Don’t just defend the fort. Attack!

[Elizabeth3]

My guess would be that one or both of them was Catholic, and as a result bound to marry in the Catholic Church.

That could be. Why be Catholic and have the fullness of faith but reject the Sacrament of Matrimony? It’s one thing to have not had it to begin with and to get married outside the Church but it’s another to to have it and to choose something else.

 

[Elf01]

That could be. Why be Catholic and have the fullness of faith but reject the Sacrament of Matrimony? It’s one thing to have not had it to begin with and to get married outside the Church but it’s another to to have it and to choose something else.

Freddy is an atheist. He may have been raised Catholic, and if so would be bound by the Churches form of marriage.

On saying that, my sister, who would say she is Catholic, married outside the Church.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Freddy is an atheist. He may have been raised Catholic, and if so would be bound by the Churches form of marriage.

I see. I think if one formally renounces the Catholic faith or makes some kind of public declaration, then they are considered no longer Catholic and not bound by the Church’s laws. Although, I don’t know what a formal renunciation would include.

 

[twf]

This is no longer true. Anyone baptized Catholic is bound. Period.

Personal culpability is another question.

 

[PetraG]

I think the problem Catholicism has with sexual morality is that it is all or nothing. Black and white. No exceptions. And you know what they say about bad rules - people will simpply ignore them.

So if a couple are told they must not have sex and they say "Well, gee - we’re getting married tomorrow. We’ve been together for years. We are comitted to each other for life’. Then the answer will still be: ‘Nup. Can’t do it. Mortal sin’.

Which most people, myself included, would think is nonsensical. If there is a stretch of road where there have been some accidents then you post speed limits. You don’t tell people they can’t drive on it. So to tell someone they can’t have sex AT ALL isn’t going to work.

Did you read the article? It concluded:
Today we should be offering an alternative to the misery of broken homes and families, of emotional and sexual dysfunction. It isn’t really a matter of defending our fort, after all. It’s a question of helping oppressed people overthrow the tyranny of a perverse master.

The author was not saying, “Nope. Mortal sin.” The author was saying we should not be afraid to tell people that sin is slavery.

To the couple who says, “Well, gee - we’re getting married tomorrow. We’ve been together for years. We are comitted to each other for life’” the wise person says: You need to keep yourself free to walk away up until the moment you make your vows. When you’ve made the commitment, then you can say you are committed. What you’ve been doing for years is considering a commitment. Tomorrow, you actually make one.

Unless I am mistaken, the Catholic position on marriage is primarily based on commitment. Not necessarily on a legaly binding document that signifies that one has been married.

No, the Church makes a distinction between intention to make a commitment and actually doing so.
States differ; common-law states hold that if living the common conjugal life is carried on for long enough, that constitutes a legal act of commitment. Other states hold that no, if there is no formal act of making a commitment, no number of years of living the pretense constitutes a binding act of commitment.

 

[TheMortenBay]

It’s one thing to have not had it to begin with and to get married outside the Church but it’s another to to have it and to choose something else.

That’s the difference between on the one hand relative innocence/ material heresy and then, on the other apostasy.

 

[Elizabeth3]

This is no longer true. Anyone baptized Catholic is bound. Period.

Is this relatively recent? This article dated 2003 mentions it.

Marriage Outside the Church

 

[twf]

Yes it was later than that. I believe it was under Pope Benedict.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But to say that ALL sex before marriage will do so is patently wrong.

Make your case.

Well here’s an idea. We can investigate some examples of couples who had sex before they got married and see if there were any ill effects. You tell me what we could be looking for. That is, how we differentiate between one couple that abstained and one that had sex before they were married. Sound reasonable?

So what would you be looking for to enable you to determine which couple had done wrong?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Are my wife and I doing wrong if we make love?

It depends on the moral system.

You hit the nail on the head, Vanitas.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

You still didn’t make your case.

 

[Freddy]

To the couple who says, “Well, gee - we’re getting married tomorrow. We’ve been together for years. We are comitted to each other for life’” the wise person says: You need to keep yourself free to walk away up until the moment you make your vows. When you’ve made the commitment, then you can say you are committed. What you’ve been doing for years is considering a commitment. Tomorrow, you actually make one.

Freddy:

Unless I am mistaken, the Catholic position on marriage is primarily based on commitment. Not necessarily on a legaly binding document that signifies that one has been married.

No, the Church makes a distinction between intention to make a commitment and actually doing so.
States differ; common-law states hold that if living the common conjugal life is carried on for long enough, that constitutes a legal act of commitment. Other states hold that no, if there is no formal act of making a commitment, no number of years of living the pretense constitutes a binding act of commitment.

‘Will you marry me?’
‘Yes’.

You can’t get any more commited than that.

I was asking if she would commit to a lifetime together and she was saying that she would. End of story. That was it. No more need to be said. A few days later we signed some legal documents (she wanted something legal because we intended having children and thought it would be safer).

So we were wrong making love the day before signing those papers? Nonsense.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Indeed there are actions that will harm us. And having sex is one of them. Of that there is no doubt. But to say that ALL sex before marriage will do so is patently wrong. But that is the position being taken.

All sex outside of the marriage bond has the potential to do great harm…

Now that’s putting it much better.

 

[Freddy]

You still didn’t make your case.

My case is that it is patently obvious that there are people who didn’t wait until they were married before having sex and there have been zero ill effects.

Now perhaps you can tell me how you’d differentiate between one couple that abstained and one that didn’t. What would we be looking for?

 

[SPBlitz]

My case is that it is patently obvious that there are people who didn’t wait until they were married before having sex and there have been zero ill effects.

I think the problem you are running into is assuming that the church’s prohibition of sex before marriage is chiefly because it will cause some sort of martial strife - either a child out of wedlock, or a broken heart, or a doomed relationship, etc. But I think the main reason is that the church teaches that sex is more than a mere action - it has spiritual consequence and spiritual meaning that should not be undertaken without the proper spiritual bond of marriage. Remember, for a catholic, marriage is more than signing a piece of paper - it’s a spiritual sacrament that actually changes your relationship to another person in ways that simply say “will you marry me” does not.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

My case is that it is patently obvious t

Yes, I know what your statement is. You said it many times.
However, it’s not ”patently” obvious to us, so this is where the onus is on you to make your case and bring your proofs and stuff.

Besides, what do you care? What’s your dog in this fight?

 

[Elizabeth3]

I think the problem you are running into is assuming that the church’s prohibition of sex before marriage is chiefly because it will cause some sort of martial strife - either a child out of wedlock, or a broken heart, or a doomed relationship, etc. But I think the main reason is that the church teaches that sex is more than a mere action - it has spiritual consequence and spiritual meaning that should not be undertaken without the proper spiritual bond of marriage. Remember, for a catholic, marriage is more than signing a piece of paper - it’s a spiritual sacrament that actually changes your relationship to another person in ways that simply say “will you marry me” does not.

Right. Not to mention that it’s a sign that points to the relationship between Christ and His Church and the covenant between God and His people. A Sacramental Marriage is elevated to something beyond Natural marriage in which the couple has the benefit of the Holy Spirit and the graces of the Sacrament. It becomes something super-natural.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

My case is that it is patently obvious that there are people who didn’t wait until they were married before having sex and there have been zero ill effects.

I think the problem you are running into is assuming that the church’s prohibition of sex before marriage is chiefly because it will cause some sort of martial strife - either a child out of wedlock, or a broken heart, or a doomed relationship, etc. But I think the main reason is that the church teaches that sex is more than a mere action - it has spiritual consequence and spiritual meaning that should not be undertaken without the proper spiritual bond of marriage. Remember, for a catholic, marriage is more than signing a piece of paper - it’s a spiritual sacrament that actually changes your relationship to another person in ways that simply say “will you marry me” does not.

Then saying that it will cause harm will only apply to Catholics with that same view.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

My case is that it is patently obvious t

Yes, I know what your statement is. You said it many times.
However, it’s not ”patently” obvious to us, so this is where the onus is on you to make your case and bring your proofs and stuff.

Besides, what do you care? What’s your dog in this fight?

That IS my case. That there are examples where sex before marriage has caused no problems. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Rien.

Unless you can point us to problems that you can see which I can’t. Time to make your case why it is always wrong.

 

[Elizabeth3]

My case is that it is patently obvious that there are people who didn’t wait until they were married before having sex and there have been zero ill effects.

Now perhaps you can tell me how you’d differentiate between one couple that abstained and one that didn’t. What would we be looking for?

No ill effects other than one couple is in danger of spending an eternity in Hell without conversion and repentance and the other is not.