Don’t just defend the fort. Attack!

[SPBlitz]

Not exactly. If what the church teaches is true, then the spiritual aspects of sex take place regardless of if you are a Catholic or an atheist. The spiritual harm would occur regardless of if you believe it does.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The only reason I’m replying to this statement is for the benefit of the bystanders and lurkers, because I’ve pretty much figured out what your game is.

On this Catholic apologetics forum, there are numerous articles and discussions about various Church teachings.
Not only “what” is taught, but “why”.

A serious questioner will find all sorts of answers by using the search feature.

 

[VeryBlessed]

the wise person says: You need to keep yourself free to walk away up until the moment you make your vows.

Profoundly and tragically true. So many of the very difficult marriages I have seen friends and relatives in, were couples who did engage in premarital sex, and couldn’t bear to break up when real deep incompatibilities came up. Sex bonds you indelibly. It really is wise to wait until after the ceremony. I know it sounds crazy, but celibacy before marriage and monogamy after really is the path of greatest wisdom and joy. And if we all would commit to that for a generation, every STD would be eliminated. It reminds me of what Jesus said as he wept over Jerusalem - “If only you could see what would set you free; yet you will have none of it”. Lord, give us eyes to see the wisdom & love behind your commands!

We don’t so much break God’s commands, rather, we break ourselves upon them.

 

[ATraveller]

As a Catholic who accepts the Church’s teachings, I don’t appreciate the approach many here (and beyond) take: “you can’t go without sex for a week you weak sick puppy?!? Just wait until marriage and it’s all good!” This is beyond misleading. There is no way around it…the Church’s teaching is hard, very hard. And no it does not stop with marriage. Married couples will also have to abstain regularly, especially if practicing natural family planning, and sometimes for long periods. It’s going to be gruelling, horribly, almost unbearably hard for some people and we do a great disservice by pretending otherwise. The path to life is narrow and HARD. Our Lord promised it would be tough. And it will be. Don’t lie.

I don’t know if you had me in mind. I know waiting or abstaining is not easy. I don’t subscribe to the view waiting for marriage somehow by magic makes everything great. I’m strongly opposed to those who sell chastity with sex and some do that here on CAF because some believe secular arguments can be made. A consequentialist-only approach isn’t a Christian approach on this topic.
That said, it’s the idea that it’s not possible to wait or abstain that I’m attacking. It is possible to wait or abstain but it requires a mind that’s oriented towards what God has designed and a willingness not to place one in a compromising position. Following Christian teachings on this matter is not easy but it’s also not hard.

 

[Freddy]

Not exactly. If what the church teaches is true, then the spiritual aspects of sex take place regardless of if you are a Catholic or an atheist. The spiritual harm would occur regardless of if you believe it does.

But if someone doesn’t believe there is such a thing as spiritual harm and there is no signs of it actually ocurring then ‘don’t have sex becuase you will be harmed spiritually’ isn’t going to persuade them. If there are no actual bad consequences then it becomes simply a religious viewpoint. With which I have no problems. But it doesn’t apply to me or to anyone who doesn’t have that same religious view.

‘Do not kill’…well, yeah. Something obviously bad is going to happen to somebody if you ignore that. Same with 'do not steal. But ‘no sex before marriage’? Yeah, it COULD cause problems. Just like having a couple of beers could cause problems. But we don’t push for prohibition to be repealed because of that.

Two mature, comitted people in a stable relationship? No problem.

 

[Freddy]

The only reason I’m replying to this statement is for the benefit of the bystanders and lurkers, because I’ve pretty much figured out what your game is.

Well done. If you came to the conclusion that the ‘game’ was polite discussions re religious viewpoints then you got it right.

I’m surprised you didn’t simply give the answer that a few others have. It’s a spiritual problem. But then there’s no way to tell between the one couple who abstained and the one that didn’t. It’s like telling someone that they’ll go to hell if they break this rule.

Well, OK. I’m pleased you’re worried on my behalf but…thanks anyway.

 

[SPBlitz]

sn’t going to persuade them

I agree, it probably won’t persuade them. I imagine that the linked article was referring to Christians who already believe in God but not in that particular teaching.

But it doesn’t apply to me or to anyone who doesn’t have that same religious view.

In a certain sense I agree, in that I think it would be foolish to expect an atheist to live as a Catholic. Which is why the question of the existence of God is such an important one. If Catholicism is true, then you could be seriously harming yourself and your wife. If it isn’t true then we Catholics are worrying about following a rule that doesn’t exist.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

sn’t going to persuade them

I agree, it probably won’t persuade them. I imagine that the linked article was referring to Christians who already believe in God but not in that particular teaching.

In a certain sense I agree, in that I think it would be foolish to expect an atheist to live as a Catholic. Which is why the question of the existence of God is such an important one.

The thing is, I do live like a Catholic in most things. I don’t steal or cheat. I don’t intentionally lie (except in the ‘does this dress make my butt look too big?’ cases). I give to charity. I’m kind to animals etc etc. But there are reasons for doing all these things. We’d agree with them. Whether God exists or not doesn’t enter into the equation as to why we’d agree.

But there are no reasons why there should be a blanket ban on sex outside marriage. That’s a purely religious view. I’m just pointing that out is all.

 

[SPBlitz]

But there are no reasons why there should be a blanket ban on sex outside marriage.

No, there’s no atheistic reasons. There are Catholic reasons. And if Catholicism is true then those reasons are just as valid as your reasons for giving to charity or being kind to animals. That’s why it’s important to determine which of these world views is actually the truth. One of us is wrong, about the existence of God and anything that might follow from that.

 

[ATraveller]

0Scarlett_nidiyilii:

The only reason I’m replying to this statement is for the benefit of the bystanders and lurkers, because I’ve pretty much figured out what your game is.

Well done. If you came to the conclusion that the ‘game’ was polite discussions re religious viewpoints then you got it right.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But there are no reasons why there should be a blanket ban on sex outside marriage.

No, there’s no atheistic reasons. There are Catholic reasons. And if Catholicism is true then those reasons are just as valid as your reasons for giving to charity or being kind to animals. That’s why it’s important to determine which of these world views is actually the truth. One of us is wrong, about the existence of God and anything that might follow from that.

This is where we disagree. There are reasons with which two people would agree that, for example, stealing is wrong. And you wouldn’t be able to tell if one person or the other was a believer. The reasons would be valid whether God exists or not.

But whether God exists or not will certainly make a difference to your immortal soul (assuming your soul would also exist in that case). But telling me that if I have sex outside marriage it will harm my soul has as much impact on me as telling me I’m putting my chance of reincarnation at risk.

I believe what you believe. As long as there reasons on which we can agree. And the article is saying ‘get out there and tell people they are doing wrong’. But based on something with which they don’t generally agree.

The guy would be better off preaching to the already converted who have falling by the wayside.

 

[ATraveller]

The guy would be better off preaching to the already converted who have falling by the wayside.

You’re wrong about that. First, “the guy” and others like him are already doing that.
Second, there are many people who may not be religious but may find aspects of Christian morality on sexuality appealing. Majority? Definitely not. A small minority are interested. So why shouldn’t the Catholic Church speak out on this topic? Why shouldn’t Catholics reach out to this minority of non-religious people?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The guy would be better off preaching to the already converted who have falling by the wayside.

You’re wrong about that. First, “the guy” and others like him are already doing that.
Second, there are many people who may not be religious but may find aspects of Christian morality on sexuality appealing. Majority? Definitely not. A small minority are interested. So why shouldn’t the Catholic Church speak out on this topic? Why shouldn’t Catholics reach out to this minority of non-religious people?

I think they could if they thought there was a practical reason for doing so. And there are. Which parent hasn’t warned his children about the dangers of sex? But if the message is going to be ‘No sex outside marriage. No exceptions’. And the reason for that rule is a religiously based one, then that message will fail.

 

[SPBlitz]

I agree with you - I think it would very foolish to tell an atheist to not have premarital sex, and when they ask why, to give them Catholic reasons. Of course they won’t be convinced! In that case I would disagree with the article. It would be better to first try to convince the atheist that Catholicism is true - only then will the reasons to not have sex before marriage get a fair hearing.

 

[Freddy]

I agree with you - I think it would very foolish to tell an atheist to not have premarital sex, and when they ask why, to give them Catholic reasons. Of course they won’t be convinced! In that case I would disagree with the article. It would be better to first try to convince the atheist that Catholicism is true - only then will the reasons to not have sex before marriage get a fair hearing.

Well said. That’s putting the cart where it belongs. Behind the horse.

 

[ATraveller]

But if the message is going to be ‘No sex outside marriage. No exceptions’. And the reason for that rule is a religiously based one, then that message will fail.

That’s not the message but your misrepresentation of it.
You claimed to want a polite discussion but it seems “polite discussions” involve reducing Christian teachings to a cold two sentence slogan and mischaracterising the article’s point in the OP.

And the reason for that rule is a religiously based one, then that message will fail.

Second time: the majority will not care but I know some non-religious people who do see or will see the appeal of Christian teachings on the subject. So no, Christian sexual morality, even though religiously-based, will not fail for some non-religious people. For you, if there isn’t wide societal shift, then it’s a fail. But that’s not the metric being used. I don’t think anyone believes there will be a massive shift in the next year or even decade.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But if the message is going to be ‘No sex outside marriage. No exceptions’. And the reason for that rule is a religiously based one, then that message will fail.

That’s not the message but your misrepresentation of it.
You claimed to want a polite discussion but it seems “polite discussions” involve reducing Christian teachings to a cold two sentence slogan…

Well unless I have misinterpreted Catholic teaching on this matter, sex outside marriage is not allowed. If there are exceptions then I’m unaware of them. My apologies if you think that a succinct distillation of the church’s teaching is impolite.

 

[twf]

It can be hard. We need to acknowledge that. While trusting that Christ will give us the grace to overcome that hardship.
What of married couples who were, as you put it, “sold chastity with sex”, and now, for whatever reason, find they must abstain for the rest of their lives? There are Catholics in that situation and it can be hard.

 

[ATraveller]

Well unless I have misinterpreted Catholic teaching on this matter, sex outside marriage is not allowed. If there are exceptions then I’m unaware of them. My apologies if you think that a succinct distillation of the church’s teaching is impolite.

Misinterpretation of the article and what it’s calling for. It was my fault for not specifying what the “it” is in “That’s not the message [of the article] but your misrepresentation of it [the article].”
Yes, Catholic (and wider Christian) teachings does include sex is only permissible within marriage but the article isn’t arguing for simple slogans to be thrown around as you are suggesting. It’s suggesting Catholics should articulate the why’s, both spiritual and non-spiritual reasons.
You cut off this:

That’s not the message but your misrepresentation of it.
You claimed to want a polite discussion but it seems “polite discussions” involve reducing Christian teachings to a cold two sentence slogan and mischaracterising the article’s point in the OP.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Well unless I have misinterpreted Catholic teaching on this matter, sex outside marriage is not allowed. If there are exceptions then I’m unaware of them. My apologies if you think that a succinct distillation of the church’s teaching is impolite.

Misinterpretation of the article and what it’s calling for. It was my fault for not specifying what the “it” is in “That’s not the message [of the article] but your misrepresentation of it [the article].”
Yes, Catholic (and wider Christian) teachings does include sex is only permissible within marriage but the article isn’t arguing for simple slogans to be thrown around as you are suggesting. It’s suggesting Catholics should articulate the why’s, both spiritual and non-spiritual reasons.
You cut off this:

That’s not the message but your misrepresentation of it.
You claimed to want a polite discussion but it seems “polite discussions” involve reducing Christian teachings to a cold two sentence slogan and mischaracterising the article’s point in the OP.

I’m sorry, but there is nothing whatsoever in the article that indicates any leeway whatsoever in what the church teaches. If it specifically said that there are some ocassions when sex is fine outside marriage but we really need to address the fact that there may be too much sexual liberty then I’d support that to a certain extent.

But be honest. What will the message be? As he says ‘Hasn’t the wisdom of Christian morality been proven…?’ It’s going to be an exercise in stressing the religious view. And I have no problem with that in itself. As long as they realise that religious arguments aren’t applicable to those who don’t follow that religion. Just as you and I wouldn’t feel obliged to abide by a fatwa.

Use secular arguments by all means. But there aren’t any secular arguments that will lead to complete chastity for everyone who is not married. What else is Lawler suggesting?