Sex before a marriage?

[MarkA16]

I know that sex after a marriage is correct. But how about people who are indeed live good lives but have a baby before marriage? Are there times where things are acceptable?

 

[water]

We cannot change what had already happened, but we can certainly truly repent for what we had done. God forgives those who truly repent, but this doesn’t mean that He will say “ok, there are so many of you doing this to Me, I just let it off My rule list”.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I know that sex after a marriage is correct. But how about people who are indeed live good lives but have a baby before marriage? Are there times where things are acceptable?

If your asking if what they did (fornication) was or would be acceptable? No, it would always be a seriously sinful act. Could circumstances however impact the culpability? Age, maturity, peer presure, etc, Yes
Could it be forgiven in Reconciliation?
Of course, if they are truly sorry for disobeying God.
Must they accept the responsibility of caring for and raising the child? Yes

Remembering that the sin is not the child, but the act of fornication.

 

[MarkA16]

Ok thanks.

 

[puzzleannie]

I know that sex after a marriage is correct. But how about people who are indeed live good lives but have a baby before marriage? Are there times where things are acceptable?

If I am understanding your question, no it is never morally permissible to engage in sexual activity outside marriage. Whether or not the couple has a child together already is beside the point. The are living outside God’s grace, with all the risk that entails, until they get things right in the sight of God and his Church.

 

[MarkA16]

Because during class my friends were talking about sex. One said before marriage the other said after. I said it’s better after marriage, but didn’t get into the religious stuff. Then they asked, but what about the good people that do it before marriage?

That’s why I asked, because I didn’t really know the answer.

 

[StCsDavid]

Good people commit a lot of sins. The fact that they are good doesn’t change the severity of the sin. Going to an extreme to make a point here…If I were to murder someone, would you expect people to be sympathetic because aside from the murder, I was a good person? Aside from all the sins we commit, we’re all good people are we not?

So, no, sex outside of marriage is never not sinful. (triple negative in one sentence…my English teacher is spinning in her grave)

 

[LovedForever]

Even Jesus said, “No one is good. Only God himself is good.”

So I think we need to be careful about minimizing sins because someone is “nice” or seems like “good” people.
This is exactly what Satan wants! To lull us into minimizing sin by looking at external and irrelevant factors.

Does that make sense?

 

[Sixtus]

If your asking if what they did (fornication) was or would be acceptable? No, it would always be a seriously sinful act. Could circumstances however impact the culpability? Age, maturity, peer presure, etc, Yes
Could it be forgiven in Reconciliation?
Of course, if they are truly sorry for disobeying God.
Must they accept the responsibility of caring for and raising the child? Yes

While what is said, is a true dogmatic answer, to be forgiven in Reconciliation, one must be truely repentent and determined ‘not to sin again’. That would mean promising 'not to indulge in the sinful act of having sex again until you are married!

Now in a black and white world that is all well and good, but in a committed relationship I am not sure that is either good or acceptable.

Once you have established a relationship, the partner has ‘rights’ to be loved and cherished. It would in my view, be a very selfish act to say ‘ok, no more sex’ just to make the penitent feel good’. But it would be an act of neglect on the other person. I do not think one has the right to be that selfish.

I think that actually the best answer is to go and discuss it with the local Priest. I am sure they would find a very positive response. It may be an ‘irregular’ relationship but not one that needs exist outside from the Church.

 

[fix]

While what is said, is a true dogmatic answer, to be forgiven in Reconciliation, one must be truely repentent and determined ‘not to sin again’. That would mean promising 'not to indulge in the sinful act of having sex again until you are married!

Now in a black and white world that is all well and good, but in a committed relationship I am not sure that is either good or acceptable.

Do good and avoid evil. That is black and white. How does a so-called committed relationship transform an evil act into a good act?

Once you have established a relationship, the partner has ‘rights’ to be loved and cherished.

There is no right to sin.

It would in my view, be a very selfish act to say ‘ok, no more sex’ just to make the penitent feel good’. But it would be an act of neglect on the other person. I do not think one has the right to be that selfish.

We are supposed to do God’s will. Is His will for us to sin?

 

[setter]

While what is said, is a true dogmatic answer, to be forgiven in Reconciliation, one must be truely repentent and determined ‘not to sin again’. That would mean promising 'not to indulge in the sinful act of having sex again until you are married!

Now in a black and white world that is all well and good, but in a committed relationship I am not sure that is either good or acceptable.

Once you have established a relationship, the partner has ‘rights’ to be loved and cherished. It would in my view, be a very selfish act to say ‘ok, no more sex’ just to make the penitent feel good’. But it would be an act of neglect on the other person. I do not think one has the right to be that selfish.

I think that actually the best answer is to go and discuss it with the local Priest. I am sure they would find a very positive response. It may be an ‘irregular’ relationship but not one that needs exist outside from the Church.

I offer this Church document excerpt for your consideration of what the mind of the Church is:

The Loss of the Sense of Sin

1. …When the conscience is weakened the sense of God is also obscured, and as a result, with the loss of this decisive inner point of reference, the sense of sin is lost. This explains why my predecessor Pius XI, one day declared, in words that have almost become proverbial, that “the sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin.”(100)

The loss of the sense of sin is thus a form or consequence of the denial of God: not only in the form of atheism but also in the form of secularism. If sin is the breaking, off of one’s filial relationship to God in order to situate one’s life outside of obedience to him, then to sin is not merely to deny God. To sin is also to live as if he did not exist, to eliminate him from one’s daily life. A model of society which is mutilated or distorted in one sense or another, as is often encouraged by the mass media, greatly favors the gradual loss of the sense of sin. In such a situation the obscuring or weakening of the sense of sin comes from several sources: from a rejection of any reference to the transcendent in the name of the individual’s aspiration to personal independence; from acceptance of ethical models imposed by general consensus and behavior, even when condemned by the individual conscience; from the tragic social and economic conditions that oppress a great part of humanity, causing a tendency to see errors and faults only in the context of society; finally and especially, from the obscuring of the notion of God’s fatherhood and dominion over man’s life.

From: POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION RECONCILIATION AND PENANCEOF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFULON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Even Jesus said, “No one is good. Only God himself is good.”

So I think we need to be careful about minimizing sins because someone is “nice” or seems like “good” people.
This is exactly what Satan wants! To lull us into minimizing sin by looking at external and irrelevant factors.

Does that make sense?

But sins occur in a social context.

A Victorian girl who would bring disgrace of her family by cohabitation would have to be very wilful to do it. On the other hand for a 21st century university student, determination is required to wait until after marriage.

Though we should insist on our principles, it is not easy to behave correctly when everyone else is behaving wrongly.

 

[setter]

But sins occur in a social context.

A Victorian girl who would bring disgrace of her family by cohabitation would have to be very wilful to do it. On the other hand for a 21st century university student, determination is required to wait until after marriage.

Though we should insist on our principles, it is not easy to behave correctly when everyone else is behaving wrongly.

The prevailing cultural tide of sin is nothing new, and now as in St. Paul’s time God’s sufficient grace is made available to walk in holiness of life:

“…but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5: 20-21

 

[setter]

Even Jesus said, “No one is good. Only God himself is good.”

So I think we need to be careful about minimizing sins because someone is “nice” or seems like “good” people.
This is exactly what Satan wants! To lull us into minimizing sin by looking at external and irrelevant factors.

Does that make sense?

Exactly. As I heard Fr. Corapi point out in his CD talk “Immortal Combat”, being nice and good is not enough to enter into heaven. You need the supernatural life of [sanctifying] grace to enter into heaven (paraphrase]).

 

[LovedForever]

But sins occur in a social context.

A Victorian girl who would bring disgrace of her family by cohabitation would have to be very wilful to do it. On the other hand for a 21st century university student, determination is required to wait until after marriage.

Though we should insist on our principles, it is not easy to behave correctly when everyone else is behaving wrongly.

Define “social context.” What is the foundation for the TRUTH of this “social context”?
Of course - there is none.
It is as fleeting as the wind and simply a phrase to hide behind.
It is nothing new to ascribe what is “acceptable” to popular secular behavior. And then minimize or excuse sin because so many are doing it.
Yawn.

It is written in EVERY man’s heart what is right and what is wrong. By Almighty God.
The arguement usually lies in one DOING something wrong - but has an entirely different perspective when one has BEEN wronged.
Then - it is just “understood” that a universal or natural law, something outside of us and greater than ourselves - has been violated.

It seems so odd to have to defend the “obvious.”