How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[The_Bucket]

This is the catholic answers response above which has been shown to be very murky based on the word porneia, I looked it up in the Greek dictionary

teknia.com/greek-dictionary/porneia

porneia
sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, a generic term for sexual sin of any kind

So it seems not only adultery but all of these other things would be grounds for divorce as well, according the scripture.

This has all been well-debated and the usual reply is that that porneia is not the typical word used for adultery. That word is moicheia. And anyway, that’s not what Christ would have said because he surely did not speak much, if any, Greek. He spoke in Aramaic and, when reading the Torah, Hebrew.

This sort of issue, among many, is why we’re not Sola Scriptura folks.

And at any rate, if He had laid down the exception for adultery, He would not have stirred up a great reaction from the scribes as the detour from Mosaic law would not have been as dramatic.

groverproctor.us/sb/sb-adul.txt

While a Church scholar, the author there is NOT Catholic, and was in fact a Seventh-Day Adventist. Yet even he concludes:

This view is consistent with the absolute value that Mark, Luke, and Paul place on the saying of Jesus. We are bound to conclude that by the exception phrase about porneia, Jesus did not intend to open the way for divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual misconduct. Rather, He wished to reaffirm the creational principle of the permanence of the marriage union by allowing for divorce only in the case of an unlawful marriage. In the light of this conclusion, Matthew 19:9 would read: “whoever divorces his wife, unless his union with her is illegitimate, and marries another, commits adultery.”

 

[holy_face]

This has all been well-debated and the usual reply is that that porneia is not the typical word used for adultery. That word is moicheia. And anyway, that’s not what Christ would have said because he surely did not speak much, if any, Greek. He spoke in Aramaic and, when reading the Torah, Hebrew.

This sort of issue, among many, is why we’re not Sola Scriptura folks.

I looked up porneia in the greek dictionary and the definition was sexual immorality of many types, including adultery, fornication etc.

I am not Sola Scriptura but I recognize the possibility of the Church being in error on a murky issue like this, given that adultery is such a severe crime against marriage that Christ could have very well meant that.

I am wondering about the historical context because it seems there was confusion even in the early church about this.

It seems like a translation issue rather than grounds for an infallible Catholic teaching. Maybe this is one of those areas where people should be guided on their conscience, if I had an adulterous wife I would definitely leave her no question about it.

 

[holy_face]

And at any rate, if He had laid down the exception for adultery, He would not have stirred up a great reaction from the scribes as the detour from Mosaic law would not have been as dramatic.

The scribes were used to divorcing their wives for no reason whatsoever, just that a bill of divorce was to be prepared

 

[mommamaree]

If any man divorce his wife, for reasons other than adultery, then he causes her to commit adultery. Any man who marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

Okay, so, even in this translation, it is still consistent with the Church’s teachings.

In the case of an innocent woman being abandoned and divorced (in ancient times, and even in more modern times), she would be destitute and would need to find another man to marry her. So her faithless husband would be the cause of her adultery.

In the case of an adulterous wife, whose husband divorces her due to her own unfaithfulness, if she remarry to avoid abject poverty, her husband would NOT be the cause of her adultery, but her own sin of adultery would be hers alone. Her husband cannot make her what she has already made herself (an adulteress).

Just another perspective…

 

[holy_face]

Yes but the Church says the husband of the adulterous woman can not re-marry. That is a an additional cruel punishment for him especially when the passage says divorce is permissible if one has an adulterous wife.

 

[Xantippe]

Regarding the discussion of soulmates on p. 24, I think that 80% of the people who use the term are too silly to get married, and I would never use the term myself with a straight face. However, as I said earlier, while neither my husband nor I is perfect, I think we are perfect for each other and I knew that to be the case almost immediately.

The main problem with the term “soulmate” is that it encourages people to believe that if they just find the perfect person, they will never have problems or disagreements and life will never be hard. That is deeply pernicious, because it leads people to bounce indefinitely between a series of people they believe to be their soulmate, leaving as soon as the going gets hard.

But, come to think of it, there are similar issues with choosing a spouse on primarily agricultural grounds. If youth and fertility are everything, then that too could lead one to keep abandoning spouses as soon as a younger, more fertile candidate appears.

 

[holy_face]

Regarding the discussion of soulmates on p. 24, I think that 80% of the people who use the term are too silly to get married, and I would never use the term myself with a straight face. However, as I said earlier, while neither my husband nor I is perfect, I think we are perfect for each other and I knew that to be the case almost immediately.

The main problem with the term “soulmate” is that it encourages people to believe that if they just find the perfect person, they will never have problems or disagreements and life will never be hard. That is deeply pernicious, because it leads people to bounce indefinitely between a series of people they believe to be their soulmate, leaving as soon as the going gets hard.

But, come to think of it, there are similar issues with choosing a spouse on primarily agricultural grounds. If youth and fertility are everything, then that too could lead one to keep abandoning spouses as soon as a younger, more fertile candidate appears.

Youth and fertility are not everything, certainly not but they play a strong role in initial attraction as well as any plans for a family. A relationship must be based on other compatibility though, and a relationship can also be built without youth and fertility.

One thing I heard and strongly believe to be true, because it is the case with me and my wife, is when a man marries his wife when she is young, he tends to see the same youth in her as she ages. He remembers her when she was young and still sees it in her. He will be much more attracted to her than someone who met her when she was older.

I notice my wife’s aging on occasion but I see the same young girl I met years ago most of the time.

There are many benefits to marrying young, we met when we were 26 so we were still relatively young at that point but it would have been better if we met earlier.

 

[Xantippe]

holy face said:

“The word adultery is used as an exception, Catholics then have to come to explain that it was a different word for adultery that didn’t have quite have the same meaning. It seems kind on murky to me.”

Not really. I don’t know Greek, but my husband does, and he says that the Biblical verse says “except for porneia.” You’ll recognize the prefix porn- in that word. Here’s the word study on “porneia” (I believe this is a Protestant source).

biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

If you have a good look at the definitions and context here, it’s clear that “adultery” is a huge overtranslation of the word “porneia.” Porneia has the following range: fornication, whoredom, (metaphorically) idolatry, promiscuity, etc. Strong’s says that there is a completely different term available in Greek for adultery (moicheia).

biblehub.com/greek/3430.htm

Hence the woman caught in adultery was caught in moicheia, not in porneia.

When my husband and I discussed this, I suggested that a good working translation of “porneia” would be “yucky sexual stuff.” He thought that was a pretty good translation. It’s a very general term rather than a specific one–I think it’s mainly there as a placeholder to suggest that there are reasonable grounds for dissolution of a marriage, but it’s not meant to be an exact explanation of what those grounds are. (You see more specific discussion of appropriate grounds in the New Testament Epistles.)

 

[holy_face]

yes, it seems to be that there are even more conditions than adultery that could be grounds for a legitimate divorce. But any act of sexual immorality would lead back to the fact that it was adultery within the context of marriage so i understand why the word adultery is commonly chosen.

 

[mommamaree]

Regarding the discussion of soulmates on p. 24, I think that 80% of the people who use the term are too silly to get married, and I would never use the term myself with a straight face. However, as I said earlier, while neither my husband nor I is perfect, I think we are perfect for each other and I knew that to be the case almost immediately.

The main problem with the term “soulmate” is that it encourages people to believe that if they just find the perfect person, they will never have problems or disagreements and life will never be hard. That is deeply pernicious, because it leads people to bounce indefinitely between a series of people they believe to be their soulmate, leaving as soon as the going gets hard.

But, come to think of it, there are similar issues with choosing a spouse on primarily agricultural grounds. If youth and fertility are everything, then that too could lead one to keep abandoning spouses as soon as a younger, more fertile candidate appears.

Fair enough. I can see that I am outnumbered in my perspective on the term soulmate. I concede! (I will just count myself as part of the 20% who use the term to apply to my own marriage, without being too silly to marry at all…I think my more than 17 years of happy marriage count for something in that regard.)

 

[mommamaree]

Youth and fertility are not everything, certainly not but they play a strong role in initial attraction as well as any plans for a family. A relationship must be based on other compatibility though, and a relationship can also be built without youth and fertility.

One thing I heard and strongly believe to be true, because it is the case with me and my wife, is when a man marries his wife when she is young, he tends to see the same youth in her as she ages. He remembers her when she was young and still sees it in her. He will be much more attracted to her than someone who met her when she was older.

I notice my wife’s aging on occasion but I see the same young girl I met years ago most of the time.

There are many benefits to marrying young, we met when we were 26 so we were still relatively young at that point but it would have been better if we met earlier.

Yes, I think this is true. My husband sees me as the pretty girl he fell in love with two decades ago, and seems apparently unaware of my aging (I am still only in my mid-30s, but after 4 children, my shape is forever changed).
My husband, on the other hand, despite being heavier than he once was, has grown more distinguished-looking. I think he is better-looking now than he was when we married. Maturity looks good on him.

 

[Xantippe]

The Bucket said:

“And this notes, the very nature of marriage is different in the East than it is in the West. Basically it tolerates divorce but does not acknowledge that death separates spouses and does not perfectly hew with the idea that there is no marriage in Heaven.”

Yeah–the Orthodox three strikes and you’re out rule seems pretty ad hoc. If you marry and bury three spouses, why can’t you marry a fourth?

Especially since Jesus is given the case of a woman who married seven brothers, one at a time. That would have been a good time to say, only the first three were her husbands.

holy face said;

“It seems like a translation issue rather than grounds for an infallible Catholic teaching. Maybe this is one of those areas where people should be guided on their conscience, if I had an adulterous wife I would definitely leave her no question about it.”

Certainly–if you were prepared to live a celibate life until your or her death (annulments not being a certainty).

holy face said:

“That is a an additional cruel punishment for him especially when the passage says divorce is permissible if one has an adulterous wife.”

That’s actually highly debatable. It might be, for instance, that the “adultery” that Jesus has in mind is that the marriage itself is adulterous. Say, for instance that A marries B, divorces B, and then marries C. The marriage between B and C has to be regarded as adulterous.

 

[holy_face]

No I would remarry with a good conscience in the case of adultery, I have clearly seen the error in the Catholic Church on this particular translation and issue. They are using mental gymnastics to get around the fact that Christ said you can divorce an adulterous wife or husband.

They first misrepresent what porneia means, saying it simply means an invalid marriage which it does not according to the definition of the word, it means sexual immorality of many kinds, within the context of marriage is adultery.

Christ is saying that you commit adultery if you divorce a wife and then take another, except if she commits adultery. Simply divorcing her for any reason is not adultery unless he takes another woman. But he causes his wife that he divorced to commit adultery by divorcing her so therefore that is adultery, if she is innocent of any adultery herself.

If he divorces her due to her adultery then he does not commit adultery by divorcing her. She has already committed adultery at that point so does not cause her to commit adultery by divorcing her.

 

[Estevao]

This has all been well-debated and the usual reply is that that porneia is not the typical word used for adultery. That word is moicheia. And anyway, that’s not what Christ would have said because he surely did not speak much, if any, Greek. He spoke in Aramaic and, when reading the Torah, Hebrew.

This sort of issue, among many, is why we’re not Sola Scriptura folks.

And at any rate, if He had laid down the exception for adultery, He would not have stirred up a great reaction from the scribes as the detour from Mosaic law would not have been as dramatic.

groverproctor.us/sb/sb-adul.txt

While a Church scholar, the author there is NOT Catholic, and was in fact a Seventh-Day Adventist. Yet even he concludes:

Jesus spoke Greek:

"The Jews said to one another, “Where does this man intend to go that we shall not find him? Does he intend to go to the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?” - John 7:35 (RSV)

How could Jesus have taught the Greeks if he did not speak Greek?

 

[mommamaree]

No I would remarry with a good conscience in the case of adultery, I have clearly seen the error in the Catholic Church on this particular translation and issue.

If this is true, I certainly hope you would seek an annulment (and be granted one) so that you would not be placing yourself outside of full communion with the Church.

I have to admit that it is cruel for the innocent, abandoned spouse to watch their adulterous spouse leave and divorce them and remarry another. I have a male friend whose wife began an affair with his friend, and then she left her husband and divorced him and married the “friend”. She continued to attend our parish Masses and receives Holy Communion in front of everyone who knows that she abandoned her husband and lives in adultery now. He tried so hard to remain faithful to her and to the Church, but after years of struggle, he has decided to pursue a relationship with a non-Catholic woman. He has become engaged to her, and while he has begun the annulment process (and has a very good chance of being granted one due to the problems that were ignored at the time of marriage), he has been physical in his relationship before he was actually free to be married. So, he is not approaching to receive Holy Communion at Mass, even though he still regularly attends at our parish. While he must acknowledge himself to not be in a state of grace right now, he has a good reason to believe that this will be resolved within the next couple of years. But the pain that we have seen him go through these past few years is heartbreaking. And seeing the adulterous ex-wife behave so brazenly and unrepentant about her behavior, which ripped apart their family (they have four children) is scandalous and confusing.

So, yes, adultery is very difficult and painful. I know that in my situation, if my husband were to have an affair and leave me, there would be no possibility of annulment, and I would have to remain celibate. If however, he repented and confessed and promised to work on the marriage, I would want to readmit him to conjugal life after counseling. If he became a philanderer, then I would not be able to remain married, and once again, would have to remain celibate. As a convert, I cannot fathom the concept of doing anything to place myself outside of full communion.

 

[holy_face]

My wife is Jewish and it is technically non-sacramental so I would have an easier time than most Catholics obtaining an annulment, if she were to commit adultery. But I received dispensation from the church to marry her so i am unsure. I would first seek an annulment yes, but I am not 100% I would abide by their finding if they did not do it. As I explained above their logic for the policy is in error.

 

[mommamaree]

My wife is Jewish and it is technically non-sacramental so I would have an easier time than most Catholics obtaining an annulment, if she were to commit adultery. But I received dispensation from the church to marry her so i am unsure. I would first seek an annulment yes, but I am not 100% I would abide by their finding if they did not do it. As I explained above their logic or the policy is in error.

I do understand your difficulty with this teaching. I do fully assent to the Church’s teachings, and I feel that they have outlined the safest route for the salvation of souls. But I do understand why people might reject this teaching. I have more information than most people might have of what I would face if my marriage were to fail. I attempted to validly marry my husband twice (elopement by a JP, later a church wedding) before finally getting it right by marrying in the Catholic Church. Before we went through with our convalidation, I joked to my husband that now is the only time he would be able to get out of it, since we were fully informed about marriage, there were no impediments of any kind, and that if he went through with the convalidation, he was stuck with me forever. Neither of us would be able to get an annulment if abandoned by the other. With that information, I have already worked through and come to terms with the reality that this is it, and this man and this marriage is what God has intended. Even if he were to leave me or become a philanderer during some mid-life crisis or due to me having an illness, he will always be my husband till death parts us, and I need to set aside my own feelings and focus upon the state of his soul and my soul.
I think that young people should be made aware of the ultimate reality of marriage before they marry, in plain terms. Americans, especially, seem very confused, even with premarital counseling, what the point of marriage is. The Church needs to be bold about teaching the truth, and She needs to be a good mother in preparing Her children for marriage, without withholding difficult truths.
Back to virginity, it is my belief (and I could very well be wrong) that those people who meet and marry as virgins are far less likely to fall into adultery within marriage. Their sexuality is awakened within the proper context and is directed at their lawful spouse. It would seem to suggest that such a person would be less able to direct that intimate aspect of him/herself toward someone else. Does anyone have any idea if this is true? Do virgin spouses have any insulation against adultery?

 

[holy_face]

It’s more than just my personal difficulty with it though, their reasoning behind it seems mistaken. They seem to be picking a definition of proneia to mean invalid when the Greek definition for that word describes a whole list of sexual immoral acts.

 

[mommamaree]

It’s more than just my personal difficulty with it though, their reasoning behind it seems false. They seem to be cherry picking a definition of proneia to mean invalid when the Greek definition for that word describes a whole list of sexual immoral acts.

I do not disagree with you. Their reasoning does seem hard to follow. I just think that since this is the constant, unchanging teaching of Church, that it is based upon something more than the plain words of scripture. I have a feeling that Jesus probably spent a great deal of time speaking to His apostles about marriage, and that only a couple of instances are recorded within scripture. Therefore, I assent to what the Church tells me that Jesus said and what He meant by what He said.
Also, as I said before, although difficult, it does seem to be the safest route for souls to navigate through the pain and difficulties of adultery and ultimately being saved. I do not want to wager on my own ability to understand any/all teachings, and ultimately put my soul, or that of my lawful spouse, at risk of eternal damnation.

 

[holy_face]

Yes true but they were even confused by this issue in the early Church with some people saying adultery was grounds for divorce and remarriage while others saying you could divorce but could not remarry. The scripture itself lends credibility to the former.

The Orthodox believe adultery is grounds for divorce and remarriage and they shared the same doctrine of the Catholic Church for centuries.