Sex before marriage an ethical alternative

[CopticChristian]

I am deeply concerned for my Christian brother that offered this piece of advice concerning sex before marriage. It appears to say that there is a difference between ethics and morals.

I believe that marriage is not the pre-condition or sine qua non for the expression of a properly ordered sexuality, but is the fulfillment of that expression. I think it’s possible to have sex before marriage which is not debasing, and hence not sinful.

I’m not claiming that all sex before marriage is ethically good–I think the danger of using a partner sexually is quite present, almost overwhelmingly present.

I think it would be easier to have ethically good sex in a marriage, if for no other reason than the sacrament is a means of grace and could so assist the couple. And if sex before marriage does not actually lead to marriage, I think there is something amiss.

and then concerning morality in the context of what is right and what is wrong offered this.

It is not our duty to foster morality in the world, but to foster this yearning for union with the Father through Christ in the Spirit. It is our job to bear Christ in this world–morality, if it is to be organic, natural, and not merely artificial, if religion is to be more than a system of behavior modification, will take care of it self after that.

and then when the Church as a standard of Morals offers this…

The moral theology of the Church has no leg to stand on without Christ. Christ is the Way, and the Goal, and even the Walking of the Way is Christ.

This person claims to be a Christian using Tradition, Scripture and Reason…perhaps I missed something and perhaps I am believing wrongly that sex in any form prior to marriage or outside of marriage is wrong. I don’t understand differentiating Walking the Way of Christ and the Moral Theology of the Church. Can they be different things?

How can I help this Christian brother I care for?

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 6:9[/BIBLEDRB]

St Paul gives a list of those explicitly denied possession of the Kingdom. Fornication (i.e. sex before marriage) is first on that list.

How can your be using Scripture when in Scripture, even the New Testament, has specifically condemned it?

As for Reason, one of my favorite Podcasts: the Catholic Laboratory, has answered that.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

[BIBLEDRB]1 Corinthians 6:9[/BIBLEDRB]
St Paul gives a list of those explicitly denied possession of the Kingdom. Fornication (i.e. sex before marriage) is first on that list.

That word is actually porneia, which refers to a wide variety of sexual immorality.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am deeply concerned for my Christian brother that offered this piece of advice concerning sex before marriage. It appears to say that there is a difference between ethics and morals.

The only ethics and morality you have to live by is that taught by the Catholic Church.

This person claims to be a Christian using Tradition, Scripture and Reason…perhaps I missed something and perhaps I am believing wrongly that sex in any form prior to marriage or outside of marriage is wrong. I don’t understand differentiating Walking the Way of Christ and the Moral Theology of the Church. Can they be different things?

No, you are not wrong. He is merely trying to rationalize immoral behavior.

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg 565, para 2353
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[JimG]

. . . . .Walking the Way of Christ and the Moral Theology of the Church. Can they be different things?

No, they cannot. The moral theology of the Church simply elucidates how to walk the way of Christ.

As to sex before marriage: one ought to make the vow to the beloved with one’s mind and heart and speech in front of the priest and God and the congregation before making the vow with one’s body.

 

[CopticChristian]

The only ethics and morality you have to live by is that taught by the Catholic Church.

No, you are not wrong. He is merely trying to rationalize immoral behavior.

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg 565, para 2353
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

Linusthe,

You know you bring up a good point. If I or anyone accepts the rationalization of morality on this issue as it pertains to heterosexual conduct then I and others would be more permissive in the attitude towards other sexuality. The truth is the Christian brother that espoused this is homosexual. It would appear that this is an attempt to garner acceptance of immorality as ethical rather than immoral. Good point.

and this same Christain brother offered this…

I share with you a smiliar theology of the body from which I do not draw the same moral or theological conclusions).

I believe that the formation of conscience as a form of suffering which is often unduly replaced or avoided (it seems to me) by “mere assent”–that is, an unwillingness to actively form or reform (through trial, through intellectual and spiritual pain, through struggle, and through grace) the mind or conscience in favor of quoting the thoughts of the mind or conscience to which one wants to conform (i.e. the Church). The result, it seems to me, is that morality, conscience, is always an external or forensic value and the transformation of conscience is never acheived, creating a culture of legalism rather than a culture of grace.

He uses lots of words and sometimes it is difficult to understand but I wonder what is he driving at with a “culture of grace”?

If you look at the thought process…

Assent
quoting the thoughts of the mind
morality is extrinsic

Can you make sense of this?

 

[LilyM]

That word is actually porneia, which refers to a wide variety of sexual immorality.

Including premarital sex.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Coptic Christian:

I think it would be easier to have ethically good sex in a marriage, if for no other reason than the sacrament is a means of grace and could so assist the couple.

Coptic Christian, would you mind explaining briefly what this means? I have heard it often but do not understand. How/in what ways does the “grace” help couples have sex “ethically”? Thanks.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe,

You know you bring up a good point. If I or anyone accepts the rationalization of morality on this issue as it pertains to heterosexual conduct then I and others would be more permissive in the attitude towards other sexuality. The truth is the Christian brother that espoused this is homosexual. It would appear that this is an attempt to garner acceptance of immorality as ethical rather than immoral. Good point.

and this same Christain brother offered this…

He uses lots of words and sometimes it is difficult to understand but I wonder what is he driving at with a “culture of grace”?

If you look at the thought process…

Assent
quoting the thoughts of the mind
morality is extrinsic

Can you make sense of this?

Have no idea what he is saying. Sounds like more excuses to rationalize immoral behavior. Conscience is a judgment you make as to whether a specific act contemplated or completed conforms with the objective norms of morality as defined by the Church. That is why I referred you to the Catechism. It covers the issue. Your judgment must always conform to these norms. You should avoid this person, he is doing you no good.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic Christian, would you mind explaining briefly what this means? I have heard it often but do not understand. How/in what ways does the “grace” help couples have sex “ethically”? Thanks.

Veritas…

I am deeply concerned for my Christian brother that offered this piece of advice concerning sex before marriage. It appears to say that there is a difference between ethics and morals.

This was offered by other than me. I have no idea what it means. That is why I posted it to get clarity. You tell me.

This type of thinking about ethics and morality was offered and this same Christain brother speaks of sexuality here.

I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving.

The status of belief of the Roman Catholic Church was countered with this…

Where I have trouble with Roman doctrine is that it prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex. Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening; relationship-building, non-vaginal sexual expression between two married people is simply not as valuable as perfunctory vaginal intercourse between two married people.

This concept of sex as intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening and relationship building appears to be a common theme when speaking of sexuality as if to define it in parameters that describe the behavior for acceptance.

I believe that the notion is that if heterosexual morals are nothing but ethics then the line of thinking goes to rationalizing homosexual sex. What do you think?

 

[CopticChristian]

Have no idea what he is saying. Sounds like more excuses to rationalize immoral behavior. Conscience is a judgment you make as to whether a specific act contemplated or completed conforms with the objective norms of morality as defined by the Church. That is why I referred you to the Catechism. It covers the issue. Your judgment must always conform to these norms. You should avoid this person, he is doing you no good.

Linusthe,

I am beginning to think so to. As much love as I have for my Christian brother, I find myself beating my head against the wall with the constant resort to Reason and as you say rationalization. This person is difficult to reason with as the words and thoughts flow into ever increasing self satisfying rationalization. We can’t abandon those that think this way though and I shall hold firm.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Veritas…

This was offered by other than me. I have no idea what it means. That is why I posted it to get clarity. You tell me.

Oh I’m sorry I totally misunderstood

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

Including premarital sex.

Sure, I’m just pointing out that Paul wasn’t giving premarital sex (as opposed to sodomy or bestiality) specifically any special consideration in his writing. The word actually means prostitution.

In fact the writing demonstrates the typical trope of Hebraic scripture of repeating different words to communicate a single concept with emphasis. It’s not an exhaustive listing with fornication first.

 

[manualman]

Humans have managed to rationalize slavery, genocide, murder, exploitation and every imaginable sort of horror.

Is it REALLY that surprising that so many stubbornly insist on rationalizing fornication?

 

[sw85]

The reason the Church teaches that marriage is a necessary prerequisite to morally licit sex is that sex itself expresses commitment naturally. This is so because sex is naturally ordered toward procreation (i.e., the creation and raising of new life) which requires an enduring commitment for the sake of the care of both spouses and the life they create through the act. In other words, it is part of the natural language of sex that it expresses permanent and enduring commitment. Our bodies say as much through sex, even if we ourselves do not mean it. So to have sex outside of such a commitment is simply to lie, using one’s body.

This is so regardless of our personal intentions, because the natural language of the body is not up to us. We didn’t make it, we don’t get to decide its meaning; the only thing we can do is choose to communicate it or not, through the sexual act. Which means there is no possible intention, disposition, or state of mind that makes fornication anything but disordered.

Some people try to get around this by saying that sex has no natural meaning or significance at all. This certainly gets rid of the need for marriage if true, but unfortunately introduces a lot of other theological problems. For instance, if sex has no natural significance than any significance it has is purely conventional, so that it is no more intrinsically meaningful than, say, a handshake. I say this is a problem because it denies us a meaningful basis to object to rape, which, after all, under this schema, is really no worse than forcibly shaking someone’s hand. The worst that we can say is that it’s rude, but not that it’s particularly evil, barbaric, or horrifying. We all know that rape is in fact intrinsically worse than forcibly shaking a stranger’s hand, which means the “sex has no natural significance” schema is not very good at explaining our moral intuitions, which is what moral theology is supposed to be about.

 

[CopticChristian]

The reason the Church teaches that marriage is a necessary prerequisite to morally licit sex is that sex itself expresses commitment naturally. This is so because sex is naturally ordered toward procreation (i.e., the creation and raising of new life) which requires an enduring commitment for the sake of the care of both spouses and the life they create through the act. In other words, it is part of the natural language of sex that it expresses permanent and enduring commitment. Our bodies say as much through sex, even if we ourselves do not mean it. So to have sex outside of such a commitment is simply to lie, using one’s body.

This is so regardless of our personal intentions, because the natural language of the body is not up to us. We didn’t make it, we don’t get to decide its meaning; the only thing we can do is choose to communicate it or not, through the sexual act. Which means there is no possible intention, disposition, or state of mind that makes fornication anything but disordered.

SW,

Wow, so my Christian brother must know then that premaritial sex cannot be accepted based on ethics and it is disordered. Thanks for being a witness.

 

[ahs]

Humans have managed to rationalize slavery, genocide, murder, exploitation and every imaginable sort of horror.

Is it REALLY that surprising that so many stubbornly insist on rationalizing fornication?

Amen. CopticChristian, I think your “brother” is simply not aware of what “Marriage” really is. By its very definition (natural moral law definition, not the dictionary) the “Marital Act”, which is sex, cannot be engaged in outside of the Marital Union of a man and woman.

 

[CopticChristian]

Amen. CopticChristian, I think your “brother” is simply not aware of what “Marriage” really is. By its very definition (natural moral law definition, not the dictionary) the “Marital Act”, which is sex, cannot be engaged in outside of the Marital Union of a man and woman.

Ahs,

My Christian brother is homosexual. I believe that by causing me and others to accept a laxity morals as it concerns heterosexual behavior. Here is what he offers concerning homosexuality…

Can a gay man in a committed, monogamous relationship with a good Christian man for years produce virtue? I believe that you can experience love, forgiveness, grace and mercy of God in an intimate homosexual relationship. How can this be evil?

When I give myself to my partner and he gives himself to me are we not actually not giving ourselves to each other? With that understanding is this intimacy with my partner de facto sinful?

Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening; relationship-building is a good thing in a homosexual relationship. To suggest that it is not prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex

I believe it is an argument of accept that your Church is wrong on premarital sex and they must be wrong on homosexuality.

What do you think?

 

[ahs]

Ahs,

My Christian brother is homosexual. I believe that by causing me and others to accept a laxity morals as it concerns heterosexual behavior. Here is what he offers concerning homosexuality…

I believe it is an argument of accept that your Church is wrong on premarital sex and they must be wrong on homosexuality.

What do you think?

I think you are right. He wants to show the “error” in the one area so that the other becomes a morally acceptable by default.

What I see from his comments is that his sense of “love” is emotion based. Here’s how I’d respond to this most recent bit if he and I were discussing this:

Can a gay man in a committed, monogamous relationship with a good Christian man for years produce virtue? I believe that you can experience love, forgiveness, grace and mercy of God in an intimate homosexual relationship. How can this be evil?

Whose idea of virtue are we talking about? Mine, yours, God’s, someone else’s? And let’s define “love”. If we are trying to discuss Christian teaching, then let’s use the Christian definition of love…one which is self-sacrificing and fully obedient to God, even unto martyrdom. And whether we can experience this love, forgiveness and grace in any given relationship is irrelevant to whether or not a relationship is ordered to God’s natural moral law. What I see here is a confusing of, or intermingling of, feelings and actions. And act is sinful. A feeling or an emotion is morally neutral in-and-of itself. The homosexual relationship can be evil if that relationship is one where evil acts are engaged in. Evil acts are determined by God. So, it can be evil is it is contrary to God’s law. Homosexual acts are contrary, and therefore evil, regardless of the feelings that the persons may feel for one another.

When I give myself to my partner and he gives himself to me are we not actually not giving ourselves to each other? With that understanding is this intimacy with my partner de facto sinful?

It is sinful if it is disordered to the natural ends of “sex”. Sex must be ordered toward procreation AND unification, not just unification. And self-giving is not only defined by sexual acts, but also in a refusal to lead others into sin, etc… If we justify homosexual sex solely on the basis of the “unification” that a homosexual “couple” believes they are expressing, we must also necessarily allow for beastiality and pedophilia.

Ultimately it seems that intimate, bond-creating, household strengthening; relationship-building is a good thing in a homosexual relationship. To suggest that it is not prejudices the physical act over intention–that is, when it comes to sex, it prejudices the life-giving biology of sex over the life-giving intimacy of sex.

What is the purpose of sex? Is is only for intimacy? Can the human species continue on only intimacy? No. Sex is BOTH procreative and unitive. Again, based on this logic, beatiality is morally good on the basis that a person may feel “intimacy” with his/her pet while not prejudicing the physical act over intention.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think you are right. He wants to show the “error” in the one area so that the other becomes a morally acceptable by default.

What I see from his comments is that his sense of “love” is emotion based. Here’s how I’d respond to this most recent bit if he and I were discussing this:

Whose idea of virtue are we talking about? Mine, yours, God’s, someone else’s? And let’s define “love”. If we are trying to discuss Christian teaching, then let’s use the Christian definition of love…one which is self-sacrificing and fully obedient to God, even unto martyrdom. And whether we can experience this love, forgiveness and grace in any given relationship is irrelevant to whether or not a relationship is ordered to God’s natural moral law. What I see here is a confusing of, or intermingling of, feelings and actions. And act is sinful. A feeling or an emotion is morally neutral in-and-of itself. The homosexual relationship can be evil if that relationship is one where evil acts are engaged in. Evil acts are determined by God. So, it can be evil is it is contrary to God’s law. Homosexual acts are contrary, and therefore evil, regardless of the feelings that the persons may feel for one another.

It is sinful if it is disordered to the natural ends of “sex”. Sex must be ordered toward procreation AND unification, not just unification. And self-giving is not only defined by sexual acts, but also in a refusal to lead others into sin, etc… If we justify homosexual sex solely on the basis of the “unification” that a homosexual “couple” believes they are expressing, we must also necessarily allow for beastiality and pedophilia.

What is the purpose of sex? Is is only for intimacy? Can the human species continue on only intimacy? No. Sex is BOTH procreative and unitive. Again, based on this logic, beatiality is morally good on the basis that a person may feel “intimacy” with his/her pet while not prejudicing the physical act over intention.

Ahs,

This is thoughtful and should help. You know that I am doing what I can to bring to this loving brother of mine what he should see. What you say makes sense.

15“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16“But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.

You are in a sense the mouth of two or three witnesses that I can use for him to understand that it is not just me saying this…and I pray he listens.