How important is virginity to people in a new relationship?

[Xantippe]

holy face said:

“I don’t see any truth in the teaching, usually I see the truth in a teaching which makes me affirm my faith.”

Read Hosea. That’s the Old Testament book where God tells a prophet to marry a prostitute and then take her back after she commits adultery, meaning it as a symbol of God’s love and forgiveness for Israel, despite all Israel’s sins. Also, read Ephesians 5:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

We are supposed to forgive erring spouses, and there is actually excellent biblical support for that position. Consider the woman caught in adultery. One doesn’t get the impression that Jesus intends for her husband to turn her out of the house.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I know, I don’t know enough about the process but I was under the belief that non-sacramental marriages were easier to invalidate.

Marriages are never invalidated. They either exist or they don’t. At it’s most basic level, an annulment is a determination by the Church that no marriage exists.

With regard to non-sacramental marriages, in some circumstances the marriage does not need to be declared null, but can be dissolved if one wishes to remarry (Pauline and Petrine Privileges).

With regard to non-sacramental marriages being easier to invalidate, I would assume that would be the case (though I have no personal knowledge of the actual stats). The reason I believe that is simply because in the case of non-sacramental marriages, there is more likely to be a lack of understanding about basic elements of a Catholic marriage. As an simple example, I know people that are married and have a permanent intention against children, and see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[holy_face]

holy face said:

“I don’t see any truth in the teaching, usually I see the truth in a teaching which makes me affirm my faith.”

Read Hosea. That’s the Old Testament book where God tells a prophet to marry a prostitute and then take her back after she commits adultery, meaning it as a symbol of God’s love and forgiveness for Israel, despite all Israel’s sins. Also, read Ephesians 5:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.”

We are supposed to forgive erring spouses, and there is actually excellent biblical support for that position. Consider the woman caught in adultery. One doesn’t get the impression that Jesus intends for her husband to turn her out of the house.

God also told Abraham to kill his son, doesn’t mean we are all called to do that. Prophets were often called to do extreme acts of heroic virtue beyond what was expected of the general believers.

Then there is Matthew 19, which clearly states adultery as an exception to his declaration of no divorce. I made my argument earlier that I firmly believe the modern church to be error on that, as do the Orthodox and many of the early Christians.

I have done some more research on this and I don’t believe it is an infallible teaching regarding divorce after adultery. Everything the Church teaches in its doctrine is not infallible, not even doctrine in the catechism, unless it has been defined as such. The fact that the early church disagreed with itself regarding the matter shows why it would be an error to make a definitive judgment on that issue.

Priestly celibacy is also a later policy of the church. It is my understanding that since priests were allowed to marry originally it is possible for the church to reverse itself on this and return to the original tradition. Original traditions of the church are never completely overruled. This seems to be the same type of situation with the teaching on divorce, adultery was considered, at least by some of the church, an exception and it was in it’s practice sometimes allowed people to leave their adulterous spouse and remarry. This is a tradition the Orthodox remained with.

This is why some bishops are talking about the prospect of allowing some people who have remarried without an annulment, to be allowed to receive communion again. If there were definitively in a state of mortal sin then it would not even be a consideration.

Even today it is a somewhat murky issue, not an infallible teaching. Which is a relief to me because it eases my conscious regarding my disagreement with the Church. It no longer forces me into the position of having to reevaluate my faith.

Regarding your comments, yes as I Christian I am called to forgive, which I could do for an adulterous wife. But forgiveness does not have to include remaining married to her. Forgiveness would include me telling her such and harboring no resentment towards her.

If someone tried to murder me I could forgive them but it does not mean I must let them into my house if they ask.

 

[Xantippe]

holy face said:

“Then there is Matthew 19, which clearly states adultery as an exception to his declaration of no divorce.”

As we’ve discussed, the word “adultery” is not mentioned as a reason for divorce–it’s “unchastity.” It isn’t clear at all in Matthew 19 that it’s adultery after marriage that is being talked about. It could be a marriage that itself is unchaste (because one or both were previously married to other people), or the unchastity could have occurred before marriage–it could be that secret sexual activity before marriage would invalidate the marriage. There are so many different possibilities aside from adultery between A and C being a reason for A and B to get divorced.

Interestingly, there’s a shorter parallel passage in Luke 16 without any exceptions mentioned:

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

There’s another long parallel passage in Mark 10, also without the “unchastity” exception.

“Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Also, if we go back to the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees in Mark 10 that sparks these teachings, he says, "“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

That’s really the rock bottom argument–if one is married, one is joined to one’s spouse, and neither adultery or civil divorce affect that.

“Priestly celibacy is also a later policy of the church. It is my understanding that since priests were allowed to marry originally it is possible for the church to reverse itself on this and return to the original tradition.”

You do understand that Orthodox priests do not marry? Married men often become Orthodox priests (and very occasionally Catholic priests), but single Orthodox priests do not marry and remain priests in good standing. Even a widowed Orthodox priest is not free to remarry and remain a priest in good standing.

The tradition about priests not marrying is very strong in both East and West, even though it is manifested differently.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t know Holyface, the council of Trent seems pretty clear about this one.

—Canon VII. If any one shall say, that the Church doth err in that she hath taught, and
doth teach, according to the evangelical and apostolic doctrine, that the bond of
matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties;
and that both, or even the innocent party, who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot
contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other married person; and, that he is
guilty of adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall marry another wife, as also
she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall wed another husband; let him be anathema.

 

[thewanderer]

And as to whether or not this is infallible please read this site
ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=379439&language=en

in particular

This change in canon law, however, did nothing to change points of doctrine that had previously been defined. Since the anathemas issued by prior councils were doctrinally infallible, the theological points established in these canons retain their infallible status.

 

[holy_face]

I don’t know Holyface, the council of Trent seems pretty clear about this one.

Then it’s clear, I’m possibly not Catholic, I believe the Church to be error and therefore also do not believe in it’s infallibility doctrine.

Like I said before I would have never married under those conditions, I do not agree to stay married to an unfaithful spouse if it were to occur.

 

[holy_face]

As we’ve discussed, the word “adultery” is not mentioned as a reason for divorce–it’s “unchastity.” It isn’t clear at all in Matthew 19 that it’s adultery after marriage that is being talked about. It could be a marriage that itself is unchaste (because one or both were previously married to other people), or the unchastity could have occurred before marriage–it could be that secret sexual activity before marriage would invalidate the marriage. There are so many different possibilities aside from adultery between A and C being a reason for A and B to get divorced.

Yes that may be true, if your spouse was not chaste before marriage that may well be a valid a reason as well, if you were unaware and thought she was a virgin and found out later she was not.

That’s really the rock bottom argument–if one is married, one is joined to one’s spouse, and neither adultery or civil divorce affect that.

except for unchastity, and unchastity during marriage is adultery

You do understand that Orthodox priests do not marry? Married men often become Orthodox priests (and very occasionally Catholic priests), but single Orthodox priests do not marry and remain priests in good standing. Even a widowed Orthodox priest is not free to remarry and remain a priest in good standing.

The tradition about priests not marrying is very strong in both East and West, even though it is manifested differently.

Yes I am aware of that, it’s not the same celibacy as the catholic Church

 

[Galbin]

In a letter that he gave me on our wedding night, my husband (very staunch atheist who entertains notions of the supernatural even less than I do) told me that sometimes I make him question if something more is out there, because he often feels like I am his what could only be described as soulmate, but how can soulmates exist without souls? Although it doesn’t seem romantic to many of you, to be told that my presence in someone’s life makes them wonder about god…that was the most beautiful thing I’ve ever been told.

Awww. That is beautiful.

 

[Galbin]

Celibacy has created its own set of problems that I see as quite worse.

One of my long time friends is a catholic priest and he has mentioned more than once how bad the homosexual problem is, he says they are many that actually enter the priesthood to hook up with men.

If you create an all boys club that do not have relationships with women you inadvertently light beacon of attraction for the wrong type of element for the priesthood.

Yes. There was a priest in my country that shocked the nation by claiming that most priests he knew were actually having sexual relationships, often with their housekeepers. Not saying this is completely true, but I do think there are probably some priests doing this. I would say it is more common than we think. So if priests can be having heterosexual relationships, then I can see how they could also be having homosexual ones.

 

[Galbin]

God also told Abraham to kill his son, doesn’t mean we are all called to do that. Prophets were often called to do extreme acts of heroic virtue beyond what was expected of the general believers.

Then there is Matthew 19, which clearly states adultery as an exception to his declaration of no divorce. I made my argument earlier that I firmly believe the modern church to be error on that, as do the Orthodox and many of the early Christians.

I have done some more research on this and I don’t believe it is an infallible teaching regarding divorce after adultery. Everything the Church teaches in its doctrine is not infallible, not even doctrine in the catechism, unless it has been defined as such. The fact that the early church disagreed with itself regarding the matter shows why it would be an error to make a definitive judgment on that issue.

Priestly celibacy is also a later policy of the church. It is my understanding that since priests were allowed to marry originally it is possible for the church to reverse itself on this and return to the original tradition. Original traditions of the church are never completely overruled. This seems to be the same type of situation with the teaching on divorce, adultery was considered, at least by some of the church, an exception and it was in it’s practice sometimes allowed people to leave their adulterous spouse and remarry. This is a tradition the Orthodox remained with.

This is why some bishops are talking about the prospect of allowing some people who have remarried without an annulment, to be allowed to receive communion again. If there were definitively in a state of mortal sin then it would not even be a consideration.

Even today it is a somewhat murky issue, not an infallible teaching. Which is a relief to me because it eases my conscious regarding my disagreement with the Church. It no longer forces me into the position of having to reevaluate my faith.

I agree with much of your position on this. It is very cruel that a victimless spouse could just be left alone because their spouse is a cheater. Although I personally would try to work it out with my dh, I am speaking of the spouse who has been cheated on and then been left all alone while their spouse “shacks up” with someone else. I also agree that it would be good if priests could marry, although I do see both sides on this issue.

 

[Xantippe]

Galbin said:

“I also agree that it would be good if priests could marry, although I do see both sides on this issue.”

It might be good if more married men could be ordained in the Latin rite (there are already a number of married Protestant converts who have been ordained), although I suspect that it would then be necessary for them to either be bivocational (as many Protestant ministers are in the US) or have a working wife with a good job.

Even in the Orthodox church, married priests are expected to abstain from sex for a certain amount of time before celebrating the Divine Liturgy. In our Western church, with priests expected to celebrate a Mass every day, that would translate to 100% abstinence.

 

[Smcpherson05]

I was a virgin on my wedding day but my husband had been with three women prior to me. It was really hard for us to talk about and for me not to picture them but I knew that he had turned his life around and he hadn’t stopped just because he knew it was wrong. He stopped because, after his conversion, he understood the sanctity of marriage and sex better than almost anyone I knew. His whole life was a testimony to the work God had done in him so we were able to fully come together in a sacramental marriage.

A year or two into our marriage I never even thought about those other women because he was totally devoted to me and didn’t even comment on female movie stars or anything when people would casually ask those types of things. It wasn’t a show. His friends have told me over the years that he treated women and sex with the utmost respect when he was alone with them too. Be honest and make sure you don’t just understand the “No” parts of sex but all the “yes” parts of sex that make it beautiful and holy and monogamous. If she is walking with God she’ll see that in you because God can make all things new. That’s not just a greeting card sentiment. Our marriage is testament to that.

 

[Galbin]

Be honest and make sure you don’t just understand the “No” parts of sex but all the “yes” parts of sex that make it beautiful and holy and monogamous. If she is walking with God she’ll see that in you because God can make all things new. That’s not just a greeting card sentiment. Our marriage is testament to that.

Yes. This is why I hate when people misrepresent the Church’s position on this matter. This is no longer the bad ol’ days. Nowadays the Church celebrates marital sexual. Also, wasn’t there something in the Bible about sex between a married couple being a renewal of the sacrament? Or maybe that was just something I heard during marriage preparation…