Practically speaking, don't we need to "test drive the car before we buy it?"

[MacQ]

Sorry I didn’t respond sooner! I stopped reading when the thread exploded. First, I want to make it clear that I am always against telling loved ones that there is something wrong with their significant other and they should leave. Trust me, if the couple stays together, that advice will never be forgiven.

I also find it interesting that in both of the cases above, the girl is the one that wants to wait. My response would be the same regardless of the gender of my child or their partner.

If my child wanted to wait until marriage, it is something that I would gently discourage, yes. I would also ask my child to really consider their feelings for their partner, because it may be that there is a problem that they aren’t identifying that is keeping them closed off from sex. I would also encourage them to consider the feelings of their partner and whether or not they felt that they could have a full and complete relationship with that person. I would also ask them to carefully reflect on this stance to ensure that it is not stemming from a power trip or a need for control.

If my child’s partner wanted to wait, and my child came to me upset about it, I would not say “leave”. I would make it clear to my child that they have to do what they think is best, but that they need to consider a few things: if they give into waiting, is it going to end there, or will their partner always view themselves as the one in control of sex in the relationship even after marriage? Will they be able to trust this person after marriage? Is this the kind of relationship they want? And what other differences in values do they have with this person?

I agree that the advice should be the same for a daughter and a son.
I also agree with refraining from advising someone to leave another person (unless they are abusive).

The rest of your post confuses me.
Someone tells you he or she doesn’t want to have sex yet but is being pressured by another…and your response is to suspect that the person who wants to wait is being a control freak, and inconsiderate of another’s feelings ?
Really?

What about the person doing the pressuring?

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy, I really don’t think you disagree with me. I’m not talking about people who decide they won’t spend large amounts of time alone with each other, I’m talking about people who decide that they will get to the public place of their outing separately because they refuse to spend 5 min alone together in a car. Like I said, I completely understand and agree that appropriate precautions should be taken when dating, but if you can’t even be together for 5-10 min out of other people’s sight without being seriously tempted to have sex then there is a serious issue that should prevent you from even thinking about marriage. That kind of lack of self-control does not belong in marriage.

ETA And I’m not just using an extreme exaggeration so that I can bash on courtship, the people I have talked to who promote courtship insisted on the very scenario I presented above, that they would never allow themselves to even drive anywhere with the person they were courting unless someone else was in the car with them. So, if they wanted a more private outing (ie, lots of strangers around but no-one they know sitting listening in to their conversations) they would find a way to get to their public meeting place separately. And this was a very reasonable and rational girl, she clearly understood the importance of getting to know another person, not allowing yourself to be so swept away by emotions that you let yourself get into or stay in a bad relationship etc, she had a ton of good common sense. But it is one of the rules of courting that you never spend time together without someone else present because apparently everyone has so little self-control that that is the level of caution that is required to prevent people from having sex before marriage.

 

[Rau]

Sorry I didn’t respond sooner! I stopped reading when the thread exploded. First, I want to make it clear that I am always against telling loved ones that there is something wrong with their significant other and they should leave. Trust me, if the couple stays together, that advice will never be forgiven.

I also find it interesting that in both of the cases above, the girl is the one that wants to wait. My response would be the same regardless of the gender of my child or their partner.

If my child wanted to wait until marriage, it is something that I would gently discourage, yes. I would also ask my child to really consider their feelings for their partner, because it may be that there is a problem that they aren’t identifying that is keeping them closed off from sex. I would also encourage them to consider the feelings of their partner and whether or not they felt that they could have a full and complete relationship with that person. I would also ask them to carefully reflect on this stance to ensure that it is not stemming from a power trip or a need for control.

If my child’s partner wanted to wait, and my child came to me upset about it, I would not say “leave”. I would make it clear to my child that they have to do what they think is best, but that they need to consider a few things: if they give into waiting, is it going to end there, or will their partner always view themselves as the one in control of sex in the relationship even after marriage? Will they be able to trust this person after marriage? Is this the kind of relationship they want? And what other differences in values do they have with this person?

An interesting approach, and not one we hear expressed so often by parents (I believe). Clearly, a proportion of parents would prefer their children to wait. Many parents would advise the children that this is a very personal decision that they should make in their own heart. But your inclination is to (gently) encourage sex in a romantic relationship.

Looking back to your remark that prompted my question, you said:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady
… I would not have a serious relationship with someone, much less marry them, if they wouldn’t have sex before marriage. I will do my best to raise my children to believe the same…

This raises in my mind the question: “At what point in the relationship do you consider it appropriate for sex to be introduced?”. I assume it would need to be prior to engagement, as you indicated you would not marry the man if he would not have sex with you (before marriage). In your view, at what point does sex become a necessary ingredient between boyfriend/girlfriend, and why is that event, that decision to have sex, so important as a prerequisite to marriage?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

An interesting approach, and not one we hear expressed so often by parents (I believe). Clearly, a proportion of parents would prefer their children to wait. Many parents would advise the children that this is a very personal decision that they should make in their own heart. But your inclination is to (gently) encourage sex in a romantic relationship.

Looking back to your remark that prompted my question, you said:

Originally Posted by BlueEyedLady
… I would not have a serious relationship with someone, much less marry them, if they wouldn’t have sex before marriage. I will do my best to raise my children to believe the same…

This raises in my mind the question: “At what point in the relationship do you consider it appropriate for sex to be introduced?”. I assume it would need to be prior to engagement, as you indicated you would not marry the man if he would not have sex with you (before marriage). In your view, at what point does sex become a necessary ingredient between boyfriend/girlfriend, and why is that event, that decision to have sex, so important as a prerequisite to marriage?

It isn’t so much that I would encourage sex in the relationship-if someone doesn’t want to have sex, then they shouldn’t. But I would want my child to evaluate why they don’t want to have sex, and figure out if it’s the act itself, my child’s partner, the relationship, or a personal issue and get to the root of that.

As for what time it becomes necessary, I would say it varies from couple to couple. But at a certain point, it becomes natural. If you are at the point where having sex would be a natural expression of love but one person keeps putting up artificial, unilateral barriers, than there’s a problem.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I agree that the advice should be the same for a daughter and a son.
I also agree with refraining from advising someone to leave another person (unless they are abusive).

The rest of your post confuses me.
Someone tells you he or she doesn’t want to have sex yet but is being pressured by another…and your response is to suspect that the person who wants to wait is being a control freak, and inconsiderate of another’s feelings ?
Really?

What about the person doing the pressuring?

I don’t think that anyone should do any pressuring. I would certainly never pressure a man into sex. But saying “I’m sorry, but this is not the type of relationship that I want. We either need to move forward physically or end it” is not pressure. He has the right to lay his cards on the table and I have the right to do the same with mine. It’s better to find out early that you’re incompatible.

But no, I wouldn’t trust someone who claimed to love me but wouldn’t have sex until marriage. I would wonder if throughout our marriage he would be resistant to trying things that I want to try, if he would only have sex when he wanted to, if it would only be done the way he liked, etc. It’s a natural fear. Far too many people consider themselves the sexual gatekeepers in their relationships, and hat’s not good. There’s a lot to be said for not being pressured, but there’s just as much to be said for making compromises and trying to go out of the way to do things that your partner likes sexually.

 

[LongingSoul]

It isn’t so much that I would encourage sex in the relationship-if someone doesn’t want to have sex, then they shouldn’t. But I would want my child to evaluate why they don’t want to have sex, and figure out if it’s the act itself, my child’s partner, the relationship, or a personal issue and get to the root of that.

If your daughter met a man who’s spirituality and faith impressed her so much that she wanted to explore the Catholic faith further through his holiness and purity… would you put up a fight against that?

Also how old are your children because as a mother you very quickly develop a sense of a girls vulnerability and need to have a sense of sexual boundaries to keep herself safe from those boys and men with no sense of the restraints in sexual behaviour. Perhaps they aren’t old enough to be too far from your side as yet, but it will be interesting to see if you have the same sense of the sexual freeness of people when that time comes.

 

[BiffRuffle]

Essentially, true love is directed towards the person, the unrepeatable, irreplaceable person. By ‘test-driving’ the focus is on the person’s qualities, which can be replicated and replaced by others with similar, or better, qualities. JPII’s Theology of the Body has this as one of it’s central points - love cannot be based on comparisons. By claiming a need to ‘test-drive’ means that you are checking to see if the person has qualities that you like; if not, you can always replace those qualities with another’s qualities. Love demands that it be directed towards persons. You cannot compare persons, only qualities. Thus, ‘test-driving’ is not only illogical, it is an abasement to human dignity and an offense against chastity, natural law, and love itself.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

If your daughter met a man who’s spirituality and faith impressed her so much that she wanted to explore the Catholic faith further through his holiness and purity… would you put up a fight against that?

Also how old are your children because as a mother you very quickly develop a sense of a girls vulnerability and need to have a sense of sexual boundaries to keep herself safe from those boys and men with no sense of the restraints in sexual behaviour. Perhaps they aren’t old enough to be too far from your side as yet, but it will be interesting to see if you have the same sense of the sexual freeness of people when that time comes.

Put up a fight? No. But the in the original situation my child came to me for advice. I couldn’t in good conscience advise any who came to me to wait until marriage for sex.

Uhhh…yes, everyone needs to have sexual boundaries. But having sexual boundaries and being able to advocate for yourself and say ‘no’ is not the same in being in a committed relationship with someone you are in love with and refusing to have sex.

I also see a middle ground. I don’t think that you have to teach your children to avoid sex until marriage to avoid being taken advantage of or abused.

 

[Rau]

It isn’t so much that I would encourage sex in the relationship-if someone doesn’t want to have sex, then they shouldn’t.

Though you did say plainly before that you would discourage your daughter from an inclination to wait until marriage.

But I would want my child to evaluate why they don’t want to have sex, and figure out if it’s the act itself, my child’s partner, the relationship, or a personal issue and get to the root of that.

Perhaps your child is attracted to the idea of the intimacy of sex being a dimension that belongs solely in the unique and committed relationship of marriage, rather than in (possibly) several relationships? I appreciate that isn’t your perspective. But, I’m not sure why you’d wish to **dissuade **a daughter (or anyone) from holding that view about sex.

As for what time it becomes necessary, I would say it varies from couple to couple. But at a certain point, it becomes natural.

For many, after the watershed commitment of marriage is that time. I appreciate that wouldn’t be acceptable to you. For others, it’s probably “natural” from the first opportunity, if the chemistry is flowing. Though, I note later that you indicate “love” is a necessary precondition (though not sure why you say that…).

If you are at the point where having sex would be a natural expression of love but one person keeps putting up artificial, unilateral barriers, than there’s a problem.

Is the key point here that the ‘objection’ to having sex is “artificial”, or that it is a view of only “one of the couple”? I guess it is a “problem” that only one wants sex now, as this may be a source of difficulty in the relationship. And I suppose that the particular reason to defer sex - that one views sex as special and for marriage only - is a problem too, since the other doesn’t share that view/value.

It seems that your view that the “right” (or better) solution is that the reluctant party yields (as per the advice you indicated you’d give to your daughter), really just reflects your own code of morality, which is that sex is fine so long as the pair have love, and any other thinking is suggestive of a deficiency on the part of the one who wishes to wait, or in the relationship. That you describe a personal view about the rightful place of sex as “to keep putting up artificial, unilateral, barriers” seems one-eyed and dismissive of the other party. I appreciate atheism likely means a rejection of a range of values and beliefs for self, but it does not imply an inability or unwillingness to respect them, or even to accommodate them, in others.

If your child and their partner both were of a mind to wait till marriage, would you be completely happy, or would you be uneasy?

 

[oneofmany]

I’m saying that the ones I’ve met gave me the impression they were somewhat disinterested in sex or have built up a lot of negatively around it that I couldn’t see it becoming positive. Obviously that doesn’t seem to be the view here, and that’s fine.

By “sense of duty” I mean a wife going along not because she too is in the mood but because she sees it as part of her promises to him. Simply put, the difference because she really wants to vs she feels she should.

A man and wife should give themselves to each other not because tradition, expectations, rules, or promises, but because they both desire to.

HUH? I guarantee there will be times when you would rather roll over and just go to sleep but you love your spouse so you “do it” to please them. It’s just like anything else in marriage. Sex won’t be any different than the other things you give in about. Plus, if your spouse is sick you better learn how to leave them alone and not be so concerned about your own needs. Marriage is a give and take on both sides.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Do yourself a favour. Don’t respond to this post. Demonstrate that you, at least, have the wherewithal to show some restraint. That would be a start.

Am I reading this right? Who are you tell me what to do on these forums? Your post reeks of classic thought police mentality. I have a hard time refusing because your replies are so presumptuous, they deserve to be called out as such!

The “guilt” ploy won’t work.

What guilt ploy?

You are being played.

The fact that you conclude this is based on some kind of ‘ploy’ says more about you Mr. Stranger.

Sure, some people make some of their posts needlessly personal - attacking the person rather than the argument. Both I think there is less of that than you make out.

Even so, but the presumptuous philosopher seems so intent on replying compared to the rest that the volume seems overbearing. It’s like the ones who make such personal attacks are the ones with the biggest megaphones (and would rather tell others to shut up than shut up themselves).

Yes. It’s like going on a BMW forum and talking about how German cars are overrated and too expensive to maintain–expect pushback.

That would be great except the ones pushing back are the ones who are also trying to reel me back in by pleading I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don’t you have any idea how confusing that is?

I mean I come to this thread, hoping to see anything newer than what I left behind, because I’m being implored to give the Church a second glance.

When I don’t see anything new and point it out, all I get is condemnation. If I’m being played, the religion seems to be the only entity bent on being the player.

Well you sure don’t sound like sour grapes now.

You might benefit from reading this.

Actually, it was from reading stuff like that resulted in this mess. I was afraid of being treated like another Eliot Roger. I was all for seeing myself as degenerate, unheroic, and obsessively drunk with the wine of self-loathing because it epitomized the idea of sacrificing myself interest.

Not anymore.

Like the rest, the fact that you refer this to me really just validates tossing out a world view that insists on seeing myself as an unrestrained beast in need of a cure. In another universe, blogs like this are what makes a Magneto.

P.S.

Of course, I’m not sour grapes. Sour grapes would be saying the girl wasn’t worth it after all. I don’t say this. Rather the complete opposite in fact.

Oddly enough it’s usually the religious folks who tell me to doubt the worthiness of my pursuit.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

So, to clarify, are you looking for dating advice in particular? Because if so that was never really very clear… also, it would probably be better to start a new thread about that as the way people respond on this thread is influenced by the fact that the point of this thread was to claim Catholic teaching on sex before marriage is wrong.

See, that’s the thing. I was about to but then I saw this thread, with the exact same premise. Only difference is the subject was on sex.

But frankly, underlying the responses I’ve read is the very spirit that thinks Catholicism wants to (subconsciously at least) dominate the market for dating advice. Forget just sexual compatibility. It wants to be the substitute alternative for everything to do with romantic relationships.

Don’t tell me this is false. I’ve been on CAF long enough to see otherwise. Several people here like to style themselves as dating authorities based on their faith-driven experience. The responses I read first seemed to think that the idea of exploring sex (like a lot of things in relationships) is a bad idea. The knee-jerk response of the CAF collective completely echoed this rejection of anything that sounds like MTV suggested it.

Yet in the end, the only lesson I learned came from real life. Not from this collective.

I learned more from the people more closely involved with me than I had when I strictly fenced my mind to forums like these and similar religious media. Heck, even my own online learning experience expanded when I shook off the shackles placed upon by my religious views.

If you are still interested in working to figure out the differences between the extreme opinions of some Catholics that led you on a wrong path and Catholicism itself I am more than will to do what I can to help you.

Look it’s nice of you try and I’m doing my best to read all responses. However, the discussion you’re looking for is going to cover more than what you just did right here:

So far what you have said about the “catholic” opinions you reject is that they implied that you should be non-assertive and just wait for God to hand you what you want on a silver platter.

There’s that but as you have guessed, there’s more. It wasn’t just about a silver platter mentality. Take this thread as an example. The idea of testing for sexual compatibility implies that sexual performance has to do with successful relationships.

Had I been religious, I would have agreed. I would’ve done so for the sake of righteousness and giving a huge slap to the dating-drama culture that I used to despise. But because I had such a mentality, I threw the real baby out with the bathwater.

You insist that I had a very flawed understanding of Catholicism. Even if it were right, what would be the actual version? Is it the filter? Should I use the Ten Commandments to separate wheat from chaff?

Again, still not enough. There’s a lot in my new world view right now that would still directly conflict with the teachings. At the end of the day, I’m tired of letting someone else’s set of rigidly defined rules dominate my own discernment.

Unlike non-religious sources, failure to comply means I’m damned to hell. Go figure.

 

[Rau]

…But frankly, underlying the responses I’ve read is the very spirit that thinks Catholicism wants to (subconsciously at least) dominate the market for dating advice. Forget just sexual compatibility. It wants to be the substitute alternative for everything to do with romantic relationships.

I have to say that never in my dating days, never in my wildest dream, did I associate Catholicism, or the Catholic Church, as playing in the market for dating advice! [Though, I learned recently that there are actually some dating/matchmaker type sites for Catholics in the USA!] The moral principles taught in Catholicism provide several road signs (one of which flat out rejects the premise in the Title of this thread), but beyond that, you generally rely on your character and good nature and the social skills you learned growing up in your family and with friends to learn and navigate romantic relationships. And if you are a bit challenged in the social skills area, it is not obvious to me that the Catholic Church is where you’d turn. The sign-posts it provides remain applicable, but it is another skill set, with another teacher, you need to address.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I have to say that never in my dating days, never in my wildest dream, did I associate Catholicism, or the Catholic Church, as playing in the market for dating advice! [Though, I learned recently that there are actually some dating/matchmaker type sites for Catholics in the USA!] The moral principles taught in Catholicism provide several road signs (one of which flat out rejects the premise in the Title of this thread), but beyond that, you generally rely on your character and good nature and the social skills you learned growing up in your family and with friends to learn and navigate romantic relationships. And if you are a bit challenged in the social skills area, it is not obvious to me that the Catholic Church is where you’d turn. The sign-posts it provides remain applicable, but it is another skill set, with another teacher, you need to address.

The problem is it’s not the only one with road signs. And heck, sometimes the road signs are all confusing. Rely on good nature and social skills? Yeah I’m doing that! Be yourself right? That’s actually the only thing that keeps me from losing my mind. I give no credit for that to anything besides myself thank you.

Unfortunately, things get hairy when all those become subjective. Worst, it’s in a world where the Church’s flock defines itself by arguing mostly against subjectivity. They define the institution by its absolutes and constantly complain how the subjective relativism of the secular world grinds against them.

Good news is, threads like this are the best demonstration.

 

[Rau]

…Rely on good nature and social skills? Yeah I’m doing that! Be yourself right? That’s actually the only thing that keeps me from losing my mind. I give no credit for that to anything besides myself thank you.

Well, yourself, maybe your parents, friends and others who influenced you positively growing up.

Unfortunately, things get hairy when all those become subjective. Worst, it’s in a world where the Church’s flock defines itself by arguing mostly against subjectivity. They define the institution by its absolutes and constantly complain how the subjective relativism of the secular world grinds against them.

Social skills are perhaps nebulous, and as I said, not really a topic the Church does or seeks to address.

 

[Jobis]

The problem is it’s not the only one with road signs. And heck, sometimes the road signs are all confusing. Rely on good nature and social skills? Yeah I’m doing that! Be yourself right? That’s actually the only thing that keeps me from losing my mind. I give no credit for that to anything besides myself thank you.

Unfortunately, things get hairy when all those become subjective. Worst, it’s in a world where the Church’s flock defines itself by arguing mostly against subjectivity. They define the institution by its absolutes and constantly complain how the subjective relativism of the secular world grinds against them.

Good news is, threads like this are the best demonstration.

Bad news for you: You can’t be a catholic without believing anything. Its not a simple guide for how to live well, its a radical world-view. Of course you’ll come up against barriers if you have no faith in say, the divinely inspired nature of the Bible. Which, incidentally teaches ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.’

You seem to think that life is about discerning what is right for ‘me’ and what your own will wants, but one of the fundamental aims for a Christian is to align your will to that of God. Your frustrations come from too much self-interest, which is understandable and only human, but it is not helpful.

 

[LongingSoul]

Put up a fight? No. But the in the original situation my child came to me for advice. I couldn’t in good conscience advise any who came to me to wait until marriage for sex.

Uhhh…yes, everyone needs to have sexual boundaries. But having sexual boundaries and being able to advocate for yourself and say ‘no’ is not the same in being in a committed relationship with someone you are in love with and refusing to have sex.

I also see a middle ground. I don’t think that you have to teach your children to avoid sex until marriage to avoid being taken advantage of or abused.

I specifically asked about the ages of your children especially daughters because just as the Catholic position is more than just philosophical theory… so is child rearing. How many of us have been brought to our knees when our theories and reality collided? I know before my friends and I had children we had lofty ideas about how they would be raised and the outcome our ‘project’ would spawn. I can tell you that I have never met a mother, let alone a Catholic mother, who would encourage their child to have sex with their boyfriend. It just isn’t what you want for your daughter. The world of premarital relationships is a quagmire unless you keep them all locked up in a dome with like minded families like the Amish. Even non religious mothers are only really bending to risk management and advocating the lesser of two evils when they assist what they see as the ‘inevitable’.

Perhaps there is a movement of mothers so radically pro sex for their kids that they can turn off their maternal natures, but I fail to see what you are gaining from advocating such a thing on a Catholic forum unless your scouting for weak links to convert to some other agenda?

 

[Xantippe]

I specifically asked about the ages of your children especially daughters because just as the Catholic position is more than just philosophical theory… so is child rearing. How many of us have been brought to our knees when our theories and reality collided? I know before my friends and I had children we had lofty ideas about how they would be raised and the outcome our ‘project’ would spawn. I can tell you that I have never met a mother, let alone a Catholic mother, who would encourage their child to have sex with their boyfriend. It just isn’t what you want for your daughter. The world of premarital relationships is a quagmire unless you keep them all locked up in a dome with like minded families like the Amish. Even non religious mothers are only really bending to risk management and advocating the lesser of two evils when they assist what they see as the ‘inevitable’.

Perhaps there is a movement of mothers so radically pro sex for their kids that they can turn off their maternal natures, but I fail to see what you are gaining from advocating such a thing on a Catholic forum unless your scouting for weak links to convert to some other agenda?

BEL does not have kids as yet, I believe.

 

[MacQ]

BEL does not have kids as yet, I believe.

That explains it.
They’re always such experts on the subject.

When she does, she’d better be prepared to raise all those grandbabies.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is not a new question, and the answer is still “no.”

*Not all the sponsors of these new doctrines are carried to the extremes of unbridled lust; there are those who, striving as it were to ride a middle course, believe nevertheless that something should be conceded in our times as regards certain precepts of the divine and natural law. But these likewise, more or less wittingly, are emissaries of the great enemy who is ever seeking to sow cockle among the wheat.[42] We, therefore, whom the Father has appointed over His field, We who are bound by Our most holy office to take care lest the good seed be choked by the weeds, believe it fitting to apply to Ourselves the most grave words of the Holy Ghost with which the Apostle Paul exhorted his beloved Timothy: “Be thou vigilant . . . Fulfill thy ministry . . . Preach the word, be instant in season, out of season, reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.”[43]

And since, in order that the deceits of the enemy may be avoided, it is necessary first of all that they be laid bare; since much is to be gained by denouncing these fallacies for the sake of the unwary, even though We prefer not to name these iniquities “as becometh saints,”[44] yet for the welfare of souls We cannot remain altogether silent.

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. **The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony - hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, ** as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label “temporary,” “experimental,” and “companionate.” These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern “culture” in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. *

Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930