern conception of the engagement. Legally and religiously they had conjugal rights to each other. Why did Joseph want to divorce her? Well, first notice that a divorce would have been required–more equivalent to our contemporary state of marriage. Secondly, he wanted to divorce her because although he had conjugal rights to her, he hadn’t exercised them…so Mary showing up pregnant was a dead giveaway that she was an adulteress and could legally be stoned to death. Of course the angel set him right.

Married atheists have a natural marriage in the eyes of the Church. I’m not sure what that has to do with non-married people having sex outside of marriage?

The government’s laws used to match Judeo-Christian morality better. It used to be that if you had sex with a woman, you married her. No such legal or emotional commitments can even be assumed at all. Or there’d be no such thing as one night stands!

Sex between a legally and sacramentally married husband and wife completes and validates the sacrament–you are right. However, that argues against so-called committed sex outside of marriage, because you can’t complete a sacrament you haven’t started! There is no sacrament to validate and consummate.

Let’s not baptize the unholy, people. No one in modern day first world countries is lacking adequate access to at least a justice of the peace.

There are people who have Josephite marriages, did you know that? I had an aunt who had a Josephite marriage. She wasn’t even particularly religious so she wasn’t trying to impress anyone with her supposed holiness. We only knew about it because she was close with my mom, and told my mom. My mom didn’t even tell us for most of our/their lives. We only found out near the end of mom’s/aunt’s/uncle’s lives. It seems weird to us, but it made sense for their situation.

 

[larry85704]

Married atheists have a natural marriage in the eyes of the Church. I’m not sure what that has to do with non-married people having sex outside of marriage?

Non-married people having sex outside of marriage can be monogamous, or not. If they are monogamous then you could say they are in a committed relationship. Somebody you meet at a bar and have sex with, then never see them again, would not be a committed relationship. Can you see a difference?

The idea that marriage is a sacrament is actually a tough one. It is easy to confirm that marriage was not of great interest to the early Church. When you contrast Marriage and some of the other Sacraments you find:

Jesus was Baptized, He told the Apostles to go forth and Baptize.

The Holy Ghost actually came down at Pentecost. (Confirmation)

Jesus instituted the Eucharist and told people to continue to do it.

Prayer for the sick and dying was something Jesus did, as did the Apostles.

I don’t know what the deal was about Holy Orders.

Confession was not one of the early sacraments, as it turned out, but there is Jesus on the Cross forgiving the thief.

About all you can say about marriage is that Jesus went to one and made wine. Not the mandate that Baptism and the Eucharist got.

Now to be picky, you have to concede that moral law does not change, unless it is changed by God. I do not know when God changed the moral law concerning Marriage. So, I must conclude that whatever existed at the time of Christ must have been lawful. And, there was no Sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church.

In a Sacramental marriage the priest witnesses the Sacrament that the bride and groom enter into. The priest does not actually perform the Sacrament.

Let’s not baptize the unholy, people. No one in modern day first world countries is lacking adequate access to at least a justice of the peace.

Huh?. Everybody that is Baptized is unholy. It is sort of the definition of Baptism. What are you saying?

Ok, after I figure out what a Josephite marriage was, I agree, it seems weird.

Since we are talking about Josephite marriages, did you know that at one time in Jewish law, a Jewish woman had the legal right to have sex with her husband every day? I think Catholics should pick up on that.

By the way,

Married atheists have a natural marriage in the eyes of the Church. I’m not sure what that has to do with non-married people having sex outside of marriage?

The Church really doesn’t like marriages outside of the Church. Consider this. If you are Baptized in a Baptist church the Catholic Church considers you Baptized and will not re-Baptize you. If you are married by a JP the Church will remarry you.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Wow, so many errors and dinner is cooking.

Non-married people having sex outside of marriage rarely partner exclusively for a lifetime. So really, whether it takes five years for the relationship to end, or one night, makes no difference–they are still fornicators and perhaps adulterers (if one or both are married to others). The level of commitment is the same. I am committed to you for this moment until I change my mind, whether that’s by breakfast-time or a longer span of time until I get bored with you or something better comes along. Just how long it takes to end is the difference. Why should the Church grant any more legitimacy to the relationship than the laws of the State do? Or the couple themselves? I mean, let’s not pretend. It’s just an adult version of playing house, until you enter a legal and sacramental commitment.

Marriage actually hangs as a sacrament or falls, along with all the others. As a sworn oath and exchange of persons, it is really truly sacramental. If you’re unclear about the resounding testimony of the New Testament about marriage, I would recommend a concordance and do a word study.

If the moral law does not change, then the law of Leviticus still holds–to have sex with a woman you are not married to means poof you are married to her, and perhaps that would be a good change for our society. Fornication and adultery and all manner of sexual behavior are regulated in the old law.

At the time of Christ and the Apostles, marriage was a pretty hot issue because pagans becoming Christians had to regularize their situations re their marital situations. The Jewish and Christian view of marriage was far more elevated than the pagan view of marriage.

The whole secular world celebrates a feast that celebrates the church’s defense of people’s right to marry–a bishop was martyred by the pre-Christian Roman state for standing up for Roman soldiers and their right to marry. The state didn’t want them to marry, but the Church did not want the soldiers to be forced by the state into sinful uncommitted fornication relationships. A bishop was willing to be martyred over the issue. You might recognize this feast day as St. Valentine’s Day. Feb. 14 every year.

A couple fornicating does not create a Sacrament and I hope they’re not boinking in the Church. LOL

What is Baptized is Holy! Baptism makes it so. If you think Baptism makes things Unholy, then it would be a really bad idea to baptize…cuz that would be working against God’s purposes.

A Josephite marriage is a celibate marriage. My aunt and uncle had a Josephite marriage.

In Catholic and Christian understanding, meaning it’s in Scripture and Tradition, spouses have a right to each other’s body as conjugal rights. No different than Jewish understanding except I don’t know why you think a Jewish woman could have sex with her husband every day, clearly not according to the kosher laws, she’d lose about a third to a half a month there.

If someone is married by the government, the Church can bless their marriage but they don’t remarry them. I have witnessed such blessings. Yes, the Church recognizes Christian baptism and Christian marriage even when administered by non-Catholic Christians.

Nothing you said shows any acceptance of fornication relationships as legitimate by Jews or Christians as evidenced by the Bible or history.

So if the Church is to embrace “Committed Non-Marital Sex,” should there be a 6-month pre-Forna program?

 

[larry85704]

Marriage … study.

Paul likened the relationship between husband and wife to Jesus and the Church. Adultery was one of the few big sins of the early Church. Yes, marriage was a big deal in the early Church. Another big sin in the early Church was turning your fellow Christian in to the Romans to be executed. Marriage became a Sacrament. Not turning in your brother did not. While the Church acknowledged the importance of marriage, the understanding of it as a Sacrament evolved over time and is still evolving. For a long time there were, or were not, weddings in Christian churches.

Non-married … commitment

You are being cynical. Sacramental marriages end in divorce. Maybe because the level of commitment isn’t there.

If the moral law does not change, then the law of Leviticus still holds–to have sex with a woman you are not married to means poof you are married to her, and perhaps that would be a good change for our society. Fornication and adultery and all manner of sexual behavior are regulated in the old law.

In a way, I agree. Except stoning adulterers might raise a few eyebrows. And, by the way, men had many wives sometimes. Personally, having one wife is, most days, more than enough. But yep, if you could get a picture, you know, for proof, I’d say if you have sex you are married. I guess proving you had sex might be difficult.

At the time of Christ and the Apostles, marriage …

You are right, I think, but could you be a bit more specific? If you read 1 Timothy 3:2-7 you could get the idea that men in the early Church might have more than one wife.

What is Baptized …

Woops, I think I messed up. Before you are Baptized you are unholy. Baptism makes you holy. Sorry about that.

If someone … Christians.

Not in Tucson. The Church does remarry legally married couples. The ceremony is exactly the same. My parents were married in the Church after being civilly married for 13 years. I have never witnessed a blessing where the couple was not married in the Church. I have been to services where couples repeated there vows.

Nothing you said shows any acceptance of fornication relationships as legitimate by Jews or Christians as evidenced by the Bible or history.

Catechism paragraph 2353 defines fornication.

If the moral law does not change, then the law of Leviticus still holds–to have sex with a woman you are not married to means poof you are married to her, and perhaps that would be a good change for our society. Fornication and adultery and all manner of sexual behavior are regulated in the old law.

Leads me to believe that sex causes you to be married. It is a puzzle.

Suppose I have sex with someone. We live together as man and wife, have kids and love one another until one of us dies. During this time we have sex with no other person. According to the old law, that you pointed out, we would be married. Poof or not. This meets the requirements of the moral law concerning marriage. And yes, it would be good for society. My hangup is that I do not see the sex these two people have as fornication. I see it as natural and good. The Sacrament of Marriage is not sex, or the Wedding. It is the daily giving of yourself to each other in the Grace of God. As I pointed out in Acts, in my previous post, God will bestow His Love and Blessings and Grace on whoever He wants to. Married in the Church or not.

So if the Church is to embrace “Committed Non-Marital Sex,” should there be a 6-month pre-Forna program?

Your comment about

pre-Forna

shows you to be very immature. You bring added shame to the Church with your attitude. What do you think Jesus would say if He heard you talking about the fornicators next door that His Father loved and Blessed as the centurion in Acts 10? Perhaps you are making a joke, I hope so. I think committed sex is marital sex and the Church very much embraces it and has for a long time.

On another note 2353 defines fornication as sex between unmarried people. In light of history and Leviticus if you are single and have sex with someone that is single you are married. So you committed no sin. Seems to me that the Catechism is disagreeing with Scripture.

 

[fix]

How many of you remember the story of Mary and Joseph? As in Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Yea, that one. Do you remember that Mary and Joseph were betrothed? When Joseph discovered she was with child he could of had her put to death. The sin would have been adultery. Remember how it sort of says this in the Bible? An angel came to Joseph and convinced him to take Mary as his wife. It was Jewish custom to get betrothed young, perhaps before puberty, and married much later. If the couple decided not to get married and were betrothed they could just shack up. No problem.

Now I am not sure what Mary and Joseph did, but they did live together as man and wife, without sex. Since they had a child, Jesus, their friends and family would naturally have thought they had sex. I’ll bet virgin birth was thought of the same way then as it is now. Basically, yea, right. Now I am reasonably sure Mary never committed a sin, but it is never recorded that she married Joseph in a public ceremony. Maybe she felt that she was God’s wife and never wanted to marry Joseph. Hard to say. But, the actions of the Holy Family would not have brought shame to them.

You may want to see this:

REDEMPTORIS CUSTOS

A little earlier the Gospel writer had stated that at the moment of the Annunciation, Mary was “betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David.” The nature of this “marriage” is explained indirectly when Mary, after hearing what the messenger says about the birth of the child, asks, “How can this be, since I do not know man?” (Lk 1:34) The angel responds: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God” (Lk 1:35). Although Mary is already “wedded” to Joseph, she will remain a virgin, because the child conceived in her at the Annunciation was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit.’…

And while it is important for the Church to profess the virginal conception of Jesus, it is no less important to uphold Mary’s marriage to Joseph, because juridically Joseph’s fatherhood depends on it…

 

[larry85704]

I reread the passages in the Bible and the writing of Pope John Paul II.

I think the evidence supports that Mary and Joseph were betrothed and Mary became pregnant. At the time betrothed couples had the right to have sex without sin, though they had not went to their Wedding.

The writings support this because Joseph took Mary as his wife after he found out she was pregnant.

Enough of that.

Suppose the same custom existed today. What you would have is young children being botrothed to young children by parents. It would be socially acceptable for the young couple to have sex whenever they wanted to, but only with each other. Of course, when then had sex they would quite possibly get pregnant and would need to establish their own household. Now days, they live with mama, use the pill and have sex with anybody. I actually prefer the social and moral standards of Jesus’s time. Seems better.

 

[fix]

I reread the passages in the Bible and the writing of Pope John Paul II.

I think the evidence supports that Mary and Joseph were betrothed and Mary became pregnant. At the time betrothed couples had the right to have sex without sin, though they had not went to their Wedding.

The writings support this because Joseph took Mary as his wife after he found out she was pregnant.

Enough of that.

The Pope points out Mary was married when she became pregnant. That is not in question. Marriage had two parts in the Jewish tradition in that era.

Suppose the same custom existed today. What you would have is young children being botrothed to young children by parents. It would be socially acceptable for the young couple to have sex whenever they wanted to, but only with each other. Of course, when then had sex they would quite possibly get pregnant and would need to establish their own household. Now days, they live with mama, use the pill and have sex with anybody. I actually prefer the social and moral standards of Jesus’s time. Seems better.

I cannot see how that custom would be valid today since marriage has been made sacramental by Christ.

 

[Mayo]

Hi God Bless you all.

If one of the couple is a Baptized Catholic they must be Married by a priest.

We had an assistent Pastor who said several times in his homily that it is a sin to attend a marriage between a catholic and non catholic that is not performed by a Priest.

The only people who can be married without a Priest are non catholics.

Please make sure you know the teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage.

Mayo

 

[Mayo]

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.

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

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

True repentence is when we never commit that sin again.

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.

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

 

[setter]

Hi God Bless you all.

If one of the couple is a Baptized Catholic they must be Married by a priest.

Any baptised Catholic who is free to marry can be married by either a priest or a deacon.

We had an assistent Pastor who said several times in his homily that it is a sin to attend a marriage between a catholic and non catholic that is not performed by a Priest.

Father must have been dosing during sacramental class.

The only people who can be married without a Priest are non catholics.

Non-Catholic couple weddings are not the concern of the Catholic Church.

Please make sure you know the teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage.

Mayo

…welcome to the forums.