Premarital Sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcon1990
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcon1990

Guest
Hey all,
I know that in order for a marriage to be considered valid in the Catholic Church a couple must consummate the marriage… that being said, if a couple has premarital sex does this mean that they are married in GODS eyes?? Does God consider them married?
 
No and no.

A marriage can be perfectly valid and sacramental and never be consummated.

The couple must have the ability to consumate in order to validly marry.

A valid marriage does not have anything to do with intercourse, except that intercourse is only permissible inside a valid marriage.
 
kage_ar said:
No and no.

A marriage can be perfectly valid and sacramental and never be consummated.

The couple must have the ability to consumate in order to validly marry.

A valid marriage does not have anything to do with intercourse, except that intercourse is only permissible inside a valid marriage.
Click to expand...
I’m a little confused by this, my understanding of Church teaching is pretty different than that. Do you mind citing some sources on this?
God bless,
B
 
mcon1990 said:
Hey all,
I know that in order for a marriage to be considered valid in the Catholic Church a couple must consummate the marriage… that being said, if a couple has premarital sex does this mean that they are married in GODS eyes?? Does God consider them married?
Click to expand...
If you’re Catholic, you wouldn’t be considered married if you married anywhere other than a Catholic Church. In fact, if you were married by the government or another church and consummated, you still wouldn’t be validly married because you’re a Catholic, and it would be very easy for you to have that marriage annulled.

If you’re a Catholic you have to believe that married in God’s eyes = married in the Church’s eyes.

I don’t know what the Church would say about a non-Catholic couple marrying elsewhere. Maybe it would be possible to marry without any official there at all. But simply having sex wouldn’t do it.
 
PaschalCatholic said:
I’m a little confused by this, my understanding of Church teaching is pretty different than that. Do you mind citing some sources on this?
God bless,
B
Click to expand...
The Catechism section on Marriage begins at 1601, Article 7

1626 states what makes a marriage.

III. MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

[1625](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1625.htm’)😉 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:
  • not being under constraint;
  • not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
    [1626](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1626.htm’)😉 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that “makes the marriage.” If consent is lacking there is no marriage
 
PaschalCatholic said:
I’m a little confused by this, my understanding of Church teaching is pretty different than that. Do you mind citing some sources on this?
God bless,
B
Click to expand...
Intercourse makes a valid marriage undisoluble.

A valid unconsummated marriage may be disolved (by the Holy See), I do not have my book here at the house to give you the citation on it. Someone else reading this thread may have that citation.
 
mcon1990 said:
Hey all,
I know that in order for a marriage to be considered valid in the Catholic Church a couple must consummate the marriage… that being said, if a couple has premarital sex does this mean that they are married in GODS eyes?? Does God consider them married?
Click to expand...
I would definitely have to say no. Although consummation of the marriage in the sexual act completes the covenant/sacrament of marriage, the sexual act does not create a marriage by itself. Because of the fact that premarital sex in its very nature is disordered from true, self-giving marital sex it can even be a barrier for the couple to overcome toward marriage. That is not to say however, that there is no such thing as disordered sex within the bounds of marriage.
God bless,
B
 
kage_ar said:
The Catechism section on Marriage begins at 1601, Article 7

1626 states what makes a marriage.

III. MATRIMONIAL CONSENT

[1625](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1625.htm’)😉 The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent; “to be free” means:
  • not being under constraint;
  • not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law.
    [1626](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/1626.htm’)😉 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that “makes the marriage.” If consent is lacking there is no marriage
Click to expand...
I’m still unclear as to how that answers the question this person asked. Maybe I’m not clear on what they meant? Or I’m not sure what your trying to say?
God bless,
B
 
PaschalCatholic said:
I’m still unclear as to how that answers the question this person asked. Maybe I’m not clear on what they meant? Or I’m not sure what your trying to say?
God bless,
B
Click to expand...
The point is, they must specifically consent to marriage, not just sex.
 
srlucado said:
The point is, they must specifically consent to marriage, not just sex.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I definitely understood that part, but that isn’t really what the person was asking…I thought I did a pretty fair job of clearing it up for them, see post #8. The only thing I’m confused about is how the stuff everyone else is saying applies. All this person asked was whether they become married by having sex, which the Church clearly says no. They didn’t ask about the marriage sacrament or really anything else. Granted, that background information is good, but not really necessary here. For example, the posts by kage_ar definitely give the context within which a marriage ceremony takes place (free consent, among other conditions), but according to my knowledge the Church continues to teach that sex is the fulfillment of the covenant between the man and the woman the same way that Christ’s death was the fulfillment of the covenant He made with us. So, yes, you’re right you don’t consent to “just sex” because “just sex” isn’t marriage; however, sex is a part of marriage that the Church considers important in both its Procreative and Unitive natures.
God bless,
B
 
PaschalCatholic said:
Yeah, I definitely understood that part, but that isn’t really what the person was asking…I thought I did a pretty fair job of clearing it up for them, see post #8. The only thing I’m confused about is how the stuff everyone else is saying applies. All this person asked was whether they become married by having sex, which the Church clearly says no. They didn’t ask about the marriage sacrament or really anything else. Granted, that background information is good, but not really necessary here. For example, the posts by kage_ar definitely give the context within which a marriage ceremony takes place (free consent, among other conditions), but according to my knowledge the Church continues to teach that sex is the fulfillment of the covenant between the man and the woman the same way that Christ’s death was the fulfillment of the covenant He made with us. So, yes, you’re right you don’t consent to “just sex” because “just sex” isn’t marriage; however, sex is a part of marriage that the Church considers important in both its Procreative and Unitive natures.
God bless,
B
Click to expand...
Forgive me for saying this, but…if saying that sex within marriage is appropriate and necessary…well, if that isn’t stating the obvious, I don’t know what would be. (I don’t know about you, but I didn’t get married just so I’d have somebody to cook breakfast for.)

And I don’t see where the original post needed any clarification; he asked whether God considers people to be married once they have sex, and the answer is clearly no. (I think some Fundamentalists do preach this, however.)
 
mcon1990 said:
Hey all,
I know that in order for a marriage to be considered valid in the Catholic Church a couple must consummate the marriage
Click to expand...
… not true
that being said, if a couple has premarital sex does this mean that they are married in GODS eyes?? Does God consider them married?
Click to expand...
any sex even homosexual penetration, creates a bond between persons, which is why it is so serious to create that bound outside of marriage where it cannot be nurtured and outside the natural order where it can be directed to its natural end, the procreation of children and unity of the couple. Only in marriage, as ordained by the Creator, can both ends be achieved and supported.

no the parties to an act of sex are not married unless they intend marriage, exchange full free will consent, with the intent and ability to achieve what God intends through natural marriage.

When that bond is broken it leaves permanent scarring and damage, most of all to one’s ability to form another more permanent committed bond, which is one of reasons it is so wrong. It creates a barrier to true intimacy for any furture relationship.
 
srlucado said:
Forgive me for saying this, but…if saying that sex within marriage is appropriate and necessary…well, if that isn’t stating the obvious, I don’t know what would be. (I don’t know about you, but I didn’t get married just so I’d have somebody to cook breakfast for.)
Click to expand...
I totally agree that it is and should be an obvious statement. However, if you read some of the earlier posts, not everyone would agree with that. (I’m not married, but I agree with you about the breakfast thing)
And I don’t see where the original post needed any clarification; he asked whether God considers people to be married once they have sex, and the answer is clearly no. (I think some Fundamentalists do preach this, however.)
Click to expand...
You’re right but I didn’t feel like the second part of some posts above were clear, or even relevant. Do some fundamentalists really preach that?! I guess it isn’t that surprising but it is very incorrect.
God bless,
B
 
Please do some research on a Josephite Marriage.

These are valid, loving, sacramental marriages.
 
Let’s use a weak but illustrative metaphor.

Marriage = buying a house.

sex = moving furniture into a house and living in it.

The act of drawing up a contract for someone to buy a house requires eligibility under the law (2 year olds can’t do this) and the ability to get credit and maintain payments, etc. The person selling must have a clear title to transfer. When the contract is signed, the keys are transferred, the house now belongs to the new party. The deed is a matter of public record.

Liken that to the marriage ceremony, where a covenant is made and people who are eligible to marry with “clear title” (no previous marriages) agree to marry. When the vows are said and witnessed and the license is signed, they are married.

Now that they “own the house” they are free to move furniture into it. Now, maybe they decide not to, and they live in the house without furniture. That can be uncomfortable, but if they both agree and are of a mind to it, they still own the house. If they decide not to keep owning it, it will be easier to “move out” than if they had furniture in there.

But think of the people who move furniture into an abandoned house. They set up shop and live there. Does that give them a right? Does it make the house theirs? Just because they look like they own the house doesn’t mean they have a valid title or that they belong there. No, they are using someone else’s house. They are stealing that which is not theirs by right.
 
Liberanosamalo said:
Let’s use a weak but illustrative metaphor.

Marriage = buying a house.

sex = moving furniture into a house and living in it.

The act of drawing up a contract for someone to buy a house requires eligibility under the law (2 year olds can’t do this) and the ability to get credit and maintain payments, etc. The person selling must have a clear title to transfer. When the contract is signed, the keys are transferred, the house now belongs to the new party. The deed is a matter of public record.

Liken that to the marriage ceremony, where a covenant is made and people who are eligible to marry with “clear title” (no previous marriages) agree to marry. When the vows are said and witnessed and the license is signed, they are married.

Now that they “own the house” they are free to move furniture into it. Now, maybe they decide not to, and they live in the house without furniture. That can be uncomfortable, but if they both agree and are of a mind to it, they still own the house. If they decide not to keep owning it, it will be easier to “move out” than if they had furniture in there.

But think of the people who move furniture into an abandoned house. They set up shop and live there. Does that give them a right? Does it make the house theirs? Just because they look like they own the house doesn’t mean they have a valid title or that they belong there. No, they are using someone else’s house. They are stealing that which is not theirs by right.
Click to expand...
I AM stealing this example for later use 😃
 
Why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? Wait, that’s not…🙂
 
Nec5 said:
Why buy the milk when you can get the cow for free? Wait, that’s not…🙂
Click to expand...
I think the unfortunate situation is that this holds true especially for American HS and College students. JP2 would have some words for this…oh wait, he already did…:cool:
God bless,
B
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top