Interesting question re: "One flesh."

[montanaman]

The following is a conversation–not really a debate–on “one flesh,” premarital sex and a valid sacramental marriage. Bottom line: How is premarital sex NOT as binding as a valid marriage? It would be too difficult to explain the context, so I’m reproducing the main points here:

You can find the actual discussion here: thesophiahouse.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3422#3422

Me:

And remember that sex before marriage, while having the image of “one body,” in fact isn’t. It’s a lie–not with words but with the body. (See anything on JPII’s Theology of the Body). While it’s sex, it’s still much more akin to mutual stimulation of genitilia than any sort of bond between “partners.”

In a valid marriage, two bodies become “one flesh.” A bond far greater than that produced by oxytocin is created. Having sex with someone else does not bond you the same way.

UBERROGO:

Why does baptizm really bestow the Holy Spirit but sex doesn’t really bond the two involved?

Me:

Hmm…good question, I think, but I think you’re mixing together a couple of things.

I was talking about how the symbols of the sacraments actually DO the things they signify. In every sacrament, there are three components:

Form: the words used. I.e., I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit…

Matter: the “stuff” involved. In baptism, that’s water.

Minister: who “performs” the sacrament.

In the Sacrament of Matrimony, it’s a little different than you might expect:

Form: The vows–I promise to love you in sickness and in health…etc.

Matter: The man and woman.

Minister: ALSO the man and the woman.

Premarital sex doesn’t constitute a valid sacrament because it’s missing two elements–the Form (vows) and to some extent, the Minister (the couple isn’t “ministering” the sacrament to each other. It’s just sex).

UBERROGO:

This is one area I am surprised the Catholics don’t teach literally.

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

 

[noma]

The issue, I would believe, would lie not with what God has joined, but what man has joined.

The two still become one flesh, but not because God has initiated this with the participation of the man and the woman, but because the man and the woman took their own initiative.

This is why I would hold it to be wrong, and not binding as marriage.

 

[montanaman]

I think I’m slowly working my way to the answer. Here’s what I just posted:

Ah, here we go (I think)…

As I said above, premarital (or extra-marital) sex is LIKE joining yourself together in a valid marriage, but it’s a lie. Two fornicators do indeed join themselves together in “one flesh,” but this is separate and distinct from a marital context. We’re almost having two related, but different, conversations here.

Grace is conferred in the Sacrament of Matrimony only if it’s actually a valid sacrament. Just having sex does nothing. You become one only in a physical, almost superficial sense.

 

[Rye-Guy]

I don’t know if this helps, but going back to the Ten Commandments, the Hebrew used to describe adultry also included fornication.

 

[Genesis315]

A valid sacrament needs form, matter, and intent.

Just as not every act of water being poured on your head is a Baptism, neither does sexual intercourse always form a valid marriage.

If both “participants” entered into the act intending on being sacramentally married for life, then it would be a true, valid marriage. But, they don’t usually (barring certain circumstances where a judge or religious cleric is impossible to find–like on a deserted island). 99.99999% of the people in pre-marital sex situations have not intended to commit that much and therefore fdo not have the proper intent for the sacrament.

 

[UBERROGO]

FOUND YOU MM!

So why is a marriage only valid if the two have had sex then?

 

[tee_eff_em]

FOUND YOU MM!

So why is a marriage only valid if the two have had sex then?

You are mistaken. A marriage need not be consummated to be valid. However, if it is not consummated it is said to be merely ratified and is dissoluble.

Can. 1061 §1 A valid marriage between baptised persons is said to be merely ratified, if it is not consummated; ratified and consummated, if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
…]
Can. 1141 A marriage which is ratified and consummated cannot be dissolved by any human power or by any cause other than death.

Can. 1142 A non-consummated marriage between baptised persons or between a baptised party and an unbaptised party can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason, at the request of both parties or of either party, even if the other is unwilling.

tee

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bottom line: How is premarital sex NOT as binding as a valid marriage?

Premarital sex is the mortal sin of Fornication. A person cannot commit a sin so that good, (a marital bond) may come of it.

 

[Loren_1of6]

One of the problems of premarital sex is that it creates the illusion of the marriage bond. A girl will engage in the act in the hopes of keeping her boyfriend or proving her love for him. Then something happens and they break up, shattering that illusion.

After that illusion of marital intimacy has been shatterred enough times, the participants will stop believing in the real life-affirming bond that marriage is. Once that belief has been eliminated, the person feels “freed” of the obligation to act in accordance with that truth, thus leading to promiscuity and infidelity.