Dumping your 'near occasion of sin'

[rpp]

[conclusion of previous post]

Marriage law is extremely difficult to understand fully.

In that I completely disagree. Are you mature, sane and free enough to make a marital vow before God? Are you able to engage in the marital act? What else is there to understand?

The primary reason fornication is not marriage is because it is done in violation of church law.

Okay, I think there may be a typo here and I do not understand. Can you clarify please?

Jesus will not join what his church has forbidden to join together, for he has given us priests to be our guides and doctors. They have seen it all.

In the majority of cases a proper priest will guide the couple to separation, but not all priests or bishops see this as an absolute or permanent law – as St. Paul notes – it is better to marry than burn.

If a priest or bishop says that it is okay for a couple to continue to fornicate, then they are acting contrary to Church teaching and they are absolutely, unequivocally and permanently wrong. The Church teaching on fornication is an unchangeable and permanent teaching. Period.

Finally, look at the Bible quote you used. It is from 1 Corintians, 7:8-9.

8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

It does not “fornicate”. It does not say “adultery”. In fact it is specifically addressing those two grave sins and says “marry”.

It is one thing for a person whose purity is intact to heed well the advice given on chastity – where sex is said to be “stealing” from each other the fullness of what is to come in marriage. But once the loss has occurred, the fullness is forever lost.

It is the disposition of a person at the time of the commitment which makes the suitability of marriage. A portion of the “theft” can be repeated – but then what is left to steal after the loss of virginity is also returnable through confession and repentance.

If we are not talking of rape here, then we are talking about two people NEITHER of which is fit for anyone else momentarily – and both of whom must improve to be married, whether to each other or to someone else.

I would agree that in most cases a disproportionate amount of guilt may lie with one of the perpetrators (not always the man) who for reasons related to internal problems seduces the other. In this case, which is common, the predatory nature of one of the couple makes a true marriage impossible, which is why MOST couples ought to separate until the issue is resolved properly.

The above in an interesting opinion, but it is not supported by Church teachings. If you want to claim it is, please provide citations and links.

In short, you appear to be either questioning correctness of Catholic teachings on the grave sins of fornication or adultery, or you are claiming that these my or will change in the future.

Unless you can shock us all and prove you are correct, you must realize that what you have posted cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Also, when you provide links, please have the links go to specific pages that you are referencing. A link to some home page somewhere with the instruction to “look around and see for yourself.” is too unspecific to be of any use.

 

[rpp]

Rpp, you have 3000+ posts and have been here less time than me, are familiar with the annulment process by first hand knowledge, but although I mention only a single church pastoral teaching (one paragraph) you don’t know it? Go to www.vatican.va, under canon law – and spend some time reading it, even if you don’t fully understand it. (I don’t claim to).

There you will find some very odd law regarding the validity of marriage – which attempts to take into account everything from Abram and Sarah’s sterility, through Joe Blow’s deceptive practices, and – The church HAS SEEN IT ALL.

The link you provided is simply to the Vatican website home page. If you want to point something out, you will have to be **considerably **more specific.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

rpp,
Very well. My offer was to reconcile by PM first and then post corrections as needed, but I see that you feel quite strongly based on one possible reading of my paragraphs(S) that I am claiming both more than I said, and that perhaps I am misleading people.

Fair enough, it will have to wait until my adrenaline settles down – which always happens when I get a large confrontational letter with short thought. I do understand from reading your replies how you might come to the conclusions you did.

As a point to begin with though, marriage law is NOT magisterial teaching in the sense of “the highest possible standard” it is a matter of LAW which is a rather fallible standard in practice. As you have been going through the annulment process, I would point your attention back to your own statement on the conditions which make a marriage. You did not say “understanding of magisterial teaching” was required to get married. So even the ignorant COULD get married so long as they had the conditions mentioned, could they not (in your view)?

So I don’t think it necessary to prove everything on a Dogmatic Magisterial level – though there must be a foundation of the authority granted to the PASTORAL (not infallible) decisions of the priests and deacons WHO DO NOT MARRY COUPLES, BUT ONLY WITNESS THE MARRIAGE and those who decide whether there was a mistake of some kind later – and the marriage is therefore never happened (NULL).

Also, as a matter of practicality – do you wish to start a new thread to debate just this issue as a courtesy to others, or stay here – It could get lengthy.

My reason for asking is that your replies lead me to believe this isn’t just between you and I that you wish to sustain your points.
Also, since you have enough time to write so many posts – my apologies for assuming you had time on your hands to find the links for the general public. I will find the references I am remembering (always do), but it slows things down, and then I always spend lots of time thinking and remembering rather than just responding – which is so much easier.

 

[rpp]

rpp,
{snip}
As a point to begin with though, marriage law is NOT magisterial teaching in the sense of “the highest possible standard” it is a matter of LAW which is a rather fallible standard in practice.
{snip}

Incorrect. Marriage is a sacrament and absolutely is a magisterial teaching. While there is certain law associated with it, like the other sacraments, it is a sacrament.

Additionally, if you make public statements, you must be prepared to defend them publicly.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Incorrect. Marriage is a sacrament and absolutely is a magisterial teaching. While there is certain law associated with it, like the other sacraments, it is a sacrament.

Additionally, if you make public statements, you must be prepared to defend them publicly.

Duh,
I am going to defend my statements – and I will correct any that need correcting.

And yeah, I said marriage law a law which is hard to understand – So it was not incorrect. I did not say a Marriage sacrament does not exist – nor did I say anything against the sacrament, or the infallible council teaching which state that there are exactly seven sacraments, and then calls the church the “great sacrament” giving the “illusion” of an eighth – (No I don’t believe a contradiction exists, there are 7 Sacraments, and the Church is the GREAT sacrament.)

Let me bring this to your level – Your annulment proceeding wasn’t from the pope himself was it?
(It could be) But normally the Roman Rota and the local tribunerals do the Job with no appeal to the pope (My marriage is not null as far as I know, so I trust fallible people to explain it since the oecumenical councils are out of session, and the pope and vatican are quite busy – they don’t even accept e-mail, you’ve got to fax em…). So, that was my point – the IMPLEMENTATION of LAW is not in infallible hands, ratified and explicitly reviewed by the pope.

If you wish to push the opinion – how do you even know your previous marriage IS NULL? Lawyers do occasionally make mistakes, and it is fallible people interpreting infallible teaching.

Hey, since you like to put words into peoples mouths that aren’t there – we aren’t likely to get anywhere – you’ll be as bankrupt as the archdiocese I live in with that kind of attitude.

I also notice you didn’t answer my question: Can a person ignorant of magisterial teaching truly enter into marriage? Is THAT a precondition? Where are you RPP?

 

[rpp]

Duh,
I am going to defend my statements – and I will correct any that need correcting.[snip]

The points you raise in this post are just not worth responding to. Why? Let me explain,

The fact that your posts degenerated into personal attacks, skating on the edge of CAF rules, nearly immediately is disappointing.

You no longer seem to be able to engage in a reasoned and civil conversation. You appear to have become angry, and stayed that way, simply because I disagreed with what you wrote. As I write this, I am not angry; yet as I read what you wrote, it appears that you were. Particularly when say things like:

Fair enough, it will have to wait until my adrenaline settles down – which always happens when I get a large confrontational letter with short thought.

I will not respond to you any further on this conversation. Nor with I let you disturb my peace. However, if you again present false teachings, you can presume that I and many others will point out the error. And this will be done without insulting you. **That is the purpose of this forum. **To exchange information and teach and to learn. That cannot be done when the only response to someone who disagrees with you is anger and insult.

 

[joseph_virgen]

Let me understand. You would dump a wonderous person siimply because you could not satisfy your lusting. That you attribute such power to such a little ‘thing’ is, well, childlish.

Moreover, it’s telling of your spiritual growth, or lack there of.

Love, true love, has absolutely nothing to do with the penetration of orifices,even animals do it. Knowingly, it is the penetration of the heart that matters.

The question becomes, what do you prefer----------love or lus?.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Joseph, I think I understand your point. It’s a bit like Margarite’s.

But, just to clarify – you weren’t talking about IVF or artificial methods of coming by a baby using big machines, right?

I mean, I know Abraham went astray in that general direction using a surrogate womb, and I don’t think you mean stuff like that.

(Some people on these threads read the strangest things into innocent statements, and I feel it my duty to help out.)

Also, babies are little – and I think they do have a lot to do with love. Perhaps they are bigger than what you are talking about?

But, anyway that’s why I married my girlfriend. I still see her after 14 years and 5 boys, and she’s the only girlfriend I have ever had even the little things to share with.

But it’s like Tobit:

Tobit 8:7 Now, Lord you know I take this wife of mine not because of lust, but for a noble purpose. Call down your mercy on me and on her, and allow us to live together to a happy old age. They said “Amen, amen,” and went to bed for the night.

Tobit was bringing forth the seed of Christ which is salvation.
You know, Onan spilled that seed to be in the wrong orifice – the ground – and God didn’t like that, he obviously didn’t love the promise made to Abraham, and Adam, and Eve more than himself. He was killed becase he tried to break the chain that would lead to our redemption.

Just think – today people who stay with their girlfriend bring forth the holy offspring which are the body of Christ – and of whom, his bride the church is formed.

The only reason the world hasn’t ended already is because that bride is still alive and producing children for him. Were she to become sick and nearly die, it would raise Jesus to a wrath which will burn anyone remaining in order to save his bride.

That is why it is so dangerous to get between a man and his wife.

Glory to God.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Unless you are already engaged to be married, dump him/her.

I know, I had a really “freaky” girlfriend and we couldn’t stop. I had to give her the ax, otherwise we would still have committed the sins.

And, now that I’m married (for almost 7 years and with 4 children ) I’m glad that I dumped her and regret the sins we committed.

Was it her fault that the two of you continued to have sex?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I think it is necessary to take this on a case-by-case basis – there’s no blanket rule either way.

If the relationship is, on the whole, a healthy one in which the goal (and the reality) is to keep Christ at the center, or if it’s moving in that direction, I see no problem with continuing the relationship. If, however, after an honest reevaluation, one determines that the relationship is not contributing to both parties’ spiritual growth, it’s time to set it aside.

Then there’s the situation in which both partners truly do have each other’s salvation in mind, but for whatever reason are unable to maintain their chastity – which means they may need to sacrifice their happiness with one another for the sake of their chastity. Perhaps they could put strict limits on their time together, not allowing themselves to be alone together, but in the long run, they may find it necessary to break up.

In any case, I don’t think it’s wrong to break up merely because of a “slip up”, whether it’s an immediate break or one that happens after trying and failing to remain chaste.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What if instead of breaking up with the person, you just stop committing the sin of pre-marital sex. But then your partner can accuse you of emotional cruelty, because withholding sex is a form of abuse, according to some psychologists. It’s all very messy.

I suppose the key is to make sure anyone you’re dating knows that you think sex before marriage is a sin and that if you make that mistake you’ll have to break up, or at least stop.

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

Though you should not break up with her/him one should be VERY careful because now that the action has been brought forward it will be much easier to do it again.

 

[crenfro]

Is breaking up with the person really the correct thing to do if you sinned together? That could be really hurtful to the other person. It might mean you would go through life starting relationships and having to end them when you slip. What do you think?

Rationalizing your actions while remaining around a near occasion of sin, which keeps you separated from God, is also hurtful.

And isn’t it possible to learn from mistakes? Just because one mistake is made doesn’t mean it needs to be repeated or that one’s doomed to repeat it.

So, is it preferable to break up with someone and return to the state of grace, if that’s what it takes? I think so.

 

[Mayo]

Talk to a priest and try to get married as soon as possible.
That is what my wife and I did over fifty years ago. We were both virgins when we got married.
God’s laws are the same now as they were then on sex before marriage.
We were always taught that the man has a moral obligation to not cause the woman to commit sin. I dont know which one posted the Thread but if the woman is the aggressor he has a moral obligation to stop her in order to try and save their Souls.

Mayo

 

[sdeco]

Talk to a priest and try to get married as soon as possible.

See, I’m not sure this is such a good idea in this case. Having sex bonds a couple together and causes them to overlook faults. This is good in marriage, but not so good when you’re unmarried and trying to discern if this is the person you’re supposed to marry. I think if a couple has had premarital sex, they should first stop having sex for six months to a year, and then if they still want to get married, they can go ahead and get married.

Actually, I don’t think getting married “as soon as possible” is *ever *a good idea. Who you’re going to marry is probably the most important decision you’ll ever make. It’s not something to be taken lightly. I think it’s a good idea to date for at least a year first, give or take. The right length of time to wait before marriage will vary depending on the couple.

We were always taught that the man has a moral obligation to not cause the woman to commit sin.

What?!? No one is responsible for someone else’s sins. We all need to take responsibility for our own sins.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Two good friends of mine had pre-marital sex while they were dating and both regretted it afterwards and stopped. Now they have been happily married for over a year. I definitely don’t think that you should break up with someone just because you have had pre-marital sex with them. If that is what the relationship is based on and it doesn’t stop, then that is a different issue. Then I think the most appropriate thing to do might be to end the relationship.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

What?!? No one is responsible for someone else’s sins. We all need to take responsibility for our own sins.

We are our brother’s keeper, though. No, we are not responsible for someone else’s sins, but we certainly can be responsible for placing them in an occasion to sin and tempting them to sin.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[lucy212]

This thread has been a nightmare to read.
I am sure the OP title was just an unfortunate choice of words “Dumping your 'near occasion of sin?”

No matter what kind of relationship I had with someone, I would hope that all that I am, all that we meant to each other, even if it had gone bad, that I could be reduced from a human being, in need of the same Grace and Salvation, to merely a ‘near occasion of sin’, to be disposed of ASAP, especially if the “other” was not Catholic,
“since most serious catholics who are in a serious relationship are moving towards marriage.”

The responses got worse as time went on.

btw, did they study any other factors influencing the success of a marriage, besides cohabitation (is that defined as living together and/or sex)?

Were these statistics a result of a double blind study to elimate the influence of other factors, such as a history of parental divorce, childhood abuse, depression or other mental problems, substance abuse, education levels, economic status, spiritual lives and/or the support of a spiritual community?

If not, it’s some very suspect science, and maybe even junk science; but I would check it out before advising people to base life decisions on them.

And to the poor girl who thinks the sins of her aunt have any relation to landed her in a marriage to a husband who beat her for years…that’s not how God punishes you for sins against chastity.
I don’t see the connection, and if you have been taught there is one…you have been taught wrong.
It’s poor logic, maybe a handy scare tactic, but it is unjust, cruel, and not anything near true Christian teaching to blame your aunt’s mistake in any way for a husband who can’t keep his fists off of her.

The thinking that it’s too hard to overcome bad habits, chemical factors, biological factors that seem to render us too stupid to make a decision, or impermiable to Grace, would have made my head explode…but the arguing over canon law, and definitions of marriage, and who was qualified to interpret Church teachings, did that.

Just because we can read canon law, encyclicals, doctinal statements, it is the place of our appointed Priest or Bishop to interpret and enforce them. We are not Protestants, and yes, our Priests and Bishops are human and not perfect, but to be a orthodox catholic, means that you are under their authority.
As Huiou Theou said:

I trust fallible people to explain it since the oecumenical councils are out of session, and the pope and vatican are quite busy – they don’t even accept e-mail, you’ve got to fax em…). So, that was my point – the IMPLEMENTATION of LAW is not in infallible hands, ratified and explicitly reviewed by the pope.

Welcome to the True Visible Church.

It would also seem strange that cohabitation/ premarital sex was THE only thing that rendered things like confession, repentance, grace, and genuinely working out your salvation within the life of the Church a bit too anemic to heal lives and relationships.

Thank God for a few voices that spoke with some mercy, compassion and hope. When the OP posted again:

What if instead of breaking up with the person, you just stop committing the sin of pre-marital sex. But then your partner can accuse you of emotional cruelty, because withholding sex is a form of abuse, according to some psychologists. It’s all very messy.

and if you read carefully, there is some serious pain between the lines, and for him this is not some hypothetical apologetics exercise. but I detect actual human beings, with feelins, hearts, aching or even broken involved.
And also I read Compassion that takes into account that his actions not only affect his faith and salvation and wholeness; If our salvation was not so closely linked with others…why bother with the Church.
We may have to run the race on our own two feet, but we wouldn’t make it without being surrounded by that Great Cloud of Witnesses…God, forbid we leave someone limping, or wounded in the dust, especially if we had a hand in them being there in the firs place.
Thanks Rand Al Thor

Two good friends of mine had pre-marital sex while they were dating and both regretted it afterwards and stopped. Now they have been happily married for over a year. I definitely don’t think that you should break up with someone just because you have had pre-marital sex with them. If that is what the relationship is based on and it doesn’t stop, then that is a different issue. Then I think the most appropriate thing to do might be to end the relationship.

In Christ,
Rand

We are our brother’s keeper, though. No, we are not responsible for someone else’s sins, but we certainly can be responsible for placing them in an occasion to sin and tempting them to sin.

In Christ,
Rand

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you lucy212,
You’re right that there were some personal experiences behind the questions, but luckily they are in my past now. More conservative priests, in my experience, will counsel you to either end the relationship or at least “take a break” from it if you confess fornication.
In my experience if you get into a sexual relationship then just decide to stop having sex to ‘do the right thing’ it can be very confusing and hurtful for the other partner. That was one of my concerns.
The other concern is that I can see myself falling into a pattern of start dating someone with good intentions… get close over a few months… make a mistake, then have to break up with them. Then start over with someone else. This is the behaviour that even secular people find terrible for men to do, yet it seems it’s something any normal catholic has the risk of running if he has weaknesses and takes the advice of his priest.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Neil,

Wonderful! So you have gained mastery of a virtue.
As St. Paul says of those able:

1Cori 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

And, infallibly, the pope commented:

2Pete 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blame
less.
2Pete 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given u
nto him hath written unto you;
2Pete 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So, there is more to the question than the possibility of a priest misguiding you – …